Journalist Sajeda Momin, covering the demolition, recalls the scene thus,
 

I can still see the thousands of saffron-clad ‘kar sevaks’ clambering atop the 16th century mosque and pounding it with shovels, iron rods, pickaxes and anything they could lay their hands on. I can hear the screeching of Sadhvi Uma Bharti egging them on shouting “ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tod do” through the microphones from atop the specially-built watchtower for the BJP/RSS/VHP leadership. I can visualize the three domes of the mosque collapsing inwards one by one at intervals of roughly an hour on that cold, wintery Sunday afternoon.

Everyone knew who were the dramatis personae at each level – and practically every bit of evidence that would ever have been required exists, captured in videos and photographs. Our present prime minister was said to be  one of the key organizers of the of the Rath Yatra that led up to the demolition and can be seen holding the microphone in his  hands in the photograph below.

Rath Yatra – precursor to the demolition, image courtesy Quora.com

Worse was to follow the demolition. The  demolition of the structure of the mosque was over that day but the process of the demolition of the Indian Constitution that had begun with what was called the ‘Ram janmabhoomi movement’ continued. By ‘Constitution’ I do not simply mean the book that embodies the law of the land but rather the very weave that came to constitute Indian society as a result of the new contract that the document called the Constitution embodied. Constitution, therefore in a triple sense. The document called the Constitution too was not merely a book of laws; it was rather, the only existing, largely agreed upon, vision of a modern India. It was a vision which was put in place through the long process of struggles, debates and contestations over the long decades of the anticolonial movement and finally given shape in, in the Constituent Assembly. There was nothing benign or innocuous about it – every bit of it had to be achieved through a fight. And yet, in the end, that was the document that embodied the vision of modern India. The only political current that stood far away from both the anticolonial struggle and had no role in the creation of this vision is the political force that rules India today.

The RSS and its numerous offshoots were neither fighting the British nor joining in the anti-caste and anti-untouchability struggles through the period since they came into existence in the mid-1920s. No wonder leaders of the Sangh combine think the anti-colonial/ national struggle was about cow-protection. That they neither subscribed to the anti-British agenda nor to the anti-caste agenda around which struggles of that period took shape, is not just a matter of historical record but is also visible in the way its leaders and ranks conduct their politics today. Every single step taken by the Sangh leaders is a step out of sync with the vision of the future spelt out by the social contract of modern India. That the Sangh attributes this vision to the Congress is an expression of its own illiteracy about the diverse forces in struggle throughout that period.

Even though it is conducted in the name of Hindus, there is nothing ‘Hindu’ about its agenda. Sangh and Sanghism is the name of a malignant political machine that seeks to destroy the very body of society in the name of an ancient past. That is the political machine we confront today. That is the political machine that we must fight today with all our vigour.

Courtesy: Kafila.online
 

The post The Indian Constitution too was Demolished Along With Babri Masjid 25 Years Ago appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian Express dated April 20 , 2017  in its Editorial observed “Finally, the wheels of justice are turning in the Babri Masjid demolition case. The possibility of due process leading to justice and closure in one of the most seminal cases in India’s political history seems within reach now, 25 years after the 16^th century mosque at Ayodhya was demolished by Sangh Parivar activists in the wake of the Rath Yatra of the-then BJP Chief L.K.Advani, shaming a nation and setting powerful new political dynamics in motion. The Supreme Court’s order on Wednesday sets back on track the judicial process and lays down conditions to ensure that the trial is not delayed or compromised further.”
Following the 1984 Elections in which Rajiv Gandhi had a clean sweep, BJP could secure only 2 seats in Lok Sabha. The Sangh Parivar started a campaign for the construction of a magnificent Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple at the site and by 1985 built up a sizeable support in the Hindu Community.In January 1986, locks were removed from the mosque and Ram bhakts were permitted to offer prayers to Ram lala .It is said that the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi ordered the Chief Minister Veer Bahadur Singh to do so who got the District Administration to ensure this .The two major political parties BJP and the Congress started a race on pandering to communal Hindu sentiments. In 1988 ,Hindutva Organizations led by the RSS organized a mass campaign for building a grand temple exactly where the Mosque stood. They claimed that the Mosque stood at the precise site where Ram was born.

