First published on: 01 Feb 2011

I am a journalist and given the timing of this meeting, I should probably first mention a disclaimer. Though I am from the English mainstream media, I don’t figure  in the Radia tapes. You may therefore hear me with a degree of indulgence. I don’t take dictation from any corporate lobbyists. I don’t toe any government line. If I travel with anybody, it is more with activists like Teesta Setalvad and I’m very proud to say so because I see no contradiction in this. I don’t feel compromised when I speak or when I espouse public causes. And Ayodhya is one such. And if I may extend the Radia tapes metaphor, Ayodhya has been a bit like the Radia tapes of our claim to be secular. From 1949 onwards, Ayodhya has been a major challenge which showed how hollow our pretensions are, right from the way in which the establishment responded to the 1949 episode.

I am very conscious of the fact that I am the third speaker here and that I come after Anupam Gupta who gave us such a comprehensive account of the systemic response to the 1949 and 1992 episodes concerning Ayodhya. So I will try not to tread over the same ground. I will try to deal with the few gaps that have been left in an otherwise very comprehensive exposition. One that comes to mind offhand is the reference made to the 1994 judgement of the Supreme Court, given during the follow-up to the demolition, on the law (the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993) that the Narasimha Rao government came up with. What the Supreme Court gave to the nation smacked of a Hindu bias and this was underlined by the fact that it was a split verdict. The three judges who gave the majority judgement, and this is probably no coincidence, were all Hindus and the two who gave the dissenting opinion were non-Hindus, one was a Parsi and the other a Muslim.

The reason I make reference to this is because the Allahabad high court in 2010 likewise delivered a split verdict in the Ayodhya case. Much of the truth about the 1949 episode is reflected essentially in Justice Khan’s judgement even though it was absolutely central to determining who this disputed site should be given to. The whole basis for the claim arose from the illegal act that took place on December 23, 1949 and yet it was given short shrift in the two judgements delivered by the Hindu judges. And this should be a matter of great concern to us. There is a need for our judiciary to appear more assertive in displaying our secular commitment.

Another issue that has not been dealt with in great detail and which I will therefore take up concerns the criminal proceedings that followed after the 1992 episode. The manner in which the state responded to this crime was as strange as the manner in which it responded to the crime of 1949. The crime of 1949 was a turning point in the history of modern India; yet though a first information report (FIR) was formally lodged, it has never been investigated. This was an episode unlike any other in our history, an episode that has led to so many subsequent crimes; it has polarised the nation and continues to dog us even today. There has been no judicial finding on the illegality of what happened that night in 1949 or on culpability, on who was responsible for it.

Similarly, with regard to the 1992 episode, there have been FIRs – not one but as many as 49 FIRs – and the proceedings are still going on, there has still been no judicial finding on what happened on that fateful day, December 6. Of these 49 FIRs, only two really matter in the immediate context because the other 47 relate to attacks on journalists so I will dwell a little longer on these two. The first one, FIR No. 197/92, deals with the demolition per se, the run-up to it, the conspiracy that led to the demolition, the people who were involved in that demolition. The other FIR, No. 198/92, deals with the inflammatory speeches that were delivered by eight main leaders of the sangh parivar from a makeshift dais, Ram Katha Kunj Manch, erected not very far from the Babri Masjid as it stood that morning. The FIR dealing with the demolition did not name any accused persons at all. The police were probably justified in doing so because their focus was on the kar sevaks (who had been actively engaged in the demolition) and so this FIR, which was registered on the evening of December 6, names no names at all. FIR No. 198 names eight sangh parivar leaders. This is not the strange part. The strange sequence of events begins thereafter.

Much of the truth about the 1949 episode is reflected essentially in Justice Khan’s judgement of 2010 even though it was absolutely central to determining who this disputed site should be given to. The whole basis for the claim arose from the illegal act that took place on December 23, 1949 and yet it was given short shrift in the two judgements delivered by the Hindu judges

For some reason the centre, which had taken over the administration of Uttar Pradesh through president’s rule soon afterwards, chose to refer the demolition FIR, No. 197, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) while the FIR dealing with the inflammatory speeches delivered by sangh parivar leaders, which is probably a more sensitive issue, more politically sensitive at least, was referred to the Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID), of the Uttar Pradesh police. There was really no reason for the two to be separated. Both pertained to the same crime; there was a link, an organic link, between them. These inflammatory speeches were made not very far from the scene of the crime, where the demolition was going on, and they were addressed to kar sevaks who were gathered there while the crime was taking place simultaneously. And there were witnesses to all of this. It is very logical to infer that inflamed as they were by these speeches, those kar sevaks were encouraged to indulge in that crime. The two cases were linked yet for some reason the Congress government of Narasimha Rao – I mention this because there’s this rhetoric about the Congress being a secular party and so on and so forth – did this very strange thing, of separating the two cases. They were given to two different agencies. (While FIR No. 197 was handed over to the CBI, FIR No. 198 was to be prosecuted by the state CID in a special court in Lalitpur, later moved to Rae Bareli.)

