Hate Hatao: CJP’s launches a digital weapon to fight hate

January 30, 2019

On the 71st anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, a true messiah of peace, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has launched Hate Hatao, a revolutionary new app designed to fight hate that can be used by anyone with an Android smartphone.

Today, on the 71st anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, a true messiah of peace, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) are strengthening their resolve to end the culture of hate and bigotry that threatens the socio-cultural fabric of our nation. Hate Hatao, a revolutionary new app designed to fight hate that can be used by anyone with an Android smartphone, has been launched.

Hate Hatao is available on Google Play from today. Download now from the link below to help build a stronger, more peaceful and united India.

Download here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.hatehatao.hatehatao

In a growing atmosphere of communal hatred, bigotry, and violence, Hate Hatao will enable you to report to us instances of hate speech, threats, and hate crimes, with the appropriate evidence, such as a screenshot, video or a picture. CJP will then take this up as a complaint to authorities such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Press Council of India (PCI), the National Broadcasters Association (NBA), Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms or law enforcement agencies. CJP will also lodge FIRs and pursue the cases in court. You will then receive real-time updates on the status of your report.

Incidents can be related to hate targeted against people from a particular religious community, caste, economic class, ethnicity, gender or sexuality.

CJP will also monitor incidents of hate and track their escalation to chart and understand how hate builds. These will be woven into their award-winning Peace Map initiative and will help predict and hopefully prevent possible outbreaks of violence that so often stem from hate. Hate Hatao is part of CJP’s Hate Watch campaign, which spreads awareness and understanding about speech that incites hate and violence against minorities and marginalised groups. The Peace Map is also integral to this campaign.

From inception, Communalism Combat (Sabrang India) and Citizens for Justice and Peace, have been committed to combating hate speech, particularly since it frequently incites violence against marginalised communities. From our on-ground work through dialogue and Mohalla Committees, to winning a NASSCOM Award for our technology-driven Peace Map initiative, innovative solutions have been constantly devised here to pre-empt the outbreak of targeted violence.

The govt needs to wake up before it’s too late for forest and tribal rights

January 30, 2019

The communities will have to assert themselves politically and support parties and candidates who support the forest rights issues in their campaign and demand the inclusion of Forest Rights in election manifestos.

Lucknow: Citizens and civil rights activists demanded transparency in land deals and stricter implementation of the Forest Rights Act at the one-day public hearing organised at Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow for the tribal communities. The grievances of people from 19 districts of Uttar Pradesh were heard by former Bombay High Court judge Kolse Patil, former Judge Manu Lal Markam, human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, social worker Sandeep Pandey and jury members from other districts.

Rights activist Teesta Setalvad observed that a judicial commission should be set up against the false cases slapped on tribal and Adivasi communities and that a collective demand for a special parliamentary session exclusively for forest rights should be held in the Parliament.

She added that the communities will have to assert themselves politically and support parties and candidates who support the forest rights issues in their campaign and demand the inclusion of Forest Rights in election manifestos.

Social worker Sandeep Pandey commented on the corruption of forest departments and the police and said that forest lands were being sold without the consent of resident tribal and Adivasi communities.

In the public hearing, issues from villages like Sonbhadra, Bijnor, Lakhimpur Kheeri, Bahraich, Pilibhit, Lalitpur, Mirzapur, Chandauli, Jalaun, Chitrakoot, Madhogad, Saharanpur and from Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar were raised where people spoke about the utter neglect of the Forest Rights Act from the Forest Department and the subsequent harassment they have had to face.

The report from this public hearing was sent to the state government.

The Forest Rights Act (2006), gives the tribal and other forest-dwelling population individual or collective rights over forest land for habitation, cultivation or livelihood, given the inextricable relationship between tribes and the forests, and the colonial denial of that relationship.

Despite these legal provisions, as well as eligibility for welfare schemes, the ground reality clearly highlights that there is much left to be desired in their execution. Even with the FRA, matters of land ownership for Adivasi communities is far from black and white. In UP, till 2018, 93,644 claims were received by the FRA; in turn, only 18,555 individual titles have been distributed. 74,945 claims were rejected. And UP has realized 0% of the 1,913,577 acres of potential Community Forest Rights land, a report said.

#IndiaUnites: Nine Day Joint Agitation to Begin Against Modi’s Anti-People Policies

January 30, 2019

Starting January 30, a 9-day joint agitation will begin highlighting some of today’s most critical issues affecting Indians everywhere. This agitation, led by farmers, veterans, and youth, also comprises of several other sections of civil society to register their protest against the growing politics of hate in the country.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

Why Police Action Across UP’s Hate-Crime Hot Spots Is Causing Fear And Alarm Among Muslims

January 30, 2019

Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh: Recalling his reaction on hearing that all three of his buses had been set afire by a mob, Abdul* said his first emotion was not fear.

Shaukat Ali, a 40-year-old farmer, was among the dozens of Muslims arrested for the August 2018 clashes in Purbaliyan in western UP’s Muzaffarnagar district. He denied that he had been involved in the clashes or even been a witness. When he heard stories that Muslim men were being detained, he fled the village. Fearing for his mother’s deteriorating health, he turned himself in eight days later. Days after, his 60-year-old father, Ali Mohammed, was also detained by the police. Ali was in prison for 38 days and his father for 70.

It was panic.

In January 2018, a ‘Tiranga Yatra’ (Tricolour March) taken out by Hindu activists on Republic Day triggered a communal clash in Kasganj in western Uttar Pradesh, leaving one person dead. Abdul was a victim of the violence, he said, but “I felt like I could be easily made the accused in a false case and there is nothing I would be able to do about it.”

Veer Hamid Chowk in Baddu Nagar, Kasganj city, in western Uttar Pradesh, where the first clash between Hindus and Muslims took place on January 26, 2018, when a motorcycle rally by Hindu youngsters waving the tricolour and saffron flags allegedly demanded right of way.

Abdul also feared for his son’s safety. “The police were knocking on the doors of Muslim homes and picking up any Muslim men they could find,” he said. Amid a crippling curfew, he rented an ambulance and smuggled his 36-year-old son Yusuf* out to a neighbouring district.

In Uttar Pradesh, the state where almost a third of religious identity-based hate crimes in 2018 were recorded–as per Hate Crime Watch, our tracker that records hate crimes across India from 2009 to 2018–stories of such distrust of the police abound among the Muslim community.

Our investigation from the site of many of these crimes reveals allegations of police excesses including falsely implicating and arresting Muslim men, levying onerous charges against them that are disproportionate to their alleged crime, and applying different legal yardsticks to Muslim and Hindu accused.

This is the third of our series on ground reporting on recent hate crimes from Uttar Pradesh. Read the first and second parts here and here.

Facts much contested

In Kasganj, the local police registered a First Information Report (FIR) about the clashes the same night. It described in detail the clashes, the sequence of events, the provocations and the police response to them, and how people from both communities had been involved.

However, the FIR did not name any Hindu men, not even the organisers of the Tiranga Yatra, during which young Hindu men waving saffron flags were alleged to have shouted provocative slogans in the Muslim-dominated Baddu Nagar of Kasganj–some videos purportedly of the scene had gone viral–leading to the first clash.

The FIR named only four men–all of them Muslims. The other 100-150 people estimated to have been involved were all termed “unidentified”. (FactChecker has a copy of the FIR)

The police filed a separate FIR regarding the casualty, 22-year-old Chandan Gupta, based on a complaint by his father, Sushil Gupta, who was not present at the spot when his son was injured in firing.

Gupta had been injured by a single bullet, for which the police had booked 20 Muslim men under Section 302 of the IPC, which relates to murder, in addition to some other “unidentified” persons.