 Union Home Minister Buta Singh signed an agreement with the VHP on August 17, 1989,that bricks for constructing the temple would be allowed to be brought from all over UP without hindrance and collected at the plot No. 586 near  the mosque .This agreement was in violation of an order of the Allahabad High Court given on August 14, 1989 that no construction activity could be taken at that spot.

Later ,the VHP announced that ‘kar sewa’ would be performed to lay the foundation stone .This was also a violation of the judgment given two days ago,prohibiting any such activity .This repeated defiance ,of the orders of the court did not weigh with the Prime Minister who inaugurated the campaign of Congress Party the next day from twin city of Faizabad, and announced that the objective of the party was to establish Ram Rajya. Soon thereafter the BJP   President Advani, at Palampur ,after the National Executive Meeting ,announced that the inclusion of the construction of the temple in its Election Manifesto "would fetch votes" for it. It would thus appear that the two major political parties were in a race to gain political mileage from this issue between 1984 and 1989.

Looking back at the developments around 1989, we are reminded how Mandalisation was made an effective issue  by the casteist forces in answer to BJP’s Kamandalisation. Very soon, casteist forces came to acquire political legitimacy by projecting themselves as political forces opposed to communalism, and in order to appear so, they masked themselves as “secularists”, though the truth was that they had discovered “caste politics” as a potent instrument to win success at elections without even doing anything while in power for solving the basic problems of the masses. There emerged a consensus among various political parties to maintain their vote banks by dividing the people on caste and communal lines.  Non-performance by a party in power became irrelevant because of its potential to work out a favourable caste arithmetic and win elections. Communalism on the one hand and casteism on the other thus acquired a firm sway over the Indian polity. If anything, it were the three C’s—centralisation, corruption and criminalisation—coupled with the caste  and communal divide, engineered by opportunistic political forces as the shortest route to quick success, which made all the relevant issues, concerning the public, irrelevant. While corruption and criminalisation sapped the soul out of the ideal of people-oriented democratic governance, centralization of political authority led to an unaccountable bureaucratization of governance.

In this backdrop the movement to construct a Ram temple at the sight of the Mosque  also gathered momentum in 1989 and has continued till 1992. The Supreme Court in M.Ismail Farooqui vs UOI,(AIR 1995 SC 605) noticed: “A new dimension was added to the campaign for the construction of the temple with the formation of the Government in Uttar Pradesh in June 1991 by the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) which declared its commitment  to the construction of the temple………….The focus of the temple construction movement from October 1991 was to start construction of the temple by way of ‘kar-sewa’ on the land acquired by the Government in Uttar Pradesh while leaving the disputed structure intact. ….There  was a call for resumption of kar sewa from December 6, 1992 and the announcement made by the organizers was for a symbolic kar-sewa without violation of the court orders   including those made in the proceedings pending in this court. Inspite of initial reports from Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 indicating an air of normalcy, around mid-day a crowd addressed by leaders of BJP, VHP, etc.,  climbed the Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid (RJB-BM) structure and started damaging the domes. Within a short time, the entire structure was demolished and razed to the ground. Indeed it was an act of “National Shame” what was  demolished was not merely an ancient structure ; but the faith of minority in the sense of justice and fair play of majority. It shook their faith in the rule of law and constitutional processes. A five hundred year old structure which was defenceless and whose safety was a sacred trust in the hands of government was demolished.”