Then a few months later it wakes up to the incongruity of this duality and it clubs the two cases together and gives them to the CBI. And then it also refers the two cases to one special court (a special CBI court set up in Lucknow). The reason I mention this is because it was in this special court that the CBI in 1993 first filed a joint charge sheet related to both FIRs, wherein these leaders, Advani and company, were named, in the context of the demolition, as conspirators. They were very much a part of the conspiracy and there was ample evidence of this. After all, in the run-up to the demolition there were the two rath yatras that converged in Ayodhya, one led by Advani, the other led by Murli Manohar Joshi, inviting people to come to Ayodhya in large numbers for the alleged kar seva; and on the eve of the demolition there was a secret meeting at the residence of Vinay Katiyar, the then MP from that area – which the CBI charge sheet refers to – where the finer details of this conspiracy were probably discussed. This charge sheet was filed in October 1993, nearly a year later.

In 1997 Judge Jagdish Prasad Srivastava of the additional (special) sessions court, Lucknow, frames charges. He passes an order prima facie accepting, taking cognisance, of all the charges made by the CBI so now there is a judicial stamp on these charges. A lot of the CBI’s findings were endorsed by this judge and he was poised to call each of the accused persons before court to read them the charges. It was at this stage that this legal process was interrupted. Some of the persons named in that charge sheet (a total of 49 persons were named in the charge sheet – somehow the figure 49 keeps recurring in this context!) went to court, the Allahabad high court, and got a stay order on proceedings.

This stay order was finally lifted in 2001 by which time the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was in power at the centre, by which time Advani was sitting in North Block as home minister and, if I am not mistaken, was probably even deputy prime minister of India. Whether he was, whether he had acquired that designation by then or not, he was very much a powerful leader. The Allahabad high court, speaking through Justice Jagdish Bhalla, said, look, there was a flaw, a procedural flaw, in referring the political leaders’ case, the inflammatory speeches case, to the special court at Lucknow but the saving grace is that it is a defect that can be cured. Now all that the then BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, led by Rajnath Singh, had to do in terms of the high court order was to issue a fresh notification so that the reference of that case, No. 198, was made in a proper manner.

After that, for weeks on end Rajnath Singh would keep saying, he would mystify it: “Oh, we are looking into it, we have referred this to our legal experts, they will do the needful.” And sure enough, they did nothing of the sort. That vacuum allowed the special sessions court in Lucknow, a sessions judge called Srikant Shukla, to separate the two cases completely. He said that the leaders, Advani and company, would no longer be tried for the demolition in this special court. They would be tried separately, if at all, for the lesser offence of inflammatory speeches.

The term ‘legal fiction’, so often used, has acquired a very perverse meaning in the context of Ayodhya. The legal fiction here is that we are today confronted with a situation where, even as we speak, proceedings are going on in the Lucknow special court dealing with the Ayodhya demolition while the special court in Rae Bareli deals exclusively, wearing blinkers, with the issue of inflammatory speeches. The fact that the two are linked is totally overlooked. The fact that you can’t talk about conspiracy without bringing leaders into it is overlooked. Look at the joke that is being played on us. I am not talking about the September 30, 2010 judgement of the Allahabad high court. I am talking about the related issue of criminal proceedings and the farce that is being perpetrated on us even today. There is so much hype about our being a rising power in the world and so forth but look at the manner in which more and more people are able to mock at all notions of the rule of law, of secularism.

The continuing joke is that in the Lucknow special court, accused persons whose names you have never heard of, whose faces you would not recognise, some anonymous kar sevaks, are being tried for the crime of conspiring to demolish the Babri Masjid all on their own, without the knowledge or involvement or instigation of any of these sangh parivar leaders, of the VHP, the BJP, the RSS, etc. That is the implication of their being tried in isolation, of only these unknown persons being tried for the demolition. And in Rae Bareli, you have the sangh parivar leaders being tried and being tried for what? Only for delivering inflammatory speeches which, as far as the courts are concerned, have nothing to do with the demolition because they will look at the issue of inflammatory speeches in isolation. And if that were not farcical enough, we must also bear in mind that we witnessed during the NDA’s reign a glaring instance of how the judiciary often does the bidding of the executive (just as, in the context of the Radia tapes, you have heard that journalists do the bidding of corporate lobbyists). So much for the independence of the judiciary.

We have seen how in 1986, in the context of the Shah Bano case and all the flak Rajiv Gandhi was getting for what he was doing to allegedly appease Muslim fundamentalists, he came up with this brainwave of doing a balancing act and got his administration to take the necessary steps to get the locks of the Ayodhya shrine opened. The Babri Masjid, which was kept under lock and key from 1950 onwards to keep the dispute under control, was suddenly opened. We have heard about the manner in which the then district judge, KM Pandey, referred to some divine inspiration that he got from a monkey, which he even mentions in his memoirs. This was an instance of courts doing the bidding of the government.

 
Similarly, in the NDA’s time when the inflammatory speeches issue was taken up and charges were to be framed, what does the court do? The Rae Bareli court? It discharges the person who for all practical purposes was the face of the Ayodhya movement, the so-called Ayodhya movement. The 1986 incident, of the locks being broken open and Hindu devotees being allowed to have darshan of Ram Lalla inside the Babri Masjid, gave momentum to this movement. And the face of this movement – especially after the BJP’s Palampur resolution in 1989 (openly supporting the VHP’s demand for building the Ramjanmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya) – was LK Advani. Minus Advani, minus his genius, his political skills, it would probably not have acquired these proportions. This leader was discharged. He was there on the dais but he was discharged while other leaders were still going to be prosecuted.

We have little evidence, documentary evidence, of the demolition. The 47 other cases that were registered by the police along with the two cases I have been talking about involved attacks on journalists. Why were these cases registered? Many of these journalists were there to do independent work and they were inconvenient to the kar sevaks, to the sangh parivar types. So while part of the telltale evidence of a conspiracy was the manner in which they stealthily removed the Ram Lalla idols before the demolition, further, very clear, evidence of it was the orchestration of events. It was not as if some people got carried away by their emotions and started attacking the Babri Masjid. On the contrary, while one section of kar sevaks was engaged in the demolition, there was another section that very systematically attacked journalists. As soon as they saw a camera, they would smash it, they would scare the journalists away, they would intimidate them, they would beat them up – there were actual instances of this nature. That is how those 47 cases of attacks on journalists arose. In spite of all the demolition, you only have little bits of evidence here and there, like the photograph of Uma Bharti hugging Murli Manohar Joshi, which have survived those attacks. This is because of the kind of crime it was, the mass crime that took place in Ayodhya, when even journalists were not spared.

Advani was discharged on the testimony of his security officer, one very upright young Indian Police Service officer called Anju Gupta. And what does her testimony say? In her testimony, and this is something that anybody who reads it will know, she is nailing his claims, his much touted claim that December 6, 1992 was the saddest day of his life. The author of this movement, the man who did whatever he could to bring things to that stage on December 6, had the gumption to say that that was the saddest day of his life. But she gave us a ringside view of what was happening on the dais, what the conversation was, how he was very much a part of the jubilation.

This lady goes on to give further evidence about how Advani was very much a part of all the jubilation and how there was a time when he was concerned about the kar sevaks who were on top of the structure, engaged in the demolition. His concern was not to stop them, his concern was not to bring them down and save the mosque. His concern, and this comes through very clearly in Anju Gupta’s testimony, was that because there were a lot of kar sevaks at the ground level who were simultaneously demolishing the structure, there was a great probability of those who were on top of the structure being hurt, of their falling down and getting hurt. That was his concern and that is why he sent Uma Bharti there to dissuade them, to tell them to come down. Those were his concerns; there was no anxiety being displayed by him to stop anything. This is what came through in her testimony.

Yet the special court in Rae Bareli, when it discharged Advani during the NDA’s reign, actually cited Anju Gupta’s testimony – the judgement was in Hindi, the judge used the expression “ati mahatvapurna (exceedingly important)” – as the crucial basis on which he was letting off Advani. So much for this rule of law that we all keep buying into.

When there was a change of regime in 2004, this farce was corrected. Advani was brought back into the case. And given the background circumstances, I dare say that this judicial correction would not have taken place but for the fortuitous circumstance of the government having changed at the centre.

In the Lucknow special court, some anonymous kar sevaks are being tried for the crime of conspiring to demolish the Babri Masjid without the knowledge, involvement or instigation of any of the sangh parivar leaders. And in Rae Bareli, the sangh parivar leaders are being tried only for delivering inflammatory speeches

These events are all interconnected. The fact that the 1949 FIR has never been followed up, that there have been no convictions, is no coincidence. And it doesn’t end there.

To come back to the Supreme Court and the judgement of 1994, there is more to it than the split verdict on the then government’s proposed new law. There was another very farcical aspect that pertains to contempt of court. During the run-up to the demolition this matter was also before the Supreme Court.

As we are now aware, the intelligence reports issued prior to the demolition were very precise and any administration would have known from those reports that there was imminent danger to the structure. So there was wilful negligence on the part of the centre, on the part of the Narasimha Rao government, in this regard. Simultaneously, there was a public interest petitioner, Mohammad Aslam Bhure, and his counsel, OP Sharma, who were very valiantly fighting a battle before the Supreme Court. Their applications were based on newspaper reports that said the same thing: that what was going to happen on December 6 was very serious, that the threats cannot be taken lightly – these were issues that were brought before the court. And more importantly, the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice MN Venkatachaliah had one very compelling reason to take these warnings seriously.

In July 1992 proceedings were underway before the Supreme Court, also at the instance of Bhure, on the construction of a platform near the Babri Masjid that was going on at the time. The court kept on ordering the Kalyan Singh government to stop this, to respect the status quo order, and yet the construction took place. The first contempt notice to Kalyan Singh was issued in July 1992 in this context and then, on December 6, this great crime takes place. These warnings should have been taken seriously. The undertakings given by the same Kalyan Singh who so wilfully violated and disobeyed the Supreme Court orders in July 1992 should therefore not have been taken seriously. Yet the Supreme Court in its wisdom decided to allow symbolic kar seva to take place.

How much of this was based on their commitment to the rule of law, how much of it was because they were Hindus, I don’t know. Despite the background, the Supreme Court trusted these fellows to perform a symbolic kar seva. And when this belief of theirs was belied, was completely shattered, sure enough, the Supreme Court, for national consumption, to the delight of our newspapers and TV channels, came up with some very strong observations: This is the greatest ever perfidy, there can be no greater instance of contempt of the Supreme Court, an otherwise mild judge really thundered in the courtroom, making someone like KK Venugopal, who was representing the Kalyan Singh government, say: I’m ashamed my lord, I was not privy to this conspiracy. When my clients said that they were going to observe the rule of law, that they were going to ensure that no damage would take place to the structure, I took their word for it. That was the kind of drama that took place in the court soon after the demolition. This was part of the same response.

And then, along with the 1994 judgement wherein the post-demolition measures taken by the government were examined by the Supreme Court, the court also dealt with the issue of contempt. The media and most people thought that the one-day sentence awarded to Kalyan Singh in that context was for the demolition but it was actually for the July 1992 instance of contempt, the first contempt notice. The judges wilfully kept clear of the act of contempt that was committed on December 6, 1992. To date, just as the 1949 FIR has still not resulted in a charge sheet and prosecution, this greatest ever contempt, as we were told it was subsequent to the December 6 incident, has still not been disposed of. No action has so far been taken. It is as if the judges don’t want to take chances with Lord Ram’s wrath.

Their inaction is not very different from the actions of Judge Pandey of the Uttar Pradesh judiciary who saw the hand of Hanuman, Hanuman’s benediction, in his decision to open the gates of the Babri Masjid. One cannot help seeing such significance in their eloquent silence on taking action against the December 6 act of contempt. And such silence is not an isolated instance.

We saw a similar silence in the context of the Supreme Court’s judgement on Hindutva in 1995. To make a brief reference to the Hindutva judgement… How do you talk about whether Hindutva is really liberal and in consonance with the Constitution without talking about what exactly Veer Savarkar, the man who coined that expression, had in mind: What was his definition of Hindutva, how did he propound this very pernicious theory that India belongs more to those whose birthplace and sacred land is India? This was an aspect that was totally glossed over by the Supreme Court in its Hindutva judgement as it merrily went along with the view that Hindutva is no different from Hinduism, the catholic, liberal interpretation of Hinduism.

I look at all of this as an outsider, as a representative of the media; I’m sure those of you who are from within the system can see this farce even more clearly than I do.

Archived from Communalism Combat, February 2011 Year 17    No.154, Section 1-Silence is Eloquent

The post When silence is eloquent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Women Speak From Margins of Ayodhya Dispute appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Press statement

Around 100 Muslims from across India, including an Islamic scholar, social activists, lawyers, journalists, businessmen, poets, actors, film makers, theatre personalities, musician, students, farmers and home makers have opposed the decision of several of the Muslim litigants in the Ayodhya dispute to challenge the recent unanimous decision of a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in favour of a Ram Temple at the disputed plot. 

“We share the unhappiness of the Indian Muslim community, constitutional experts and secular organisations over the fact that the highest court in the land has placed faith above law in arriving at its decision. But while agreeing that the court order is judicially flawed, we strongly believe that keeping the Ayodhya dispute alive will harm, and not help, Indian Muslims”, says the statement. 

Full text of the statement:

“We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned over the decision of several of the Muslim litigants in the Ayodhya dispute to challenge the recent unanimous decision of a constitution bench of the Supreme Court in favour of a Ram Temple at the disputed plot. 

“We share the unhappiness of the Indian Muslim community, constitutional experts and secular organisations over the fact that the highest court in the land has placed faith above law in arriving at its decision. But while agreeing that the court order is judicially flawed, we strongly believe that keeping the Ayodhya dispute alive will harm, and not help, Indian Muslims. 

“We urge fellow Muslims to ponder over what has been gained and what has been lost in the course of the over three-decades-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. Has it not meant loss of previous Muslim lives and countless property on one side and the meteoric political ascendency of the sangh parivar on the other? Have we not learnt through bitter experience that in any communal conflict, it is the poor Muslim who pays the price?

“Many have been advising Muslims to ‘move on’. Our appeal to fellow Muslims is to ‘move away’ from the mandir-masjid dispute since it only helps to mask the real agenda of the sangh parivar: the replacement of our secular-democratic republic with a Hindu Rashtra.

“We believe that continuation of the dispute in the court will add fuel to anti-Muslim propaganda and Islamophobia, aid further communal polarisation. On the other hand, in choosing not to pursue the matter further, Muslims stand to gain the goodwill and empathy of the non-communal millions from the majority community. This will be in the best interests of the community and the country.”

Signatories

1.      Aariz Mohammed, Social activist, Hyderabad

2.      A. J. Jawad, Advocate, Chennai

3.      Abdul Kader Mukadam, Author, columnist (Marathi), Mumbai

4.      Afaque Azad, Musician, Social Activist, Mumbai

5.      Aftab Khan, Journalist, Nasik

6.      Afzal Patel, Hotelier, Social Activist, Mumbai

7.      Akbar Shaikh, Farmer, Activist, Solapur

8.      Anjum Rajabali, Film writer, Mumbai

9.      Arif Kapadia, Activist, Businessman, Mumbai

10. Arshad Alam, Academic, Columnist, Delhi

11. Gulam A Vahanvaty, Rotarian, Businessman, Mumbai

12.  Hafiz Ali, Teacher (Urdu), Jalgaon

13. Hamida Latif, Social activist, Mumbai

14. Hasan Kamaal, Poet, Senior Journalist, columnist (Urdu), Mumbai

15. Irfan Engineer, Social activist, Mumbai

16. Javed Anand, Journalist, Human Rights Activist, Mumbai

17.  Javed Siddiqi, Film writer, Mumbai

18.  Kaniza Garari, Journalist, Hyderabad

19. Kasim Sait, Businessman, Social Activist, Chennai

20. Khalil Deshmukh, Social Activist, Jalgaon

21. Mohammed Imran, Lucknow

22. Mohib Ahmad, Social activist, Bhopal

23. Muniza Khan, Human rights activist, Varanasi

24. Naseeruddin Shah, Actor, Mumbai

25. Nasreen Contractor, Social Activist, Mumbai

26. Nisar Ahmed Khan, Senior Journalist (Urdu), Aurangabad

27. Nuruddin Naik, Businessman, Mumbra, Thane

28. Saleem Khanba, Advocate, Bhiwandi

29. Sana Deshmukh, Advocate, Mira Road, Thane

30. Shabana Azmi, actor, ex-MP

31. Shahbaz Khan, Community leader, Mumbai

32. Shakil Sayed, Social Activist, Mumbra, Thane

33. Shama Zaidi, Film-maker, Mumbai

34. Shamima Martin, Retired Secretary, UK

35. Taizoon Khorakiwala, Businessman, Mumbai

36. Zeenat Shaukatali, Islamic scholar, Mumbai

37. Zuleikha Jabeen, Social Activist, Delhi

38. Mubarak Badshah Shaikh, Retired govt. Servant, Akluj, Solapur

39. Babu Badshah Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

40. Raju Dastagir Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

41. Rafik Dastagir Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

42. Samir Yasin Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

43. Faruk Bagwan, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

44. Sardar Nabi Shaikh, Farmer, Ambe, Pandharpur taluka, Solapur

45. Pappu Sardar Shaikh, Farmer, Ambe, Pandharpur taluka, Solapur

46. Karishma  Rafik Shaikh, Home-maker, Ambe, Pandharpur taluka, Solapur

47. Rashida Hiralal Sheikh, Home-maker, Ambe, Pandharpur taluka, Solapur

48. Rehana Mubarak Shaikh, Home-maker, Akluj taluka, Solapur

49. Shakira Amir Shaikh, Home-maker, Daund, Pune

50. Banu Babu Shaikh, Home-maker, Pandharpur, Solapur

51. Saif Ali Babu Shaikh, Businessman, Pandharpur, Solapur

52. Asif Hamju Mulani, Businessmen, Sangola, Solapur.

53. Rijwana Hamju Mulani, Businessmen, Sangola, Solapur.

54. Tehsin Riyaj Mulani, Home-maker, Pune

55. Mehajabeen Hamid Mulani, Home-maker, Pune

56. Najama Shabbir Mulani Home-maker, Akluj, Solapur

57. Fariyal Mansoor Mulani, Home-maker, Akluj, Solapur

58. Wahiduddin Shaikh, Advocate, Latur.

59. Sattar Badshah Attar, Social activist, Satara

60. Abdulkarim Inamdar, Social activist, Satara

61. Amjad Mubarak Shaikh, Government servant, Akluj, Solapur

62. Shamshad Amjad Shaikh, Teacher, Akluj, Solapur

63. Hamid Yusuf Mulani,  Teacher, Akluj, Solapur

64. Hamaju Kaka Mulani, Teacher, Sangola, Solapur

65. Amir Mubarak  Shaikh, Gram Sevak, Daund Pune

66. Rajiyasultana Rajjak Mujawar, Government servant, Pandharpur, Solapur

67. Rajjak Lalu Mujawar Teacher, Pandharpur, Solapur

68. Mohasin Rajjak Mujawar, Businessmen, Pandharpur, Solapur

69. Amin Hamid Shaikh, Political activist, Pandharpur, Solapur

70. Firoj Hiralal Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

71. Rafik Hiralal Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

72. Hiralal Nabi Shaikh, Farmer, Pandharpur, Solapur

73. Fatehali Hamid Mulani, Farmer, Pune

74. Haidarali Hamid Mulani, Engineering student, Pune

75. Abedali Haidar Mulani, Engineering student, Pune

76. Mansoor Shabbir Mulani, Engineering student, Pune

77. Hamid Kader Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

78. Mahmud Karim Mujawar, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

79. Rajmahamad Abdul Inamdar, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

80. Farukh Kader Mulani, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

81. Sikander Gani Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

82. Irshad Rafik Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

83. Salim Ibulal Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

84. Aslam Rajak Maneri, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

85. Shokat Abdul Khatib, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

86. Akram Aslam Mulani, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

87. Farukh Vakil Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

88. Imran Husain Inamdar, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

89. Akbar Badshah Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

90. Rashid Ilahi Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

91. Sarfaraz Dastagir Bagwan, Social Activist, Sangola, Solapur

The post ‘Review petition will harm, not help, Muslims’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath organised a massive demonstration against the Supreme Court verdict regarding the Babri Masjid verdict, condemning the decision, saying the promise of rebuilding the mosque was never fulfilled. 

“While so much injustice has been done to Muslims, an image has been strongly being portrayed as if the Muslims unanimously had accepted the verdict…to ensure that it is not misrepresented in history, Tamilnadu Thowheed Jamaath is holding a massive protest,” said the organisation.

TNTJ said the Supreme Court was expected to provide judgement based on laws instead provided the verdict based on beliefs. “This decision has been extremely disappointing for Muslims, who were hoping for justice,” the organisation added. 

Tamilnadu Thowheed Jamaath also appealed to the Muslim proponents to not accept this 5-acre land offered to them.

Courtesy: Two Circles

The post Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath takes out a massive protest in Chennai against Ayodhya verdict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post In place of shock and despair, we need steps towards justice and deepening democracy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Painting of Lord Hanuman by M.F.Husain

The post God Is Everywhere: A Hindu Reflects on A-Yodhya appeared first on SabrangIndia.

(Representational/File) 

Listen, Mister Muslim. You are rightly upset with the verdict of the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya land dispute as it puts faith above law. Not for the first time, secular India has let you down. But truth to tell, you too have let secular India down. In this zero sum game between the Indian state and you, it’s been advantage Hindutva all the way.

This is not to rub salt in your wound. But to point out that Muslims as a community are guilty of the very same thing they are accusing the Supreme Court of: Pitching Shariah law against the Indian Constitution, faith against the law of the land. The rigid, intransigent Islam that our ulema and political leadership continue to preach leaves us little space for manoeuvre or room to negotiate a respectable place for ourselves in a secular-democratic polity. Such inflexibility is bound to land us in the ditch, again and again, be it on the question of a masjid, triple talaq, Muslim Personal Law in general, or the issue of population control.

It’s time for some honest introspection. Was it not us who took to the streets in 1985, protested aggressively against the apex court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case, insisted that Shariah law took precedence over the secular law of the land?

The then Congress government under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi capitulated and the result was the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Faith triumphed over a secular law (Section 125 of the CrPC) and Muslims were euphoric. The consequence: Secular-minded Indians were outraged, while Hindutva organisations grabbed the opportunity to up the ante. If the law can be changed in deference to Muslim religious sentiments, what about Hindu religious sentiments? In a balancing act, the Rajiv government engineered the opening of the locks of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Could it be, Mister Muslim, that in setting a dangerous precedent, we lost the “plot”, not on November 9, 2019 but way back in 1986?

As the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi agitation snowballed, thanks to the ulema’s myopia, what should have remained a legal dispute over land turned into a dharam yudh between faiths, a conflict between Ram and Rahim. The militant “mandir wahin banayenge” war-cry of the “Ram Bhakts” was matched by the equally belligerent “once-a-mosque-always-a-mosque” posture of the Muslim leadership. It’s a position that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) upholds even today. The leader of the All-India Majlis Ittehadul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), Asaduddin Owaisi, has recently reiterated: “A mosque belongs to Allah and no Muslim has any right to give or gift it away”. In Islamic Saudi Arabia any number of mosques have been demolished or relocated for road widening and other public purposes. But in secular India, it’s a different Islam.

The escalation of communal conflict well suited the designs of the Sangh Parivar in convincing more and more Hindus that “Babar ki aulad” are preventing the building of a temple at the birth place of Lord Ram. From two seats in the Lok Sabha in 1984, the BJP’s tally shot up to 85 seats in 1989 and 120 seats in 1991. This should have been a wake-up call for Muslims. But as riot after riot claimed more and more Muslim lives, the leadership remained blind to the reality that a state which failed to protect lives was unlikely to save a mosque.

Does anyone recall the statement of the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee a year or two before the demolition: “The mosque is sacred to Muslims, the spot is sacred to us Hindus as the janamsthan of Bhagwan Ram. I appeal to my Muslim brothers. We Hindus will respectfully lift the Babri Masjid brick by brick and re-build it at another spot. You let us build our Ram Mandir there.” The Muslim response: A mosque does not mean four walls but the land on which it stands. In other words, it’s not a question of law but a matter of faith.

Five months before the Babri masjid was demolished (December 1992), in an article published in the now defunct weekly Sunday Observer, yours truly had argued why in the interest of the minority community and the national interest, Muslims should unilaterally hand over the Babri Masjid, either to the president of the Indian republic or the Supreme Court. Let the chief custodians of secular India decide whatever they thought to be in the best interests of national unity and communal amity. The article reminded Muslims that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, offered statutory protection against any future agitations concerning all other mosques in the country. In response, I got a mouthful from even secular Hindu friends who asserted: “The Babri Masjid is not just a property of Muslims. It is a symbol of secular India. Who are you to gift it away?”

The post Listen, Muslim Bhai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 9th of November was, indeed, a very interesting Saturday. The world celebrated the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall; Sikhs rejoiced their visa-free darshan of holy Kartarpur Sahib Gurudwara within Pakistan; many Muslims prepared for the imminent birthday of Prophet Muhammad; while Kolkata and Mumbai braced for deadly cyclones, even as it rained incessantly. But all eyes were on the Supreme Court in Delhi as it finally delivered its verdict in the epoch-making dispute at Ayodhya, over which thousands had already lost their lives. Interestingly, even those who had orchestrated the orgy of riot, arson and murder, both before and after razing the masjid in 1992, were not prepared to take chances. Armed police and paramilitary forces had been positioned in all sensitive areas. Every sentence that the Chief Justice uttered on behalf of the Bench of five judges was relayed instantly over the mass and social media, as never before.

The primary concern of millions was peace — peace at any cost — and one must compliment the Bench for its Herculean task of giving hearings and examining mountains of evidence. Its mammoth order of 1045 pages  balances conflicting interests quite dextrously. Many heaved a sigh of relief when it awarded the disputed 2.77 acres to Hindus. Majoritarian violence was avoided and many shudder to think of scenes had if it been otherwise. Maintaining law and order is, however, the responsibility of the executive, however unpleasant, dangerous and onerous be it. Delivering justice can often be more difficult and painful, but if the judiciary also considers the law and order aspect, the executive stands to benefit. Only time will tell whether we shall see difficult decisions that cause public uproar like the Sabarimala temple matter, in future.

But justice has also to be seen to be ensured. It is for legal experts to commend or question the highest court’s ultimate decision that “the evidence…….in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to……the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.”. What tilted the balance was the court’s view that “evidence indicates that despite the existence of a mosque at the site, Hindu worship at the place believed to be the birth-place of Lord Ram was not restricted.” The Sunni Wakf Board’s plea that a mosque had physically occupied the plot from 1526 to 1992 was insufficient to prove continuous occupation and uninterrupted worship. Some Muslims are, therefore, aggrieved that amorphous claims of continued worship finally won. Though the Bench reminded us that “the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence”, murmurs are already being heard that faith and its continued expression may actually have loomed quite large.

At the same time, the Supreme Court also overruled the earlier decision of Justice DV Sharma of the Allahabad High Court in September 2010, as it had opened the floods-gates of bringing Ayodhya type disputes regarding possession of religious sites to courts for orders. In 2010, it had gladdened sadhus and the Hindu right, but left liberals had severely condemned it. The present verdict negates it and clearly mandates that ‘status quo’ be maintained and “The Places of Worship Act” of 1991 be respected. This may help hold the peace at other volatile religious sites like Kashi and Mathura, but one can no more be certain. At the same time, we may face ticklish problems when archeology proves that some Hindu temples may have been built on existing or ruined Buddhist structures. 

Justice Ashok Ganguly, who retired from the Supreme Court, has recently raised some uncomfortable doubts on the archaeological evidence, as “the structure under the mosque” is not conclusively “that of a temple” which was demolished to build Babri Masjid. As Culture Secretary, I had worked with the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) and was thus exposed to the sensitive and speculative nature of their findings, like those at Ayodhya. Some pillars and figurines were definitely found below the Masjid’s land, any some opine that these are Hindu in style, but without further excavation, the, ASI was not certain that that they were surely part of a Hindu temple. In fact, Dr AK Narain of Benaras who led an early excavation at Ayodhya in 1969-70 was convinced that there was a strong Buddhist presence there. Dr BB Lal who led excavations in 1975-76, as the “Archaeology of Ramayana”, never submitted a full report to ASI. But he wrote in the RSS magazine, Manthan in October 1990 about a Hindu structure. In 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered ASI to undertake yet another excavation which it did and even used “ground-penetrating radar”. Since this ASI report of August 2003 is with the court, we need to examine it when it becomes public. Newspaper and internet reports, however, indicate that both Arabic and Devanagari inscriptions were found and also that the evidence is yet to prove the existence of any Ram temple there. 

Indian jurisprudence has numerous judgements on how the state should keep its distance from religion, as we are a secular polity. One wonders, thus, whether it was essential for the court to mention that a temple is to be built at the spot. After all, from the Vedic period till the Guptas, i.e, for about 1600 years, we have no proper evidence of Hindus worshipping in temples. It is only in the 5th century that we come across  the first Hindu temple at Sanchi, and the other magnificent temples we know were all built later, between the 7th and 11th centuries. Besides, will one mandir at Ayodhya satisfy restless souls?

The Bench has done a lot of soul searching while examining its evidence and has issued several statements condemning the destruction of the masjid and its desecration in 1949. The Honourable court has set quite a few deadlines for the government to comply. Many Indians also hoped that a firm deadline be set finally, for a decision on the 30 year old cases to punish those who destroyed the masjid. They have wrecked not just a religious structure, but also our pride and faith in India’s  secularism.

The article was published in English edition of Ananda Bazar Patrika and is being published here with Authors acknowledgement
 

The post Ayodhya Verdict: Has Faith Prevailed Over Justice? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Babri-Ayodhya verdict: Will appeal for peace apply to Hindutva hardliners in future? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Babri Masjid and Supreme Court of India

The five-member constitution bench of the Supreme Court began their 1045 page verdict by aptly calling the Ayodhya dispute almost as old as the idea of India. Then the bench reminded us of our ancient civilisational values of assimilation, inclusion and harmony as well as modern constitutional principles of secular democracy that our founding fathers had followed despite the counter-currents in the stormy days of Partition. At the fag end too, the court stressed on the constitutional principle that ‘all forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal’ and those who ‘interpret the Constitution, enforce it and engage with it can ignore this only to the peril of our society and nation’.

Explaining further in the ‘conclusion of title’ of the 1500 square yards of the disputed land in Ayodhya, the bench insisted that ‘the court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence’. Nevertheless, the bench noted several times that the Muslim side did not question the Hindu faith about Lord Rama’s birth in Ayodhya. They had only contested the claim that he was born precisely under the central dome of the demolished Babri mosque and denied that the mosque came up over the ruins of an earlier temple dedicated to the deity.

The bench rigorously examined the findings of Archeological Survey of India and its earlier scrutiny by the Allahabad bench of Lucknow High Court. Though the ASI excavations (sans the area where the idol of Ramlala is ‘virajman’ since 1949) in 2003 found elaborate ruins of earlier non-Islamic structures of different periods of our history, the SC bench did not find categorical confirmation or conclusive proof of an ancient Rama temple underneath. So the purported original sin of the founder of the Mughal dynasty or his henchmen; construction of a mosque on the man-made ruins of an ancient temple dedicated to the popular icon of Hindu faith and glory, was not established.

ASI report was inconclusive

The bench rigorously examined the findings of Archeological Survey of India and its earlier scrutiny by the Allahabad bench of Lucknow High Court. Though the ASI excavations (sans the area where the idol of Ramlala is ‘virajman’ since 1949) in 2003 found elaborate ruins of earlier non-Islamic structures of different periods of our history, the SC bench did not find categorical confirmation or conclusive proof of an ancient Rama temple underneath. So the purported original sin of the founder of the Mughal dynasty or his henchmen; construction of a mosque on the man-made ruins of an ancient temple dedicated to the popular icon of Hindu faith and glory, was not established.

The contest over possession

However, the bench noted the long-drawn communal contest over the piece of land during the colonial period. “On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857.”

So, despite the lack of evidence of total and continued possession by the Muslims, the existence of a functioning mosque was accepted.

In contrast, “The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century. However, there is evidence to show that namaz was offered in the structure of the mosque and the last Friday namaz was on 16 December 1949”.

So, despite the lack of evidence of total and continued possession by the Muslims, the existence of a functioning mosque was accepted.

Violation of rule of law in between 1949-1992

Moreover, the bench noted the reasons for intermittent discontinuity. “The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship. ”

Commenting on more recent development, the bench noted: “During the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.” Observing that,’ there was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims’, the lordships pointed to the court’s constitutional duty. “The Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied. Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.”

The twist in logic

 However, the logical underlining of verdict took unexpected twists and turns at the remedial order. First, bench set aside the ‘three-way bifurcation’ of disputed land ordered by the High Court in 2010 as both’ legally unsustainable’ and ‘not feasible’ in terms of ‘maintaining public peace and tranquility’. As the ‘disputed site ad-measures all of 1500 square yards’, it’s division ‘ will not sub-serve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquility’, the bench argued.

So, the lack of evidences for continued and total possession, particularly before and after 1857 (year of first Hindu-Muslim joint struggle for Independence) when both Sunni Mughal power and Shia Nawabs in Oudh were powerless and the mutiny-struck colonial Raj had unfolded it’s divide and rule policy, became crucial for the denial of the land title or part of it to Muslims. Perhaps this the first time, the law on adverse possession or lack of it as well as religious texts and colonial historiography have been used to this extent to buttress majority faith-based claims.

True, hawks at both sides have succeeded in stalling an out of court consensus, thus binding the hands of the court. But the invocation of article 142 of the constitution empowered the court to find a more imaginative and equitable way of sharing based on the syncretic tradition of Ayodhya, still practiced despite marginalization by the excluvists in both communities as well as letters and spirit of the constitution.

But the claims of the majority faith were accepted because ‘on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims’. So the bench decided to hand over ‘the disputed site comprising of the inner and outer courtyards’ to Ram Lala Virajman, a party to legal contest as a ‘juristic person’ or a rightful holder of the property in law.

Further, the deity is granted human agency of his ‘next friend’, or VHP-controlled Ram Janan bhoomi Nyas to represent Him and maintain his rights. The claim of Nirmohi Akhara, a much older Monk order of Ram-Sita bhakta but not controlled by the Sangh parivar for traditional sevait rights stands rejected, though it has been given a berth in a government-run trust.

The bench first condemned ‘egregious violation of rule of law’ and ‘calculated’ crimes against the Constitution by the Hindu zealots in between 1949-92. But in queer turn in their infinite acumen and wisdom, finally awarded the criminals what they had asked for; exclusive right to the disputed land, simply because the latter claimed to be the rightful representatives of the presiding deity and in turn, the majority faith. The logic only legitimises the postmodern vandals and de facto acceptance of their misdeeds.

So, the lack of evidences for continued and total possession, particularly before and after 1857 (year of first Hindu-Muslim joint struggle for Independence) when both Sunni Mughal power and Shia Nawabs in Oudh were powerless and the mutiny-struck colonial Raj had unfolded it’s divide and rule policy, became crucial for the denial of the land title or part of it to Muslims. Perhaps this the first time, the law on adverse possession or lack of it as well as religious texts and colonial historiography have been used to this extent to buttress majority faith-based claims.

What does it mean?

The bench first condemned ‘egregious violation of rule of law’ and ‘calculated’ crimes against the Constitution by the Hindu zealots in between 1949-92. But in queer turn in their infinite acumen and wisdom, finally awarded the criminals what they had asked for; exclusive right to the disputed land, simply because the latter claimed to be the rightful representatives of the presiding deity and in turn, the majority faith. The logic only legitimises the postmodern vandals and de facto acceptance of their misdeeds.

Nonetheless, the bench found it ‘ necessary to provide restitution to the Muslim community for the unlawful destruction of their place of worship’. “Having weighed the nature of the relief which should be granted to the Muslims, we direct that land admeasuring 5 acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya.” But again, it is almost in the line of what the Sangh Parivar spin-masters had been selling for long: there is only one Ram Janamsthan, so vacate it and make a mosque elsewhere.

This Devil’s bargain, now legitimised in law, may be less sinister than the Partition but still gargantuan. With the zombie’s appetite is now being whetted, it’s not likely to stop at Ayodhya but march forward to Kashi and Mathura.

Courtesy: enewsroom.in

The post Reading SC order on Ayodhya: Condemn the Sin but Concede to Sinners appeared first on SabrangIndia.