“There were so many videos of Hindu men, sloganeering, provoking the Muslim community,” Shamim Javed, whose three brothers, Salim, Nasim and Wasim, were arrested as the main accused in relation with Gupta’s death, told FactChecker. “Despite that, Muslims were picked up immediately, while some of the main Hindu men who organised the Tiranga Yatra were picked up after nearly two months,” he said, referring to Vishal Thakur, who had allegedly called for the yatra and was arrested at the end of March.

Javed, 30, is the only male member of his household not behind bars.

In Baddu Nagar, a Muslim-dominated locality which was the epicentre of the clashes, many people spoke to FactChecker, but none wanted to be named. Some had stacks of papers in their shops and offices to point out flaws in police investigations–applications written to the police, copies of FIRs, copies of documents submitted for bail, and so on. “Even during the clashes, people who spoke to the media were named by the police as accused the next day and arrested,” one resident said. “One bullet hit Gupta. How can 30 people be booked for firing that one bullet?” he asked. While the FIR booked 20 people for the murder, this Baddu Nagar resident claimed that many more were detained in the days after the incident.

In Baddu Nagar, the Muslim-dominated locality that was the epicentre of the clashes in western UP’s Kasganj city in January 2018, many homes and offices are maintaining documents and other evidence of lengthy correspondence with the police. This document notes the license-plate numbers of motorcycles that Hindu youngsters left behind after the clashes. Another paper in the stack contains an inventory of all the Muslim-owned shops and property damaged in the clashes.

That bullet has spawned many conspiracy theories in Kasganj. The police and many in the Hindu community said Gupta was killed by a bullet fired by Salim, whereas Salim’s family and many people in Baddu Nagar said the bullet was fired accidentally by one of Gupta’s own companions in the Yatra.

FactChecker tried to get in touch with Kasganj superintendent of police Ashok Kumar. Despite repeated attempts, Kumar remained unavailable.

An independent investigation by civil society organisations has questioned the police version.

A civil society investigation

In August 2018, civil society organisations and activists led by former Indian Police Services (IPS) officer S.R. Darapuri, civil rights activist Teesta Setalvad, and Magsaysay award-winning activist Sandeep Pandey, among others, released a report on the police investigations.

The police’s responses were partisan, the report said: Muslims had been “selectively targeted”, the prosecution was “tainted” and the police probe was “grossly compromised”.

The report recorded inconsistencies in the police probe “from wrong timing of starting of the scuffle, place where the clashes began, an incorrect distance of the crime scene from the police station and the delay in filing of an FIR, 12 hours after the violence”. It also cited specific mistakes that the police had made–one accused, Zahid, had been in Lucknow, 330 km away from Kasganj, on the day of the incident; there were delays in filing the FIR; the police had recorded the location and the time of the clashes incorrectly in the FIR. The report also found that the FIR had ignored the origins of the clashes–the first skirmish in Baddu Nagar.

The report alleged that there had been an attempt to protect members of the Hindu community, despite there being substantial evidence of their involvement. No members of the Hindu community had been arrested until the end of March, it said, whereas 21 members of the Muslim community had been arrested during the same period.

In fact, the report also points to the possibility that Gupta was killed by firing by the Hindu mob or by the police, which had fired to control the violence.

Javed’s family claim that of the three brothers arrested, the oldest, Salim, 40, was at a primary school attending a flag-hoisting ceremony, while Wasim, 35, was 60 km away in Hathras city for a religious congregation, and claim to have submitted eyewitness accounts of Wasim’s presence in Hathras. The third brother, Nasim, had clinical depression and was asleep at home, they said.

“The police have not been able to present any substantial evidence against us,” Javed said, “Neither are my brothers in any videos nor are there any independent eye-witnesses who have alleged that they were present.”

The Allahabad High Court granted them bail in the murder case under Section 302, along with 20 others. “Before the bail could be executed, NSA [National Security Act] was imposed on my brothers,” Javed said, pointing out that a case under the stringent law was imposed seven months after the incident. “And their prison stay continued,” Javed said.

The NSA allows for preventive detention for up to 12 months. The person detained has to be informed of the charges within 10 days, but if the authorities consider this disclosure against public interest, they can withhold this information. Effectively, this means a person can be detained for up to a year without being told why.

Detention is reviewed within three weeks by one or more advisory boards appointed by the state government concerned, each consisting of three persons “who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court”. In practice, if the accused are not informed of the charges, they are unable to contest them before the advisory board.

“My brothers have never had a single criminal case in their life. How can they suddenly be deemed to be such threats that they need to be kept in preventive custody, after the High Court grants them bail?” Javed said.

Beyond Kasganj

By its own admission, the Uttar Pradesh government had invoked the NSA against 160 people in less than a year of coming to power in March 2017, according to this September 2018 report in The Wire.

In Purbaliyan village in Muzaffarnagar district in western UP, four Muslim men have been held under the NSA since August 2018, for allegedly stirring up a communal riot and assaulting some Hindu villagers after a dispute that originated over a cricket match.

Purbaliyan, a village consisting largely of Jats and Muslims, is known to be communally sensitive in police records, especially since the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots. During the riots, three Jats had allegedly been killed by a mob of Muslims, some of them from the village. The local police told FactChecker that Yamin, one of those arrested and charged under NSA for his role in the latest clashes, was also accused in the 2013 riots.

Several people that FactChecker spoke to questioned the use of NSA. “Have you ever heard of someone being prosecuted so severely for a riot in which not a single bullet was fired, nor was anyone even seriously injured, nor were any weapons used?” one Muslim villager said, not wishing to be named.

At the heart of the clash was a fight on a cricket field, between boys from all faiths. Twenty-year-old Sumit Kumar’s teenage cousin was part of the game when the fight broke out. That connection alone landed him in the middle of the clash that followed–he is the complainant in both the FIRs that the police filed about clashes on two separate days, August 21 and August 24, 2018.

Sumit Kumar at the door of his house in Purbaliyan village in western Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar district. He is the complainant in two FIRs filed after a fight over a cricket match escalated.

After the first dispute on the cricket field, Kumar told FactChecker, he was walking back from his field when he was ambushed by some Muslim men. “I didn’t know why. I later found out that my cousin, Lucky, had had a fight with some children from the other community while playing cricket,” he said.

However, in the FIR that FactChecker has a copy of, Kumar said he had intervened in the fight on the cricket field and brought his cousin home.

Kumar said he was targeted again, at his house, a few hours later by a mob of 30-odd people from the Muslim community; his sister and mother were also attacked, he said. Kumar named 12 people in the first FIR he filed, on the night of August 21, and also accused 15-20 “unidentified” persons.

On August 24, the two sides clashed again–Kumar claimed he was attacked by Muslim villagers while the Muslim families in the village denied this, and countered that one Muslim family’s domestic help, Abid, was assaulted by Hindu villagers including Kumar.

The police told FactChecker there had been no attack on Abid and that the story had been concocted to settle scores with Kumar.

After the clashes, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of parliament and former union minister Sanjeev Baliyan visited the village and said the NSA would be invoked against the accused, The Indian Express reported on September 26, 2018. This was before the local administration had passed the order.

“Soon after, the administration invoked the NSA–this shows that the order was a political decision, not an executive one,” Vipin Baliyan, the national chief of Rashtriya Jatt Sanrakshan Samiti, a socio-cultural organisation which works for the interests of the Jat community in the region, told FactChecker.

Thereafter, dozens of Muslims were arrested for being involved in the clashes.

Shaukat Ali, a 40-year-old farmer, was one of them. He denied that he had been involved in the clashes or even been a witness. When he heard stories that Muslim men were being detained, he fled the village.