 In a speech from the Red Fort in Delhi on August 15, 1992 which was broadcast , the Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao had already said  that “The Babri Masjid structure will be protected and the Ram temple built”. This assurance would lead people to draw a conclusion that the Ram Temple was not to be built on the site of the Babri Masjid because that structure was to be protected. The destruction of the Babri masjid had deeply wounded the religious feelings of the Muslim community throughout india and the least that could be done to sooth those injured feelings was to assure the community that the Babri Masjid was to be rebuilt. The Prime Minister gave that assurance on Dec 7 ,1992, and he referred to it on February 7 , 1993 in the BBC ‘Phone-in programme’ . He said “ I thought it was necessary, it was my duty to rebuilt the Mosque.”
 “ The judgments delivered by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on September 30, 2010 on the Babri Masjid cases not only flagrantly violate the law and the evidence but a binding unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on the Babri Masjid case itself (M. Ismail  Faruqui  and Others vs Union of India and Others  (1994)6 Scc 360. It sanctified the conversion of a historic mosque ,which stood for 500 years into a temple.” Said A.G.Noorani in his article “Muslims Wronged” in Oct 22 ,2010 issue of Frontline . Noorani further says in the same article , “On the Babri Masjid ,for 60 years from 1950 to 2010, Muslims have been woefully wronged by every single court ruling ,including that of the Supreme Court after the demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992”.

 An eminent jurist and Senior Advocate of Supreme Court T.R.Andhyarujina  in his article (The Hindu ) Oct 5, 2010 said “The absence of any condemnation of the vandalism of the demolition of the Babri Masjid on Dec 6, 1992 is a conspicuous aspect of the Ayodhya verdict of the Allahabad High Court .”  T.R.Andhyarujina further says in the same article :  “The  Ayodhya judgments  of the  Allahabad High Court make no note of the vandalism of Dec 6, 1992 .On the other hand ,they take the demolition as a fait accompli, as if the disputed 2.77 acre site was vacant land .After holding that the area beneath the central dome of the erstwhile Masjid must be allotted to Hindus because of their faith that Lord Ram’s place of birth was there ,and the areas covered by the Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoi should be allotted to the Nirmohi Akhara ,the court has said that the remaining area of the disputed site should be divided, two-thirds to the two Hindu plaintiffs and  one third to the Muslim plaintiff by metes and bounds .These judgments, therefore legalise and legitimise the 1992 demolition, as the decree of the court proceeds on the basis that there is no Masjid on the disputed site today.

It is an elementary rule of justice in courts that when  a party to a litigation takes the law into its own hands and alters the existing state of affairs to its advantage,(as the demolition in 1992  did in favour of the Hindu plaintiffs ), the court would  first order the restitution of the pre-existing  state  of affairs .”

H.M.Seervai ,one of the most distinguished constitutional lawyer in a two-part article “Babri masjid” published in Economic Times on April 9 and 10, 1993, said:
“The destruction of the Babri Masjid put an end to all previous controversies raised by Hindu organisations about their alleged rights to erect a temple on the place where Babri Masjid stood. This is because no Court will give any assistance to those who unilaterally by criminal acts destroyed the subject matter of this dispute and violated the constitution and the law .”

The Allahabad High Court verdict came on September 30, 2010 during UPA-II regime. After Allahabad High Court judgment a grave and serious danger to Indian democracy appeared on the horizon. This verdict gave a legal shape to the political agenda of the Sangh Parivar “Mandir wahin Banaenge”  and has legitimised the Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992 giving them a way to claim to construct a “Grand Temple” at the sight of the demolished Masjid  and gave a boost to the BJP to contest 2014 Elections based on this issue.

Although against the Allahabad High Court judgments many appeals were  filed in the Supreme Court (which are still pending), and the question as to whether they could  construct a temple at the site of the Mosque had yet to be finally decided by the Supreme Court, the  Sangh Parivar continued  with their campaign for 2014 elections that they would   construct a Grand Temple . This judgment gave strength to the BJP and the power behind it- the RSS and the Sangh Parivar consisting of such organization as the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal. They gave to Indian politics a heady mixture of aggressive hindu communalism and an equally aggressive hindu nationalism. In that process they promoted enemity between the Hindus and the Muslims. The movement fostered by these forces  contains all the essential characteristics of fascism.