“Every night, the police would cut off the electricity and enter my house, where my mother and wife continued to live,” Ali said. They would search the house and ask questions. Fearing for his mother’s deteriorating health, he turned himself in eight days later. Days after, his 60-year-old father, Ali Mohammed, was also detained by the police.

Ali was in prison for 38 days and his father for 70.

Many in the village said the attention the clashes got was disproportionate to what had happened. “This issue started off as a dispute between two families. That is where this should have remained. But that would not have benefitted politicians, would it?” said Ali Mohammed, adding that people like him and his son had been victims of politics.

Muzaffarnagar superintendent of police Sudhir Kumar Singh denied allegations of partisan policing, saying the police had clear evidence against the accused. “If people from one community have acted against the other, the police cannot book innocent people just to show a false sense of balance in the investigations,” he said.

Singh refused to comment on the imposition of the NSA on the four accused, saying he could not comment on the decision of the advisory board that had ratified it.

A pattern

The politicisation of Uttar Pradesh Police has reached a new low since the Yogi Adityanath government took charge, Darapuri, the ex-IPS officer who was part of the civil society group that reported on the police investigations, told FactChecker. He retired as the inspector-general of Uttar Pradesh Police. “[Politicisation] has been a slow process, where each regime has used the police to further its own political agenda,” he said, adding, “Police officers have their own prejudices, often religious, caste-based and gender-based. When a government like this comes into power, such prejudices are emboldened.”

In 1987, 16 UP police personnel from the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) had shot dead 42 Muslim youths from Meerut city’s Hashimpura mohalla and thrown their bodies in a canal, while Meerut was ravaged by communal riots. The National Human Rights Commission had called the incident the “worst incident of targeted custodial killings by the police since Independence”. Instances such as these, Darapuri said, point to a history of biases in UP’s police force. Use of the NSA shows perpetuation of that bias, he said.

The use of NSA as a political tool has become a pattern, said Rajeev Yadav, an activist with Rihai Manch, a Lucknow-based advocacy group that focuses on fighting hate crimes and hate speech, citing Kasganj and Muzaffarnagar as examples. Rihai Manch has chronicled the use of NSA under the Yogi Adityanath government, which, Yadav said, is a way of sending out a larger political message.

Yadav, drawing parallels between Kasganj and the recent killings of policemen by mobs in two separate instances in Bulandshahr and Ghazipur districts, said NSA has been used inconsistently.

In Ghazipur, the main accused is a leader of the Rashtriya Nishad Party, which recently tied up with the Samajwadi Party and defeated the BJP candidate in the Gorakhpur by-polls held last year. In Bulandshahr, the UP government recently invoked NSA against three people who were accused of cow slaughter. Those accused in the death of the policemen, including the main accused who was a local Bajrang Dal activist, have not been charged under the NSA.

“If the NSA is invoked in Kasganj and Ghazipur, why is the government applying a different yardstick and not invoking it in Bulandshahr?” Yadav asked.

*Some names have been changed in the interest of interviewees’ safety.

This is the third of a six-part series. You can read the first part here and the second here.

Next: In Hate Crimes’ Wake, Leaving Home In Search Of Safety

(Purohit is an independent journalist, writing on politics, gender, development, migration and the intersections between them. He is an alumnus of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London.)

Courtesy: https://factchecker.in/

In Jogendra Nath Mandal’s Pakistan, Asia Bibi wouldn’t have needed Canada’s asylum

January 30, 2019

Mandal, the first Law Minister of Pakistan and chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, was deeply disappointed with the attitude of Pakistani ruling elite towards the Dalits as well as the Muslims and Hindus in East Bengal who faced regular discrimination and violence.

Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada has offered asylum to Asia Bibi. She was released from the Pakistan Jail last month but was living in incarceration fearing the lynch mob who call themselves protectors of Islam. Both in India and Pakistan, the culture of religious justice is growing. Pakistan and Bangladesh have this and the Hindutva lunatics are learning from them. So, while Pakistanis and Bangladeshis will want their nation to be Islamic only, their cousins in the Sangh Parivar want India to be a Hindu Rashtra. Frankly speaking, this is not a Hindu vs Gandhi vs Jinnah war, clandestinely, it is a caste war. The caste discrimination is a part of the South Asian culture, whether you are a Hindu, Muslim or Christians.

Asia Bibi faced untouchability and when she challenged it, she was charged with blasphemy. The thugs in the streets were baying for her blood. Kudos to Pakistan Supreme Court which rejected the review petition in this regard, paving the way for her to leave Pakistan. After all this, Asia Bibi cannot live in Pakistan as the Islamic goons will kill her. So the only option for her was to leave. Of course, in Canada too, she will have to live in anonymity for several years as Europe and America are also the new battlegrounds for these religious thugs who do not like the liberal societies but go there to earn money.

Our good wishes to Asia Bibi and hope she will bring up her children well without facing any discrimination. Despite all theories of conspiracy, the western world is still a far superior choice for all those who see their fundamental rights challenged based on their caste, race, gender or ideologies such as being atheists, humanists or anything else, which our states feel threatened by.

Many of our friends yesterday remembered Jogendra Nath Mandal, the first Law Minister of Pakistan and chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Mandal belongs to Namoshudra community in Bengal which was an untouchable community. He organised the Dalits in Bengal and followed the path shown by Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar. He ensured that Baba Saheb Ambedkar is sent to the Constituent Assembly from Bengal as he lost from Bombay Presidency. Unfortunately, the seat that Baba Saheb won from Kulna shifted to Pakistan after partition and Baba Saheb had to re-contest for the Constituent Assembly from Bombay to get into it.

Mandal was hopeful that in the new Pakistan, Dalits would get fair share as he felt that Muslims will be much more sympathetic to their cause but within three years of independence on October 8th, 1950 Mandal resigned from Liaquat Ali Khan’s cabinet against the maltreatment, discrimination and violence against the Scheduled Castes in general and among Hindus and Muslims.

The fact of the matter is, the Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims never considered Bengalis, both the Muslims as well as Scheduled Castes, as their equivalent and Mandal’s resignation never made Pakistani elite learn from their mistakes. Excluding communities resulted in mass unrest in East Bengal ultimately resulting in the bifurcation of Pakistan. Mandal was deeply disappointed with the attitude of Pakistani ruling elite towards the Dalits as well as the Muslims and Hindus in East Bengal who faced regular discrimination and violence.

Unfortunately, we are not ready to learn from these lessons. Exclusion of any community leads to deep distress and mass violence. Political middlemen gain from such acts. Mandal died as an unsung hero and though he returned to India, he could not re-establish himself as a leader of the Dalits. Caste discrimination is rampant in South Asia even after so many years and yet we never want to do away with it. Blasphemy laws, cow protection laws, are nothing but to protect the caste hierarchies among the Muslims and Hindus. Religion is basically a tool for the powerful castes in South Asia to control people and perpetuate discrimination in the name of religion.

Canada has shown us the mirror but we will still not learn any lesson because then the religion traders will have to shut shops.

Gandhi or Godse, India must Decide

January 30, 2019

This piece published in Communalism Combat in October 2000 was the reproduction of the translation of a Gujarati pamphlet authored by ही late, Chunibhai Vaidya from Ahmedabad

Even as the ‘Brotherhood in Saffron’ pretends to appropriate the Mahatma’s legacy, assassin Nathuram Godse’s admirers in Maharashtra – the birthplace of the hate-Gandhi ideology, and Gujarat – the birthplace of the Mahatma – continue their campaign to vilify him and glorify the villain

(The article reproduced below was first published as a pamphlet in Gujarati, in response to two controversial plays, ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye’ and ‘Gandhi virudh Gandhi’. The pamphlet has since been translated into seven Indian languages. The English version has only recently been put out on the website, mkgandhi–sarvodaya.org).