It was after about three and a half months from December 6, 1992 and the demolition of the Babri Masjid, that the 13^th J.P.Memorial Lecture was delivered by V.M.Tarkunde on March 23, 1993. The subject of the lecture was Communalism and Human Rights . V.M. Tarkunde said in that lecture: “ I am of the view that the communalist nationalism which is being propagated by the BJP and the Sangh Parivar represents a far greater danger to Indian Democracy than the personal authoritarian rule which Mrs. Indira Gandhi and the  Gandhi-Nehru family were likely to impose on the country.  A personal authoritarian rule is a lesser danger because it is largely external to the people. Most of the people do not approve it, although they are usually too afraid to stick out their necks and openly oppose it ….Communalism, however , particularly when it is the communalism of the majority and can therefore take the form of ardent nationalism as well , can find a positive response in the minds of the people who are still prone to religious blind faith and among whom the humanist values of democracy , i.e, values of liberty, equality and fraternity are yet to be fully developed. Communalism in such cases is an internal enemy in the human mind and it is far more difficult to eradicate it than an external enemy like an autocratic ruler .” V.M. Tarkunde cautioned about the possibility of the BJP coming into power in the next elections (after demolition of the Mosque in Dec 1992). In this context he said in his memorial speech “as the Congress –(I)  is now much weaker than before and the opposite parties are unable to unite –to form an anti-communal secular platform , the BJP expects to come to power in the next election. If this happens , the secular democracy in India is liable to be replace by a potentially fascist theocratic state.” However , it did not  so happen in the next election. But in 1999 BJP led coalition NDA formed the govt. with Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Prime Minister,with a strong opposition in Parliament. What VM Tarkunde apprehended in 1993 did happen in 2014: with the the victory of Modi with a huge margin to Parliament and faced with a weak and divided opposition.

Now after three years of the victory of Modi in the Centre , Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu icon has been elected as the leader of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Party and installed as Chief minister .The BJP has secured  a majority of 325 members in the Legislative Assembly having the strength of 403 . Yogi has the reputation of being a hardcore Hindu leader . His becoming the Chief Minister shows that Hindutva is sweeping the country. It also shows that secularism has not taken roots in our country. The Hindutva elements  are gradually sweeping the country. These developments are a serious threat to the state of human rights in the country and all concerned citizens need to seriously give a thought to how they have to meet this grave challenge.
 

The post Hindutva’s Sweep over India, A Grave Challenge appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We will not accept the discharge of Advani and others on technical grounds. We will allow you (CBI) to file a supplementary chargesheet against 13 persons by including the conspiracy charges. We will ask the trial court to conduct a joint trial,” the court told CBI.

The apex court’s order, according to NDTV, will reveal on 22 March whether Advani, now 89, and his other party colleagues including Murli Manohar Joshi and Union Minister Uma Bharti will be on trial for conspiracy.

This charge was dropped by lower court before being upheld by Allahabad High Court too.

Two sets of FIRs were filed after the Babri Masjid was demolitions by Hindutva supporters on 6 December 1992. The first FIR was against senior leaders Hindutva leaders including Advanai, Joshi, Bharti and Bal Thackeray, while the second FIR was against unnamed karsevaks.

Thackeray’s name was removed from the accused after his death.
 

The post Supreme Court to CBI: Won’t accept dropping of charges against Advani in Babri masjid demolition case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Balraj Madhok & other leaders
 
According to the autobiography, Upadhyaya’s murder was engineered by those who were kept out of leading positions by the BJS president. It is to be noted that after taking over as president of the BJS from Madhok in December 1967, Upadhyaya had denied important posts to Vajpayee and Deshmukh. According to Madhok, Upadhyaya was murdered because, “he was constantly striving to ensure that ill-reputed people get no promotion in BJS, so that the organisation’s reputation is not tar­nished. Because of this some characterless, self-seeking people saw him as a stum­bling block in their path.” (p. 145)
 