The killer of Gandhiji and his apologists sought to justify the assassination on the fol lowing arguments:

Gandhiji supported the idea of a separate state for Muslims. In a sense he was responsible for the creation of Pakistan.
In spite of the Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, Gandhiji fasted to compel the government of India to release an amount of Rs. 55 crore due to Pakistan.
The belligerence of Muslims was a result of Gandhiji’s policy of appeasement.
Scrutinised in the light of recorded history these prove to be clever distortions to misguide the gullible. Gandhiji in those days was very active in the rough and tumble of politics. The proposal for partition of the country and violent reaction against it generated tensions which ultimately resulted in sectarian killings on a scale unprecedented in human history.

For the ethnic Muslims, Gandhiji was a Hindu leader who opposed creation of Pakistan on sectarian grounds. Ethnic Hindus looked upon him as an impediment to their plan to avenge the atrocities on Hindus. Godse was a child of this extremist thinking.

The assassination of Gandhiji was a culmination of decades of systematic brainwashing. Gandhiji had become a thorn in the flesh of the hardcore Hindus and in course of time this resentment turned into a phobia. Beginning with the year 1934 and over a period of 14 years, on as many as six occasions, attempts were made to kill Gandhiji. The last one by Godse on January 30, 1948 was successful. The remaining five were made in 1934, in the months of July and September 1944, September 1946 and 20th January 1948. Godse was involved in two previous attempts.
When the unsuccessful attempts of 1934, 1944 and 1946 were made, the proposal regarding partition and the matter regarding release of Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan were not in existence at all. The conspiracy to do away with Gandhiji was conceived much earlier than the successful accomplishment thereof. The grounds advanced for this heinous crime are clever rationalisation to hoodwink the gullible. The staging of the play entitled, ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye’ is clear proof of the fact that the mindset that led to Gandhiji’s assassination has not disappeared from our national life.

A civil society is wedded to the democratic method of resolving differences through frank and open debate and evolving a working consensus. Gandhiji was always open to persuasion. Gandhiji had invited Godse for discussions but the latter did not avail of this opportunity given to him. This is indicative of the lack of faith in the democratic way of resolving differences on the part of Godse and his ilk. Such fascist mindset seek to do away with dissent by liquidating the opponents.

The Hindu backlash was as much responsible for the creation of Pakistan as the sentiments of ethnic Muslims. The hard core Hindus looked down upon the Muslims as misguided malechcha (unclean) and came to believe that coexistence with them was not possible. Mutual distrust and recriminations led the extremists among both the groups to regard Hindus and Muslims as different nationalities and this strengthened the Muslim League’s demand for partition as the only possible solution to the communal problem. Vested interests on both the sides stirred up the separatist sentiment and sought to justify their hate–campaign by clever and selective distortion of history. It is indeed a matter for serious concern for the nation that this mentality has not disappeared even today.

Poet Mohammed Iqbal who wrote the famous song ‘Sare jahan se achcha Hindostan hamara’ was the first to formulate the concept of a separate state for Muslims as early as 1930. Needless to state, this sentiment was, in a sense, strengthened by Hindu extremists. In 1937, at the open session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Veer Savarkar, in his presidential address asserted: “India cannot be assumed today to be unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main – the Hindus and the Muslims.” (Vide Writings of Swatantarya Veer Savarkar, Vol. 6 page 296, Maharashtra Prantiya Hindu Mahasabha, Pune).

In 1945, he had stated: “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two–nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations”. (Vide Indian Educational Register, 1943, vol. 2, page 10). It was this sentiment of separate and irreconcilable identities of the followers of these religions that led to the formation of Pakistan.

In complete contrast to this mentality, throughout his life Gandhiji remained an uncompromising advocate of the oneness of God, respect for all religions, equality of all men and non–violence in thought, speech and action. His daily prayers comprised verses, devotional songs and readings from different scriptures. All people, irrespective of their allegiance to different religions, attended those meetings. Till his dying day, Gandhiji held the view that the nationality of fellow citizens was not in any way affected by the fact of their subscribing to religious belief other than yours. During his life, on more than one occasion he strove for unity and equality among Hindus themselves, as well as amity among Hindus and Muslims, even risking his life. The idea of partition was an anathema to him. He was given to saying that he would sooner die than subscribe to such a pernicious doctrine. His life was an open book and no substantiation is necessary on this score.

Under Gandhiji’s leadership communal amity occupied the pride of place in the constructive programmes of the Congress. Muslim leaders and intellectuals of national stature, like Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Maulana Azad, Dr. Ansari Hakim Ajmal Khan, Badruddin Tayabji, even Jinnah himself, were in the Congress fold. It is natural that the Congress opposed the proposal for the division of the country. But as a result of the incitement on the part of the lumpen elements among the Hindus and Muslims a tidal wave of carnage and lawlessness engulfed the nation.
Faced with the breakdown of law and order in Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, North–West Frontier Province and Bengal, Congress lost nerve. Jinnah adopted an inflexible attitude. Lord Mountbatten being motivated by the time–limit given to him by the British Cabinet used all his powers of persuasion and charm to steer all the leaders to a solution quick and yet acceptable to all; but the adamantine attitude of Jinnah made everything except partition unacceptable.

Faced with such a scenario Congress found it difficult to keep up its morale. Gandhiji conveyed to Lord Mountbatten on April 5, 1947 that he would agree even if the Britishers made Jinnah the Prime Minister and left the country as it was. Instead, Lord Mountbatten succeeded in getting the Congress to agree to partition.

Gandhiji was in the dark about it; he was shell–shocked when he learned about it. The only remedy available to him was fasting unto death to dissuade his followers from acquiescence to a ruinous course of action. After sustained soul searching he came to the conclusion that in the prevalent situation such a step on his part would further deteriorate the situation, demoralise the Congress and the whole country.

The factors that weighed with him were the importunate demands of a rapidly changing national scenario and the non–existence of an alternate set of leaders of proven nationalist credentials.

The most perplexing and yet pertinent question is that Jinnah was the most vocal protagonist of Pakistan and with the intentional or otherwise efforts of Mountbatten he succeeded in carving it out. Then, instead of making the two his targets, why did Godse select one for murder who vehemently opposed the idea of partition till the resolution by the Congress accepting the partition of the country was passed on June 3, 1947 and Pakistan became a fate accompli? Is it that, as Savarkar put it, he had no quarrel with Jinnah and his two–nation theory but he and his apologists had real quarrel with Gandhi and Gandhi alone?

It is necessary to point out an aspect of Gandhiji’s personality that made him the source of unabated distrust and dislike in the eyes of hardcore Hindus.

Though he was a devout Hindu, Gandhiji had most amicable and warm relations with many who did not belong to the Hindu fold. As a result of this exposure he had developed an eclectic religious sense based on oneness of God and equality of all religions.Caste divisions and untouchability prevalent among the Hindus distressed him immensely. He advocated and actively encouraged inter–caste marriages. Lastly, he blessed only those marriages wherein one of the partners belonged to the untouchable castes.

Vested interests amongst high caste Hindus viewed this reformist and other religious programmes with bitter resentment. In course of time it developed into a phobia and thus he became an anathema to them.

The matter regarding release of Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan towards the second instalment of arrears to be paid to it, under the terms of division of assets and liabilities, requires to be understood in the context of the events that took place in the aftermath of partition. Of the Rs. 75 crore to be paid, the first instalment of Rs. 20 crore was already released. The invasion of Kashmir by self–styled liberators with the covert support of the Pakistani army took place before the second instalment was paid.

While the government of India decided to withhold it, Lord Mountbatten was of the opinion that it amounted to a violation of the mutually agreed conditions and he brought it to the notice of Gandhiji. To Gandhiji’s ethical sense the policy of tit for tat was repugnant and he readily agreed with the Viceroy’s point of view. However, linking his stand in this matter with the fast he undertook, as we will see in the following lines, is an intentional mix-up and distortion of facts of contemporary history.

The fast was undertaken with a view to restoring communal amity in Delhi. Gandhiji arrived from Calcutta in September 1947 to go to Punjab to restore peace there. On being briefed by Sardar Patel about the explosive situation in Delhi itself he changed his plans and decided to continue his stay in Delhi to restore peace with the firm determination to “Do or Die.”

The influx of Hindus from Pakistan who were uprooted and who had suffered killings of relatives, abduction and rape of women and looting of their belongings had created an explosive situation. Local Hindus who were outraged by the treatment meted out to their Hindu brethren and the anger of local Muslims against reports of similar outrages on their co–religionists in India made Delhi a veritable witches’ cauldron.

This resulted in killings, molestation, torching of houses and properties. This caused deep anguish to Gandhiji. What added poignancy to this was the realisation that it happened in India itself just after an unique incident in the history of mankind: doing away of the shackles of a colonial regime by non–violent means.

It was with this background in his mind that he undertook a fast unto death to restore communal amity and sanity in Delhi. And, as if to allow the critics of Mahatma Gandhi a chance to mix–up and manoeuvre, the decision of the government of India to release Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan came during this period of his fast.

The following facts dissolve the much–touted thesis that Gandhiji had fasted to bring moral pressure on government of India to relent:

Dr. Sushila Nair, as soon as she heard Gandhiji proclaim his decision, rushed to her brother Pyarelal and informed him in a huff that Gandhiji had decided to fast till the madness in Delhi ceased. Even in those moments of inadvertence, the mention of 55 crore of rupees was not made which clearly proves that it was not intended by Gandhiji.
Gandhiji’s own announcement about his resolve in the evening prayer meeting on 12th January did not contain any reference to it. Had it been a condition, he would have certainly mentioned it as that.
Similarly, there was no reference to it in his discourse on 13th January.
Gandhiji’s reply on 15th January to a specific question regarding the purpose of his fast did not mention it.
The press release of the government of India did not have any mention thereof.
The list of assurances given by the committee headed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad to persuade Gandhiji to give up his fast did not include it.

We hope these facts would put the Rs. 55 crore concoction at rest.

With regard to the last allegation regarding appeasement of Muslims, it should be conceded that a certain amount of antagonism between Hindus and Muslims existed in the nation. The colonial power cleverly exploited it during its reign and inevitably the division of the country came into being. Long before Gandhiji appeared on the national stage sagacious leaders like BG Tilak had started attempts to secure the participation of Muslims in the nationalist struggle.

Under what came to be known as the Lucknow Pact, Lokmanya Tilak, Annie Besant and Mohammed Ali Jinnah evolved a formula under which the Muslims would get representation greater than what would be justified on the basis of the percentage of Muslim population. The frank and bold statement of Tilak defending the Pact is an eloquent refutation of the charge that Gandhiji began the policy of appeasement of Muslims.

The author of the play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye, Pradeep Dalvi, described the order of the Maharashtra government banning the staging of the play as an attack on freedom of expression. This is a travesty of truth and a perversion of the fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

The constitution also provides for ban on the abuse of this freedom; vide its section 19(2). The implications of what Dalvi and his ilk profess requires to be carefully analysed. Under the guise of defending the freedom of expression, what they are seeking to do is to advocate the right to murder those who do not agree with them. They seek to spread hatred and violence. They want to propagate the pernicious doctrine that under certain circumstances the murder of the opponent becomes an act of religious sacrifice.

It is revolting to find that the heinous murder of one who was a living embodiment of non–violence, peace and love and who was as defenceless as a naked, new born child should be made a scaffolding for a neo–fascist doctrine.

Godse is no more but the mindset that gave birth to such distorted philosophy is unfortunately still with us. One can dismiss what he did as an act of a lunatic bigot. Assassination by itself is not as wicked as the attempts to rationalise, justify, masquerade it as a religious act. Permitting such plays to be staged amounts to permitting mis–education of our children. Only sane response to such insidious propaganda is unequivocal rejection thereof.

(The author is associated with the Gujarat Lok Samiti, Ahmedabad).

Rewarding Those Who Demolished the Babri Masjid: A History of the Ayodhya Dispute

January 30, 2019

First published on: March 23, 2017

In a surprise development, the Supreme Court, on March 21, 2017 urged the rival parties in the Ram Janamabhoomi – Babri Masjid (RJBM) case to negotiate and resolve the dispute in a spirit of give and take. The Chief Justice of India offered himself to be a mediator should both the parties agreed. The observations came on application of Subramanian Swamy seeking urgent hearing of the appeal against the order of Allahabad High Court dated September 30, 2010 in the RJBM title suit. Subramanian Swamy, a BJP leader, has no locus standi in the case and he is not a party in the Appeal. Yet the Supreme Court exercised its discretion and even asked the BJP leader to talk to all parties to the case and bring them to negotiating table.

It is not clear whether Swamy was prompted by the Prime Minister but the application seems to be made in the background of massive victory of the BJP in UP Assembly elections. Though the mandate was primarily sought for development – or sab kasaath, sab kavikas, the BJP might have seen this as most opportune moment to push the construction of Ram Temple on the site where BabriMasji once stood for 464 years before it was unlawfully demolished.

The parties to the Appeal before the Supreme Court did not feel the need to move the Court for urgent hearing of the case. Many other cases are pending before the Apex Court and which may be of real urgent nature. What persuaded the Court to spend its valuable time on this contentious case wherein one party to the case is in stronger position in the prevailing scenario while the other is more defensive and feeling diffident will be for the Court to satisfy itself. Litigants defending Babri Masjid title are naturally feeling extremely vulnerable and in a very weak position. Not agreeing to settle on the terms desired by the litigants who already have 2/3rds of the land in dispute according to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and are seeking the entire land would endanger the security of the community at worst and open to charge of being intransigent at best. Several attempts were made to arrive at negotiated settlement and all of them failed.

One attempt was made by the Shankaracharya and religious leaders from Muslim community. Muslim religious leaders gave favourable statements and nod at the initiative. They were hopeful of the initiative leading to an amicable settlement with the spirit of give and take. However, the SanghParivar which felt that a settlement would be reached without them being involved opposed the initiative. Statements were planted in the media that Shankaracharya was a devotee of Shiv rather than Lord Ram. Shankaracharya withdrew from the initiative and the settlement did not materialize.

The inhabitants of Ayodhya would have long settled the issue in the spirit of give and take had the dispute been left to them. The Head Priest of Hanumangarh, the largest temple in Ayodhya, MahantGyandas has organized iftaars for Muslims inside his temple and repaired Mosque situated on the land owned by his temple with their funds. Muslims have invited MahantGyandas, inside their mosques. Such was the amicable relations between Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya during the peak of Ram temple agitation. The agitators were mobilized from outside.

The priest of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple – MahantLal Das too opposed the VHP-BJP led Ram Janmabhoomi movement. MahantLal Das was assassinated and his assassins have remained a mystery. The final attempt to settle the issue was made by Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the dispute, a simple man living in hut. Hashim Ansari died a few months ago after the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court. He was disillusioned with the Judgement and wanted to settle the issue. Hashim Ansari and the rival litigant MahantRamchandra Das Paramhans of the Ram JanamabhoomiNyas were good friends and remained so till the Mahant died in 2003.