In identifying who these “characterless, self-seekers” were, Madhok minced no words. According to the autobiography, he was all too familiar with them during his own stint as BJS president before Upadhyaya: “Some time back when I was the president of Jana Sangh, Jagdish Prasad Mathur, in-charge of the central office who was staying with Atal Behari at 30, Rajendra Prasad Road, had complained to me that Atal had turned his house into a den of immoral activities. Every day new girls were coming there. Things were getting out of hand. So as a senior leader of Jana Sangh I have dared to bring to your notice this fact, he told me. I had some information about the character of Atal, but I did not know that the situation had deteriorated so much. I called Atal to my residence and in a closed room inquired from him about matters raised by Mathur. The explanation he offered further confirmed the facts conveyed by Mathur. I suggested to him that he should get married, otherwise, he was bound to get a bad name, and the reputation of Jan Sangh too would suffer.” (p. 25)
 
As a close and keen observer of devel­opments in BJS in the immediate post-Upadhyaya period, Madhok was astonished to find that a dominant section of the RSS lead­ership was bent upon making Vajpayee president of BJS. This was hap­pening despite the fact that Madhok did bring all these facts to the notice of the then sarsanghchalak of RSS, MS Golwalkar. According to him the meeting took place in Delhi in early 1970. “After listening to me he [Golwalkar] kept quiet for some time and then said: ‘I know of the weaknesses in the character of these people. But I have to run an organisation. I have to take everybody together, so like Shiva I drink poison everyday.’” (p. 62)
 
The autobiography went on to relate developments akin to palace intrigues. "It has been the tradition of Jan Sangh that if the president expires before completing his term, the senior vice-president is given the responsibility for the rest of the term. So I thought that Shri Pitamber Das or principal Dev Prasad Ghosh will be given this respon­sibility. Atal Behari Vajpayee was nowhere in the reckoning (Atal Behari Vajpayee kisi ginti maen nahin thaa). I was stunned when informed that Sangh leaders wanted to make Atal Behari Vajpayee president”.
 
“Immediately after becoming president, he removed Jagannath Joshi from the impor­tant post of organisation in-charge (sangath­an mantri) and appointed Nana Deshmukh to this post. Thus two persons who were direct beneficiaries from the murder of Shri Upadhyaya were those whom dur­ing his tenures as BJS general secretary and president he had adopted a conscious policy of keeping away from important posts.”(pp. 16-17)
 
Madhok made serious allegations against Vajpayee and Deshmukh holding them responsible for thwarting any probe in the “murder” of Upadhyaya. According to him, whatever public posture RSS might have taken over Upadhyaya’s death, Vajpayee treated it as a simple accident. When Madhok confronted Vajpayee on the issue, the latter is claimed to have retorted: “Deendayal was a hot-headed (jhagdaloo) person; he might have picked a quarrel with someone in the train and in the scuffle got pushed out and died. Do not call it murder.” (p. 16)
 
Madhok goes on to narrate how both Vajpayee and Deshmukh allegedly tried to mislead the Justice YV Chandrachud Commission of Enquiry which was constituted to uncover the truth concerning Upadhyaya’s death. “When the Chandrachud Commission started the enquiry, I was informed that BJS president [Vajpayee] has given the whole responsibility of presenting Jan Sangh’s case before the commission to Deshmukh. So from the Jan Sangh side only those would appear as witnesses who have been hand-picked by Deshmukh and without his permission no other member of Jan Sangh could appear as witness. I was expecting that I will surely be presented before the commission. But I did not figure in the list of witnesses prepared by Nana Deshmukh… In such a situation the Chandrachud Commission failed in unraveling the mystery of this murder. From the attitude which was adopted by Vajpayee and Deshmukh in relation to the enquiry commission and from the kind of witnesses presented I can only conclude that instead of unveiling the truth they were interested in a cover up.” (p 19)
 
As mentioned earlier, Madhok also pointed fingers at Balasaheb Deoras, who became the RSS sarsanghchalak in 1973 after Golwalkar’s death. “After becoming BJS president, the stature of Shri Deendayal Upadhyaya grew further. Some felt that he might become the next sarsanghchalak of RSS. This possibility was unacceptable to some of the self-seeking Sangh people, especially Balasaheb Deoras. They started feeling that due to Deendayal their chances of further advancement might be jeopardised. Possibly, this is the reason that after the murder of Deendayal, he not only took direct interest in making Vajpayee president of Jana Sangh but also helped in covering up the murder of Deendayal. He wanted me to stop talking about it as a murder and describe it as an accident like him. But I was not ready to hide a fact witnessed by my own eyes and verified.” (p. 21)
 
The autobiography highlighted the allegedly degenerate personal and political life of Deoras. Referring to the Emergency days of 1975, Madhok states: “Sarsanghchalak of the Sangh, Shri Balasaheb Deoras was held under MISA. In contrast to the life of struggle and idealism of Shri Golwalkar, he was fond of good living. That is the reason why he wrote two letters, on August 22, 1975 and November 10, 1975, to Indira Gandhi for reconsidering her attitude towards the Sangh and lifting the ban on it. He also wrote a letter to Shri Vinoba Bhave requesting his help in removing the misgivings Indira Gandhi had about the RSS." (p. 188-189)
 
According to Madhok, Vajpayee and company continued to make all kinds of efforts to finish off his political career. They even succeeded in expelling him from the primary membership of BJS in 1973. Madhok was bitter about LK Advani who allegedly was a puppet in the game. Madhok wrote that his expulsion was “an immoral, unconstitutional and criminal act. In this, Sarkaryavah of the Sangh, Balasaheb Deoras and some other parcharaks including Madho Rao Mulay and organising secretaries played a prominent role. They used Atal as a shield and Advani as a puppet.” (p. 144)
 
Madhok was scathing in his comments on Advani, the ‘Iron Man’ of Hindutva. “The position of Lal Krishna Advani was like a puppet. He was not qualified for the post [presidentship of BJS] which was given to him after discarding many senior workers. I knew through my personal experience that he is a boneless wonder. He has neither personal integrity nor opinion. But he is lucky. In gratitude for the office which he received as a prasad from Vajpayee and officials of Sangh, lacking self-esteem, he acted as a bonded labourer for any job assigned to him.” (p. 146).
 
Madhok claimed in his memoirs that when Swamy sought a fresh commission of enquiry during the Janata government’s rule in the late 1970s, it was scuttled by Vajpayee and Advani. Madhok is now no more. Last year, the RSS-directed, BJP-dominant, Modi-led government observed a year-year celebration to mark the centenary of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya. Among other things postage stamp was issued in his name.
 
“A beacon of selfless service & an excellent organiser, I bow to our inspiration & guide, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya on his birth anniversary”, Modi had tweeted on September 25, 2015. But celebrations apart, no one in the sangh parivar, except Upadhyaya’s family and Subramanian Swamy are interested in solving the mystery of his untimely death.
 
Was Upadhyaya killed by two thieves while travelling in a Lucknow-Patna train on February 11, 1968, as concluded by a CBI investigation? While the accused were acquitted for want of sufficient evidence, the Chandrachud Commission of Enquiry appointed subsequently more or less concurred with the CBI’s findings. Was he a victim of a Congress plot as alleged in the recent period without a shred of evidence? Or was Upadhyaya assassinated by jealous, self-seekers within the BJP and the RSS as alleged by Madhok?              
 
While the mystery of Upadhyaya’s death is unlikely to be solved, why none of the stalwarts of the BJS/RSS whom Madhok accused of criminal conspiracy ever sued him will remain as much a mystery.
 
(‘Deendayal Upadhyaya ki hathtya se Indira Gandhi ki hathtya tak’ by Balraj Madhok (volume 3 of his Zindagi ka Safar) is available at Dinman Prakashan, 3014 Charkhaywalan, Delhi-110006).

The post Balraj Madhok: A Pracharak-turned-Crusader against His Own ‘Parivar’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.