Hashim Ansari told this author that they would not only eat from the same plate, they would also travel in the same vehicle to and fro Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court where the title suit was being heard. Had it been left to the people of Ayodhya, they would have in all likelihood resolved the dispute in the spirit of give and take. The inhabitants of Ayodhya enjoy the bonds of brotherhood and sisterhood and were vary of SanghParivar’s mobilization for construction of Ram Janambhoomi Temple as it disturbed peace of the town for days and they would lose their livelihood. The earlier negotiations failed primarily due to intransigence of the SanghParivar for whom the issue was more of a political weapon which they would pull out during elections rather than issue of faith.

If negotiations are held today, those defending the title of Waqf Board would be under extreme political and social pressure to give up whatever little they have got from the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. Whereas NirmohiAkhada and Ram Lalla, who have got 2/3rds of the land parcel would be negotiating for the rest of the 1/3^rd of the land with the political might of the State and Centre backing them. Does the Supreme Court want a “settlement” between hugely unequal parties or justice in accordance with the law? One of the legal doctrine is “he who wants justice should approach the courts come with clean hands” Those who mobilized and demolished the Babri Mosque cannot be said to have approached the court with clean hands.

A demand to construct a protective roof against the vagaries of nature on the chabutra outside the Mosque but within the precincts in the year 1885 enlarged to demanding the entire Mosque land and construction of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple on it not on the basis of law of the land, but on the basis of faith. While the claims did not succeed with the British Colonial government, it is the secular state that progressively gave in to the demands of manipulated faith of the cultural and political elite claiming to represent the entire majority community. The Allahabad High Court too ruled on the basis of unproven faith rather than on the basis of law of adverse possession.

From Ram Chabutra to claim over BabriMasji: failure of Justice
Let us examine this story. There are no two opinions that in the year 1528 a mosque was built by Mir Baqi, one of the Governors of the Mughal Emperor Babar. The SanghParivar maintains that this mosque was built after destroying a Ramjanmabhoomi temple, which existed on the land whereas the Muslim political leaders as well as most reputed historians of integrity insist that there is no credible proof that there was any Ramjanmabhoomi temple.

The District Gazetteer of 1905 notes that till 1855, Hindus and Muslims prayed in the same premises that is now contentious Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. After 1857 rebellion, an outer enclosure was put in front of the mosque and the Hindus who were forbidden access to the inner yard raised an outer platform (chabutra). The first signs of the dispute sometime in 1861 appear too close after the 1857 rebellion to warrant such a conclusion. A British officer who was officiating as a Commissioner and Settlement Officer, Faizabad, in 1861 wrote a book A Historical Sketch of Fyzabad Tehsil Including the Former Capital Ayodhya and Fyzabad. The book was based on what he found was “locally affirmed” and his own surmises – Ayodhya must at least have possessed a fine temple in the Janmasthan. The dispute was initially only regarding Chabutra adjoining the Babri Masjid. He further wrote: “It seems that in 1528 Babar visited Ayodhya and under his orders this ancient temple was destroyed”. There is slender evidence to conclude that Babar ever passed Ayodhya.

Hindu priests wanted a temple constructed on the Chabutra to be able to conduct their worship without vagaries of weather, as Chabutra was an open platform.

In the year 1885, one MahantRaghubarDass, claiming himself to be the Mahant of JanamAsthan had filed a suit on 19-1-1885 in the Court of Sub-Judge Faizabad, PanditHariKishan (Suit No. 61/280 of 1885). It was alleged in the said Suit that Chabutra of JanamAsthan was a platform of 21 feet towards East and West and 17 feet towards North and South. It was further alleged in the said Suit that as there was no building over it and the Mahant and other priests had to face grave vagaries of the weather. The Mahant therefore wanted permission to construct a temple over the said Chabutra of 21 X 17 feet, which had been prohibited by the Deputy Commissioner of Faizabad. The Suit 61/280 of 1885 was dismissed on 24-12-1885 by PanditHariKishan, Sub-Judge of Faizabad. Relying upon the site plan prepared by GopalSahai, the Learned Sub-Judge observed:

“The entrance to the enclosure is under a gateway on which appears the superscription of “Allah”. Immediately on the left is the platform or chabutra of masonary occupied by the Hindus. On this is a small superstructure of wood in the form of a tent. This chabutra is said to indicate the birthplace of Ram Chander. …

“… in between the mosque and Chabutra, there is a wall…and it is clear that there are separate boundaries between the mosque and Chabutra and this fact is also supported by the fact that there is boundary line built by the Government before the rent dispute”.
It was further observed that if temple was allowed to be constructed on the Chabutra at such a place, then there would be sound of bells of the temple and sankh, when both Hindus and Muslims passed from the same way. If permission was given to Hindus for constructing temple then one day or the other there would be rioting and thousands of people would be killed. Thus, the learned Sub-Judge opined that awarding permission to construct the temple at this juncture is to lay the foundation of riot and murder, hence in view of the policy and also in view of justice the reliefs claimed should not be granted. The Sub-Judge also rejected the reliefs sought on the ground of adverse possession and observed that:

“It is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on the land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as that occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance. All that can be done is to maintain the parties in status quo.”
The Appeal of MahantRaghubarDass against the judgement of the Learned Sub-Judge before the District Judge of Faizabad and the Judicial Commissioner, W. Young (Civil appeal No. 27 of 1886) was also dismissed. In his judgement dated November 1, 1886 observed:
“This spot is situated within the precinct of the grounds surrounding a mosque erected some 350 years age owing to the bigotry and tyranny of the emperor who purposely chose this holy spot, according to Hindu legend as the site of his mosque. The Hindus seem to have got very limited rights of access to certain spots within the precinct adjoining the mosques and they have for a series of years been persistently trying to increase those rights and to erect buildings on two spots in the enclosure namely (1) Sitakirasoi (kitchen of Sita) and (2) Ram ChanderkiJanmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama)… I am further of the opinion that the civil courts have properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.”

Two things are to be noted here. The suit as well as the Appeal was rejected on grounds of adverse possession. The dispute was about the Chabutra situated in the precinct on which a building was sought to be erected and never the mosque itself. As set out in the judgement, certain elements from the Hindu community tried to persistently increase their rights – in the second and third round to the entire mosque itself. Even though the reliefs prayed for were not granted, the judgement tried not to antagonise the Hindu Community entirely by mentioning the atrocities of the tyrannical and bigot emperors (from whose tyrannical rule the colonial rulers claim to have “liberated” the sub-continent). It is not clear on what supporting evidence did the judges observe that the tyrannical Mughal Emperor out of bigotry demolished a temple 350 years ago to build a mosque in his name. Thus in spite of the judgements, the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy remained very much alive.

In 1934 riots, which were triggered off by the slaughter of a cow in the village of Shahjahanpur near Ayodhya, riotous mobs demolished part of the wall surrounding the mosque and damaged the domes. However, the mosque was restored at the cost of the Government.
Till December 22, 1949, Muslims offered namaz in the Babri Masjid. However, on the night of 22^nd December 1949, idols of BhagwanshriRamchandra were surreptitiously smuggled and installed inside the mosque. Constable Mata Prasad at Ayodhya Police Station reported the incident next day morning and the District Magistrate K.K. Nayar sent the following message to the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary by radiogram:

“A few Hindus entered Babri Masjid at night when the masjid was deserted and installed a deity there, DM and SP and force at spot. Situation under control, Police picket of 15 persons was on duty at night but did not apparently act.”
K. K. Nayar, who later contested elections on the then Jan Sangh ticket, wrote in his diary:

“The crowd made a most determined attempt to force entry. The lock was broken and policemen rushed off their legs. All of us, officers and men, somehow pushed the crowd back and held the gate. The gate was secured and locked with a powerful lock brought from outside and the police force was strengthened.”

Nayar also wrote to the Chief Secretary that in grave risk of large-scale riots it would not be desirable to attempt the removal of the idols through governmental agency. He also advised against stopping bhog and aarti but advised that the present pujari should be changed. Markandey Singh, Magistrate, First Class, and Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cumAyodhya after being “fully satisfied from information received from police sources and from other credible sources that a dispute between Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya over the question rights of proprietorship and worship in the building claimed variously as Babri Masjid and JanmabhoomiMandir, Mohalla Ram Kot, within the local limits of my jurisdiction, is likely to lead to a breach of peace,” ordered the attachment of the “said buildings” under Section 145 CrPC and appointed PriyaDutt Ram, Chairman, Municipal Board, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya, as receiver to arrange for the care of the property in dispute on December 29, 1949.

Then a civil suit number 2 of 1950 was filed on January 16, 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad in the court of the civil judge, Faizabad, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to worship and visit without obstruction or disturbance ShriBhagwan Ram Chandra and others installed in the Janmabhoomi and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from removing these idols. Amongst the eight defendants were five Muslims and the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner and the Police Superintendent of Faizabad.

The civil judge N.N. Chadha, granted an interim injunction on 16/1/1950 allowing puja and darshan though the rights were in dispute. The Order was later modified on 19/1/1950 as follows:
“The parties are hereby restrained by means of the temporary injunction to refrain from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interfering with the puja etc. as at present carried on.”
In addition to the above suit, three more suits relating to disputes over receivership and waqf were filed during the intervening period. The NirmohiAkhara also staked its claim for ownership of the disputed land.

A lawyer of Ayodhya, Umesh Chandra Pandey quietly moved an application on 25/1/86 in the Court of SadarMunsif, HariShakarDubey seeking directions restraining the respondents from imposing any sort of restrictions or hurdles in the darshan and puja, etc. of Lord Rama and others in the Janambhoomi offered by him and other members of the Hindu community. The Application was in regular Suit no. 2 of 1950. The Munsif refused to pass orders on the ground that the file of the leading case along with which the above suit was consolidated was requisitioned in the High Court. Umesh Chandra had no locus standi in the above suit, and had not even impleaded all the defendants in the suit as party respondents in the application. Umesh Chandra filed an appeal against the order of the Munsif before the District Judge, Faizabad, K.M. Pandey on 31/1/86. The district judge rejected the application of the Mohammed Hashim to be impleaded as a party in the appeal. The District Judge recorded the statements of District Magistrate, Indu Kumar Pandey and Senior Superintendent of Police, Karma Vir Singh to the effect that:
“…it is not necessary to keep the locks at the gates for the purpose of maintaining law and order or the safety of the idols. This appears to be an unnecessary irritant to the applicant and other members of the community. There does not appear o be any necessity to create an artificial barrier between the idol and the devotees. It appears that the opposite parties have remained a prisoner of indecision for the last 35 years. Somebody in his wisdom thought fit to put locks at the gates at any point of time and nobody since then has seen whether there is any necessity to retain locks or not”.

The District judge then observed:
“after having heard the parties it is clear that the members of the other community, namely the Muslims, are not going to be affected by any stretch of imagination if the locks of the gates were opened and the idols inside the premises are allowed to be seen and worshipped by the pilgrims and devotees. It is undisputed that the premises are presently in the court’s possession and that for the last 35 years Hindus have had an unrestricted right or worship as a result of the court’s order of 1950 and 1951. If the Hindus are offering prayers and worshipping the idols, though in a restricted way for the last 35 years, then the heavens are not going to fall if the locks of the gates are removed. The district magistrate has stated before me today that the members of the Muslim community are not allowed to offer any prayers at the disputed site. They are not allowed to go there. … If this is the state of affairs then there is no occasion for any law and order problem arising as a result of the removal of the locks. It is absolutely an affair inside the premises. There is no justification for retaining locks after the positive statements of the district magistrate and the SSP Faizabad that the law and order situation can be very well kept under control by other means as well and for that end it is not necessary to keep the locks on these gates.”
The appeal allowed and the respondents – district magistrate, the city magistrate and the police superintendent of Faizabad were directed to open the locks forthwith and not to impose any restrictions or cause hurdle in the darshan and puja, etc. of the applicant and other members of the community in general. With the order of the District Judge, the site, which was in the register of waqf as a mosque for over over 400 years as a mosque was converted into a de facto temple. The procedure adopted by the district judge of recording the statement of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of the Police was very unusual to the say the least. Application of Umesh Chandra Pandey was incompetent as he was not a party in the suit. The suit itself was not pending. Gopal Singh Visharad, the Plaintiff in the Regular Suit No. 2 of 1950 had died years ago and no substitution had been made in his place and as such the suit had automatically abated. Such an order could not be passed altering the situation after 36 years. Also, contrary to the general procedure and practice was the fact that the District Judge rejected the application of the Muslims who were originally party to the suit to be impleaded as a party. The District Judge had no basis to conclude that Muslims would not be adversely affected and that too without hearing the applicants to be impleaded as a party.

The District Judge in effect adjudicated the rights of the contending parties without hearing all the parties to the suit on a very narrow and negative ground that there would not be any law and order problem if the locks were removed. The adjudication was not on strength of respective claims and the case of the parties, as all the parties concerned and the strength of their claims were not heard were not heard at all. Law and order problem is never a consideration while adjudicating rights of the party. If the courts adjudicate rights of the parties to litigation on consideration of law and order, what we will have is not rule of law but rule of might.

The background in which the judgement was delivered will not be out of place here. The SSP and the DM would not have given the statement about their confidence in being able to maintain law and order, without approval of the State and Central Government. The Rajiv Gandhi Government was on the one hand trying to appease the Muslim Fundamentalists on the issue of Sahabano and intended legislation for denial of maintenance to divorced Muslim women under S. 125 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand, the Government was also trying to appease the Hindu community by getting the locks of Ramjanambhumi-Babri Masjid opened for darshan and puja.

Supreme Court Judgement in Ayodhya case
The decade of 1980 will be remembered as a bloody decade with communal clashes all over the country as the issue of Ramjanambhumi was politicised and nationalised by the SanghParivar. The Ramjanambhumi, which had hitherto remained a dispute between some elements from both communities in Ayodhya, was taken to every nook and corner in most cities and even rural areas all over the country. The demand for which the mobilisation was aimed was to open the lock of the Babri Masjid and permit puja and darshan. After the lock was opened, the next demand was handing over the entire site for construction of Ramjanmabhumi Temple and shifting of the mosque outside panchkoshiparikrama.

Legally, it was difficult to achieve this fete without the intervention of the courts and the state. The issue of title of the property, which is the main legal issue involved in the dispute pending in the courts operates against the protagonist of Ramjanmabhumi temple. For right to worship cannot be claimed as an easement on somebody else’s property. So far as law is concerned, faith and belief, or even proof of place of birth of BhagwanRamchandra is also not a relevant issue to decide the title and / or grant right to worship. Agitational mobilisation by the SanghParivar was to pressurise the state and the courts to act and the pressure did work.

First the UP State acquired the place surrounding the place in the name of providing certain facilities to the pilgrims, the site on which Rajiv Gandhi laid foundation stone of the Ramjanmabhumi on in November 1990. Babri Masjid was then demolished on 6.12.92 by mobs mobilised by the SanghParivar. The Courts as well as the state allowed the mob to assemble in the naïve belief that the Mosque will not be touched. Then the Union Government issued ordinance named ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance’ on 7.1.93 for acquisition of 67.703 acres of land, including the site of Babri Masjid. The Ordinance was later replaced by an Act. The Union Government also made a Special Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India to the Supreme Court for the opinion of the Court on:

“Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood”.

The reference itself was slanted in favour of the majority community. The Court was called upon to give its opinion whether any Hindu religious structure existed prior to construction of Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid. … The structure that stood was certainly not “RamjanmaBhumi” but Babri Masjid admittedly constructed by Mir Baqi. The only contention of the protagonist of RamjanmaBhumi Temple being that the same was after demolition of JanamAsthan Temple. Secondly, no time frame was prescribed for examination of existence of Ram JanmaBhumi – Babri Masjid. If the referendum had been answered in positive, the Union Government would have been compelled to hand over the entire site on which Babri Masjid stood to the Hindu litigants or a trust or association. The Supreme Court however rejected the reference as superfluous.
The five judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court was also called upon adjudicate on the validity of the Acquisition Act in Ismail Faruqui Vs. Union of India (1994 (6) SCC 360). The Judgement delivered by Justice Verma on behalf of the majority held the Act as a whole to be valid, striking down only Section 4 (3) of the Acquisition Act on the ground that extinction of judicial remedy for resolution of the dispute without providing any alternative dispute resolution forum amounts to negation of rule of law. The Section 4 (3) is as follows:
“If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding in respect of the right, title and interest relating to any property which has vested in the Central Government under Section 3, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate.”

Even while holding Section 4 (3) to be void and unconstitutional, the majority Judgement upheld the Constitutional validity of the rest of the provisions of the Act, including that of Section 3 by virtue of which, right title and interest of the 67.703 acres of land area, including the site of Babri Masjid stood transferred and vested in the hands of the Central Government. The minority Judgement delivered by Justice Bharucha delivering judgement on behalf of himself and Justice Ahmedi held that the section 3, 4 and 8 are unconstitutional.

The majority Judgement held that the land of even mosque can be compulsorily acquired by the state and it stood on the same footing as that of other places of worship. While there can be no quarrel with that, the effect of compulsory acquisition could not be lost in the case at hand. The minority judgement held that secularism is absolute and

“the state may not treat religions differently on the ground that public order required it. … When adherents of the religion of the majority of Indian citizens make a claim upon and assail the place of worship of another religion and, by dint of numbers, create conditions that are conducive to public disorder, it is the constitutional obligation of the State to protect that place of worship and to preserve public order, using for the purpose such means and forces of law and order as are required. It is impermissible under the provisions of the Constitution for the State to acquire that place of worship to reserve public order. To condone the acquisition of a place of worship in such circumstances is to efface the principle of secularism from the Constitution…”
Section 7 of the Acquisition Act is slanted in favour of the Hindu community as section 7 (2) required maintenance status-quo as prevailed before 7-1-93, which would mean that idols must be retained where they were before 7-1-93 and puja as carried on as before. Section 7 would entail idol would remain and puja continue for an indefinite period.

The Ayodhya Judgement thus struck down only section 4 (3) of the Acquisition Act as per the majority Judgement and as a result of striking down Section 4 (3) all the Suits pending before the High Court revived and the High Court is now hearing the suit day to day. The minority Judgement, however, held that the Acquisition Act vested a whole bundle of rights in the Central Government, including that of the disputed site. According to Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, the Central Government was enabling provision and the Central Government could further transfer whole bundle of right and property to any authority or a body or a trust on terms and conditions that the Central Government might think fit to impose. Those terms and conditions are not specified in the Act, nor is there any indication in that behalf available. The majority Judgement however held that after the pending dispute was adjudicated, the Central Government would hand over the disputed site in accordance with the adjudication to appropriate authority, trust or body. In the event the adjudication is in favour of litigants from minority community, would the Central Government with any political party in power have the political courage to hand over the disputed site to a body, authority or trust of minority community to reconstruct the demolished mosque? That remains to be seen.

Conclusions
To summarise, admittedly, Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi in the year 1528 and is noted in the waqf register of Sunni Central Board of Waqf. In 1885 and 1886, the claim of the Hindu litigants was only on the Chabutra as they wanted to construct a structure to protect the devotees from the vagaries of the weather and no more. On the strength of adverse possession, the courts dealing with the dispute during the colonial period rejected the prayers of the Hindu litigants to construct any structure even on the Chabutra.

The prayers were rejected even though the courts held (it is not known on what evidence) that the Masjid was built on land held sacred by the Hindus but that occurred 356 years ago on the same spot. After independence, the Hindu litigants adopted incremental approach, slowly enlarging their rights and claims with combination of surreptitious acts, agitational mobilisation and repeated applications to the court. Surreptitious acts when no legal claim left on their side. Another round of litigation on threat of agitational mobilisation. The claims were based not on the strength of title to the property but on their right to unhindered and unrestricted worship.

After the idols were smuggled inside the Mosque, there was another round of litigation, which virtually ignored the title and turned the court into a receiver of the property giving the Hindus increasing access to the property as and by way of right to worship, while the Muslim community was denied the access in spite of the fact that the property was a waqf property. After the locks were opened in 1986 on the ground that there would be no problem maintaining law and order if the locks are open, the Hindu nationalist forces were emboldened even more. As they were mobilising their forces and indulging into hate propaganda, the State remained a mute bystander refusing to act and take preventive measures for maintenance of law and order. Even the courts when they had the opportunity did not act decisively and the hoodlums of Hindu supremacist forces were allowed to assemble in large numbers, ultimately resulting in demolition of Babri Mosque and construction of a make shift temple.

The Courts as well as the executive rewarded those who demolished the Mosque by legitimising the “rights” acquired by force in the name of maintaining status – quo and maintaining law and order. The Central Govt. acquired the disputed site and the surrounding areas under the Acquisition Act, thus depriving the Muslim litigants of their defence or claim of adverse possession to the disputed site. The Supreme Court majority Judgement legitimised the acquisition by state in the name of maintaining public order. The litigants from the minority community, we feel, are fighting a losing battle – not because their claim to the title of the disputed site is weak or defective, but because they cannot match the power of the Hindu supremacist forces in creating law and order problem, which is material in influencing the decision making in our country. The Hindu supremacist forces have enlarged their rights and claims from Chabutra to worship on the disputed site not because of their legitimate claim but by threatening not to obey the orders of the Court in matters of “faith”.

Let us pray that the Supreme Court won’t be swayed by the might of the parties and faith but will do justice focussed on Constitution and law of the country.

1...1,5651,5661,567...2,697 Page 1,566 of 2,697

Hate Hatao: CJP’s launches a digital weapon to fight hate

On the 71st anniversary of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, a true messiah of peace, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has launched Hate Hatao, a revolutionary new app designed to fight hate that can be used by anyone with an Android smartphone.

The govt needs to wake up before it’s too late for forest and tribal rights

The communities will have to assert themselves politically and support parties and candidates who support the forest rights issues in their campaign and demand the inclusion of Forest Rights in election manifestos.

#IndiaUnites: Nine Day Joint Agitation to Begin Against Modi’s Anti-People Policies

Why Police Action Across UP’s Hate-Crime Hot Spots Is Causing Fear And Alarm Among Muslims

Mumbaikars march in silence to pay homage to Mahatma Gandhi

On the occasion of the 71st Death Anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi on the 30th of January, a citizen’s collective is organising a silent march at 3 pm from Mani Bhavan, Grant Road to August Kranti.

In Jogendra Nath Mandal’s Pakistan, Asia Bibi wouldn’t have needed Canada’s asylum

Mandal, the first Law Minister of Pakistan and chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, was deeply disappointed with the attitude of Pakistani ruling elite towards the Dalits as well as the Muslims and Hindus in East Bengal who faced regular discrimination and violence.

Gandhi or Godse, India must Decide

This piece published in Communalism Combat in October 2000 was the reproduction of the translation of a Gujarati pamphlet authored by ही late, Chunibhai Vaidya from Ahmedabad

Rewarding Those Who Demolished the Babri Masjid: A History of the Ayodhya Dispute

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT