Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth (AVAP), founded by late VHP leader Ashok Singhal, recently organized a two day seminar “Shri Ram JanamBhoomi Temple: Emerging Scenario” in the Arts Faculty of the Delhi University starting on January 8, 2016. As the Head of the Peeth, Subramanian Swamy led the seminar. The venue was booked by a member of National Democratic Teachers’ Front, the right-wing teachers’ group on Campus. On the morning of January 9, the University Campus was converted into a veritable police camp, with a large number of armed personnel. This, however, did not deter the protestors. Students and teachers of various left organisations, Congress and AAP students’ wings continued to raise slogans for several hours against the communalisation of campuses and made several attempts to break through the barricade.

Subramanian Swamy told the media that a “blueprint” for building the Ram temple will be unveiled at the seminar. In his inaugural lecture, he emphasised that the construction of the Ram Janambhoomi temple is important for the realization of Ashok Singhal’s dream. Later in the day, he tweets an offer (threat!) “We Hindus offer Lord Krishna's package to Muslims–give us 3 temples and keep 39,997 masjids. I hope Muslim leaders don't become Duryodhans”. On the second day, his tweet read “Finally today with help of police force deployment of Namo Govt we held our seminar and made left wing loonies look like pathetic orphans”. He claimed that the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya could start before the end of the year. With the recent reports from Ayodhya suggesting that truckloads of bricks have arrived there for the building of the temple, the seminar must be viewed as another step in that direction.

By holding this seminar in a premier central university, the BJP-RSS-VHP aimed at polarising the youth. Soon after its announcement, some young men on the evening of January 5, applied saffron paint to the Vivekananda Statue at Arts Faculty.

Image Courtesy: Abha Dev Habib

The Peeth, which could have organised the seminar in any paid space in the city, wanted to host it at DU to gain legitimacy, to claim later that the “blueprint” was an outcome of a seminar at a University. The Kar Seva for the Ram Janambhoomi Temple and the divisions it will create seem to be essential to the BJP’s plan for 2017 Vidhan Sabha elections in UP. They have little else to offer.

The Ram Janambhoomi seminar also seems to be part of a larger design to penetrate into Central Universities, which are centers of mass education. Yogi Adityanath was invited to Allahabad University [1] by the ABVP members on the Students’ Union. Similarly, Ramdev was invited to be the keynote speaker at the valedictory ceremony of the Vedanta Congress at Jawaharlal Nehru University [2], At both Allahabad University and JNU, students’ opposition saw cancellation of the programmes.

In order to dilute the “intolerance” debate in the country, Swamy and his followers labelled the protest against the seminar as an act of “intolerance”. They tried to equate the protests against the communalisation of Campuses to the unprecedented attack on freedom of speech and expression in the country and on its plural culture by BJP-VHP-RSS.

Universities as centers for providing space to one and all are also under threat. The termination of services of Sandeep Pandey, professor in the department of chemical engineering at IIT-BHU for his “anti-national activities” is a recent example. Professor Pandey, a Gandhian, is a renowned social activist and a Magsaysay award winner.

Ever since the NDA Government came into power in May 2014, there has been a multi-pronged attack on the education sector. The re-writing of school textbooks has begun [3] and insistence on including the Gita as part of the school curriculum has followed[4]. Both moves are part of the Hindutvawaadis and their time-tested patterns of hegemonising the education sector. The attacks on institutes of higher education began with the appointments of Heads who little known for their academic work or contribution(s).  The appointments of Gajendra Chauhan as Chairman of the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), [5] Y. Sudershan Rao to head the ICHR [6] and Pahlaj Nihalani of the Censor Board [7]aare some glaring examples. The hosting of a seminar on the Ram Janambhoomi issue seems to be part this overall design: reaching out to a section of the youth with a hegemonic divisive agenda and through this, communalising the educational environment.

The Hindutva agenda seems to be closely linked with the Government’s plan of furthering the commercialisation of Higher Education in tune with the requirements of WTO-GATS terms. When the protesting FTII students met Arun Jaitley, Union Information and Broadcasting Minister, he hinted that if the students did not cooperate “they might have to face the bleak prospect of shutdown and eventual privatisation”. Weak heads of institutions find it difficult to resist the Government’s agenda, and are ready to bend backwards, surrendering the autonomy of the institution.

In the 2015-16 the overall education budget of the Centre is down from Rs. 82,771 crore to Rs. 69,074 crore, revealing the Governments priorities! In the last one year, both the IITs and CSIR labs have been told to generate their own funds (for research) and the budgets to Universities and Colleges have been slashed on one pretext or the another. The Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD) has also tried to stop the non-NET fellowship for M.Phil and Ph.D. students. Disregarding and violating autonomy of Universities and their needs, the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) with common syllabi prepared in the University Grants Commission (UGC) was also imposed unilaterally, without any discussions, despite agitation and protests from teachers and students.

Converting Campuses into zones of communal hatred will only help them to quickly bring down the premier public funded universities, to shoo away all those who can afford or take loans to study in private universities, domestic and foreign.

Image Courtesy: Abha Dev Habib

The Question
Leaders of independent India realized that the country needs to look forward and saw education as the means of fighting socio-economic disparity and superstition; to further and deepen the ethos of secularism and democracy. They identified education as a means of developing the scientific temper, a much needed ingredient for building a modern India. This became the rationale behind providing public funded education.

Universities, embedded in a larger social fabric, are not completely free from the ills prevalent in the society. While many public funded universities have been completely destroyed, a few have resisted the collapse and tried to generate and maintain a culture of critical thinking. Generations of teachers and students have worked hard to create an environment where young men and women coming from various sections of society can interact and partake of a meaningful education.

The communalisation of universities will lead to a degeneration of this academic environment, place faith and identity over scientific temper and critical thinking. It is important to remember that today’s Afghanistan and Syria were not created overnight. The question before us is to once again choose between faith and rationality.

The only way out (Ekhee Rasta)
As a teacher opposing the Ram Janambhoomi seminar at DU, I was invited to a television debate on the issue. Reacting to my opposition, the RSS spokesperson, Vinod Bansal was quick to throw their definition of nationalism: "अगर भगवन राम के प्रति आस्था नहींहै, तो देश के प्रति भी आस्था नहीं है "(If one does not faith in Lord Ram, then one has no faith in the nation).  His definition did not shock me. The fact that he was, however, brazenly able, to say this,  without any hesitation on a national channel brought the looming crisis home to me. The threat is real and imminent.

The only way forward is to keep resisting as we have done at Delhi University. The only way forward is also to create situations whereby a Delhi and a Bihar can repeat in other states.

(The writer is Joint Secretary, Democratic Teachers’ Front and Member, Executive Council, Physics Department of the Delhi University)

The post Kar Seva through Universities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
A Joint Press Conference of several organizations affiliated to the left was organized at 2 pm today, January 8, 2016 to protest the Delhi University’s permission to host a seminar on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue on January 9. See https://sabrangindia.in/article/protests-against-colouring-du-saffron

The protests against the seminar by Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth ‘to mobilise public opinion for the Ram Janambhoomi temple’ is growing. Addressing the meet at the gate of the Arts Faculty, which is the chosen venue for the proposed seminar, students and teachers reiterated their demand that permission for such a seminar that actually seeks to spread the politics of division within the University and permission should be withdrawn.

Speakers included professors, Shaswati Mazumdar, Germanic and Romance Studies and President, DTF, Sunil Kumar, History Department, Ali Javed, Urdu Department, Najma Rehmani, Urdu Department, Rukmani Sen, President, Ambedkar University Delhi Faculty Association and Madhu Prasad, member, AIFRTE. The press conference was also addressed by representatives from students’ organisations including Chinglen Khumukcham (NEFIS),   Rahul Sarkar (AIDSO), Aman Nawaz (AISA), Prashant Mukherjee (SFI), Deepak Gupta (PACHHAS), Subhash (KYS), Amrita (AISF), Divya (Disha), Ayantika (DSU), Chaitanya (Nowruz) and Kuldeep (BSCEM).

Professor Sunil Kumar (Department of History) pointed out that in the last five years, the DU administration has done everything possible to suppress the culture of debate. The administration has been consistently denying space for teachers and students to hold meetings or discussions. The permission to the seminar on Ram Janambhoomi to the Peeth clearly shows that the administration is patronising a particular ideology. It was this same administration that forced the Department of History to remove Ramanujan's Three Hundred Ramayanas from the syllabus.

Professor Rukmani Sen from AUD said that it is time for academicians and students to come together from across the universities against this attack by the forces of majoritarianism and against the communalisation of educational institutions. She said that this seminar has to been seen as yet another way in which education is being reoriented to further VHP-RSS agenda.  

Professor Shaswati Mazumdar stressed the point that universities are places where students from various backgrounds come together in pursuit of meaningful education and that the communalisation of universities will lead to breakdown of liberal academic environment.

Professor Madhu Prasad pointed to the twin attack on public funded universities. While the Government has reduced funding to education and is going ahead with the agenda of offering Higher Education to WTO-GATs, seminars like this aim at communalising the environment of public funded universities.  

Other speakers criticized the position taken by the DU Administration in claiming that they did not know the content or the topic of the seminar at the time of booking. If that is the case, then the permission could now easily be withdrawn. The double speak by the University that anyone could hire the hall for holding any activity does not hold true as speakers pointed out how the hall had been denied in the past to other organisations and groups. Professor Ali Javed recounted how he was denied permission to hold seminar on the crisis facing Higher Education but this seminar was given permission so easily! Speakers also stressed how the seminar is clearly not an academic activity or even intended to be debate, borne out by statements by leaders of the VHP that the issue of the temple at Ram Janmabhoomi was “a matter of faith”. Statements that the blueprint for the construction of the temple would be prepared at the seminar also clearly indicate how the university campus is being sought to be polarized.

Students said that the major issues facing them like the access to quality education and employment opportunities are not being addressed while activities such as this seminar seek to divide the students on communal lines and divert the attention from the main issues before the youth and the country. They also condemned the university administration for not addressing the issues facing students and for denying spaces to them for various activities while giving permission for such dubious seminars.

Save Du will organize a cultural protest programme tomorrow from 10 am to 2 pm at Arts Faculty with the participation of writers, artists, cultural activists, lawyers and educators. Student participants in today’s programme and in tomorrow’s cultural protest spoke with determination of their resolve to not allow this destruction of the secular fabric of the university and the country. The need of the hour is to stand together in this fight against the politics of hate and to foist the plans of the Sangh Parivar to spread communal poison.

(Press release issued by the All India Democratic Students Organisation, All India Students Association, All India Students Federation, Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch, Common Teachers Forum, Disha, Democratic Students' Union, Democratic Teachers' Front,
Janwadi Shikshak Manch, Krantikari Yuva Sangathan, North-East Forum for International Solidarity Nowruz, Parivartankami Chhatra Sanghtan (PACHHAS) and the Students' Federation of India)

The post Save DU from the politics of hate and communal poison appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
An all out bid to communalise the temperature on the Delhi University campus appeared afoot as “unidentified persons” climbed onto the Vivekananda statute situated in the midst of the Delhi University Campus and started painting it saffron! The incident, late on Wednesday (January 6, 2016) comes on the eve of a controversial ‘seminar’ on the Ramjanmabhoomi issue being hosted by the university’s Arts Faculty and conducted by an outfit linked to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
 
Meanwhile in a strongly worded statement, as many as 15 organisations affiliated to the Left have come together to protest the two day seminar ‘to mobilize public opinion for the Ram Janambhoomi temple’ which is being organized by Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth in Arts Faculty, Delhi University starting on January 9, 2016.
 
The text of the protest statement:
It is very clear that the seminar is not an academic activity, as it is not organised by any department of the university but by an organisation that has a clear design and preconceived ideas about the outcome of such an exercise. This seminar must also be seen in connection with other recent reports from Ayodhya suggesting that truckloads of bricks have arrived there for the building of the temple. By holding this seminar in a premier central university, the RSS-VHP clearly intends to polarise the youth and create a divisive atmosphere.

Universities are supposed to be institutions that bring young people from all backgrounds, including all faiths, together in the common endeavour of the pursuit of knowledge. Universities should be spaces for secular education. The holding of a seminar on such a nationally divisive issue is a blatant misuse of the University. We may recall the recent controversies around moves to hold programmes in JNU and Allahabad University with Ramdev and Yogi Adityanath as participants. Both moves were successfully resisted by students and the University as a space open to all was defended.

It is shameful that the DU administration has given permission to hold such a programme. The same administration continuously denied university spaces to the democratically elected bodies to organize meetings and programmes. In allowing this divisive and communal programme, the University administration has shown disrespect to the academic environment of the University. The DU administration is bending backwards to please the BJP-led Government.

It is deplorable that the Government is imposing academic dilution on the public funded universities through hurriedly imposed programmes like CBCS and starving them through fund cuts on one hand and on the other damaging the academic environment in universities by pushing their divisive agenda. We demand that permission for the conduct of this programme be withdrawn forthwith. We also call upon the university community and citizens to resist the attempts by the RSS-VHP to spread communal disharmony through such programmes.

The statement has been signed by All India Democratic Students Organisation
All India Students Association, All India Students Federation, Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch, Common Teachers Forum, Disha, Democratic Students' Union, Democratic Teachers' Front, Janwadi Shikshak Manch, Krantikari Yuva Sangathan, North-East Forum for International Solidarity, Nowruz, Parivartankami Chhatra Sanghtan (PACHHAS) and the Students' Federation of India.
 
Incidentally the outfit that has been permitted by the Arts faculty to organise the seminar, Arundhati Vashishtha Anusandhan Peeth, is a research organisation founded by late VHP leader Ashok Singhal of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The attempt at painting saffron Vivekananda comes two days before. DCP (north) Madhur Verma told sections of the media that, “..the  patrolling staff spotted some students painting the statue. They immediately apprehended those persons and informed the university faculty. The proctors and senior security staff of DU arrived and the students were handed over to them. Since no complaint was given by the university administration, no action has been taken against them”
 
According to eyewitnesses, the incident took place at about 8.30 pm. Five persons climbed on top of the black statue with the help of ladders, with paint cans and brushes in hand, and began painting the statue in saffron colour.

The post Protests against colouring DU saffron appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Questions for the Special Investigation Team

Criminal behaviour of kar sevaks at Rudauli near Faizabad
 

A detailed study of the Gujarat state intelligence and police documentation now before the Nanavati-Shah Commission through the affidavits of RB Sreekumar and Raahul Sharma reveals fairly high levels of communal mobilisation of members of sangh parivar outfits throughout February 2002. Field officers of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) submitted reports of such activity which were however ignored by the state government. Around mid-February 2002 there were two separate reports from the Gujarat SIB stating that Haresh Bhatt, Bajrang Dal leader (and former BJP MLA from Godhra), and Prahlad J. Patel, president of the Bajrang Dal, Mehsana, were among the group of kar sevaks who had gone to Ayodhya for the Ayodhya Maha Yagna.
 

On February 22, 2002 the Gujarat intelligence department received a fax message (of the same date) from the UP state intelligence department, informing them of the criminal behaviour of kar sevaks travelling on the Sabarmati Express S-6 special bogie. This is in all likelihood the same bogie that caught fire a few days later. The message from the UP intelligence department states that when some local people tried to enter the bogie at the Rudauli station near Faizabad the kar sevaks attacked them with trishuls and daggers and injured some of them. An FIR was also registered for the crime. Communalism Combat, in its ‘Genocide – Gujarat 2002’ issue of March-April 2002, had carried a report by Jan Morcha, Faizabad, (February 25, 2002) which had also reported these events. In fact, two days before the Godhra train fire the editors of Communalism Combat had issued a nationwide alert, sent out to the media and also to the president and chief justice of India, on the possible fallout of this sort of behaviour by the kar sevaks from Gujarat.
 

Now, seven years later, some curious, even sinister, connections can be drawn. All these linkages, the behaviour of kar sevaks and the build-up to the Godhra train fire and its aftermath, ought to find a place in the new investigation ordered by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2009.
 

Haresh Bhatt, who had gone to Faizabad, was one of the many persons who were caught off guard by Tehelka’s sting ‘Operation Kalank’, telecast on October 25, 2007. From reports received, it appears that the train bogie containing those kar sevaks who had misbehaved at Rudauli was the same one that returned on February 27 and was unfortunately burnt. Following revelations that Haresh Bhatt and Prahlad Patel also went to Ayodhya, and were integral parts of the plot to build up an arsenal in Gujarat prior to February 27, it is conceivable that they too were in the bogie that caught fire.
 

Tehelka’s conversation with Bhatt raises serious questions for the authorities and investigating agencies about the sinister accumulation of arms and ammunition by Bajrang Dal and VHP men all over Gujarat. During the same sting operation Tehelka also spoke to the then VHP district convener from Sabarkantha, Dhawal Patel. He too provides startling details about the stockpiling of ammunition and bombs. Why were sangh parivar members stocking up on ammunition prior to February 27, 2002? As part of its investigation into the wider conspiracy, the SIT will be required to probe this dangerous amassment of weapons as well.

Arms distribution before the execution of mass crimes

From Tehelka’s ‘Operation Kalank’:

Haresh Bhatt, the then BJP MLA from Godhra, to Tehelka:

Bhatt says a well-planned conspiracy was hatched to import large quantities of ammunition from outside Gujarat and also to manufacture weapons within the state. He names one Rohitbhai (VHP treasurer) as being a core member of the planning team. He says the plan to import arms, swords and other ammunition into Gujarat from Punjab and elsewhere was a long-standing one and that he brought swords and countrymade guns into Gujarat and distributed them all over.

He says that a large number of bombs, including diesel bombs and pipe bombs, were manufactured at his factory while rocket launchers were manufactured both at his factory and elsewhere. These rocket launchers, with stands, were made using thick pipes and filled with gunpowder and then sealed and blast using locally made ‘598 bombs’. The weapons were then distributed across Gujarat. Haresh Bhatt also said he previously owned a firecracker factory in Ahmedabad, one that was fully operational on February 27, 2002!

Questions raised:

a) Who were the conspirators involved?

b) When and where did they meet?

c) Did this meeting take place well before February 27, 2002, when the Godhra arson took place, and if so, what was the real intent, the motive?

d) When did Haresh Bhatt order two truckload consignments (of swords) from Punjab?

e) When did Bhatt order the consignment of desi guns from UP and MP?

f) How long does it take for a loaded truck to travel between Punjab and Gujarat?

g) How long does it take for a loaded truck to travel between UP and Gujarat?

h) Who are the manufacturers and suppliers of swords (in Punjab) and countrymade guns (in UP and MP)?

i) When did they receive the orders for consignment and when did they deliver these? Most importantly, who paid for them?

j) The consignment truck(s) must have passed through many states – Punjab, Haryana, UP, MP and Rajasthan. How was easy passage for the arms arranged?

k) When did the consignments actually arrive in Gujarat and where in Gujarat did they arrive?

l) Were these consignments delivered to locations other than Godhra? Did these destinations include Ahmedabad, for instance? (In the post-Godhra violence, Ahmedabad and Panchmahal district were the worst affected in terms of loss of life while Sabarkantha was the worst affected in terms of loss of property.)

These revelations suggest the existence of a well-organised and structured arms and ammunition network within Gujarat that has been in operation since well before the violence in 2002 and perhaps thereafter

m) If the consignments were ordered well before February 27, 2002, will this fact not have some bearing on the much touted Godhra conspiracy theory?

n) If the consignments arrived in Godhra, which is a hub of truck owners, hundreds of trucks could be available at short notice to supply consignments all over Gujarat. It is now well known that the genocidal carnage that Modi presided over spread to 19 of Gujarat’s 25 districts within hours of the news of the Godhra train burning.

o) What is the identity of the vehicles used for the supply of these arms and to whom did they belong?

p) To whom, and at which location/s, were these arms and ammunitions supplied?

q) Who were the officials, police, octroi department and others, who allowed these consignments safe passage?

More questions:

a) Who were/are the workers at Bhatt’s firecracker factory?

b) What were the products manufactured?

c) Was the factory operational on February 27 and 28?

d) Where, apart from Haresh Bhatt’s factory, were the rocket launchers manufactured?

Observations: These findings would then have to be corroborated with forensic reports of the Godhra train burning and mass burnings of women, men and children in many of Gujarat’s districts following the Godhra fire.

Apart from the revelations about arms consignments being ordered by prominent members of the sangh parivar, other aspects relating to the use of explosive materials in the systematic attacks on minorities bear consideration.

This writer and many others recovered a whitish powder from various sites of the genocidal carnage in Gujarat (some of it in unopened bags bearing labels stating that it was manufactured at Laxmi Industrial Estate, Hyderabad). It is thought possible that this powder enabled complete, to the bone, incineration of flesh (of those who were killed and/or burnt alive) at Gulberg Society, Naroda Gaon and Patiya, Vatwa and elsewhere. Were any traces of such a powder found on the burnt coach of the Sabarmati Express? This is especially relevant in view of the fact that serious questions have been raised about the train burning and the manner in which the fire spread (see Communalism Combat, ‘Genocide’s Aftermath – Part II’, July 2007).

Besides, in Naroda Gaon and Patiya, for weeks before the attack on minorities there was a gas cylinder shortage. However, from the morning of February 28, 2002 onwards, gas cylinders were used by the dozen, by assailants in Naroda Gaon and Patiya, Gulberg Society and other areas of Ahmedabad. In the first attack at Naroda Patiya, at the Noorani Masjid, gas cylinders were placed inside the mosque and then ignited to explode.

Stockpiling arms in Sabarkantha

Dhawal Jayantilal Patel, the then VHP zilla sanyojak (district convener), Sabarkantha, to Tehelka:

Patel says that he is a registered holder and supplier of dynamite used in quarrying in the district. He also said that he along with some others had been trained to make bombs. They made desi bombs that were then distributed and used in various areas.

Questions raised:

a) What was the quantity of dynamite stock as noted in the stock register maintained on Dhawal Patel’s premises on and before February 27, 2002?

b) How much stock did Patel receive?

c) From which government depot did he get the supply on requisition?

d) Did he acquire the stock from any other states?

e) What is the identity of the vehicles used for the supply of dynamite and to whom did they belong?

f) Where was the stock supplied to?

g) To whom was it delivered and in which village, town or city?

h) Who were the police and other officers responsible for allowing the consignment safe passage?

Anil Patel, the VHP’s vibhag pramukh (departmental chief) in Sabarkantha, spoke to Tehelka about bombs destined for Ahmedabad being smuggled in from quarries owned by VHP workers in Sabarkantha. This suggests the existence of a well-organised and structured arms and ammunition network within Gujarat that has been in operation since well before the violence in 2002 and perhaps thereafter.

Anil Patel also explains how sections of the Gujarat police, for example, ND Solanki, the then SP, Sabarkantha, were full-fledged supporters of the VHP. He adds that Solanki gave him full support and even enabled the quick release of a "co-minister", Arvind Soni (a VHP leader). Patel also refers to a fax message sent by "this IB officer, Sreekumar …to the Ahmedabad police commissioner, saying the Sabarkantha VHP had supplied weapons to Ahmedabad. The matter was inquired into, our block minister was arrested. The inspector who came for the inquiry was associated with the Sangh."

Patel’s revelations to Tehelka show the levels of complicity between the Gujarat police and outfits of the sangh parivar that are the fraternal organisations of the ruling BJP. This will be the most significant challenge for the SIT under Dr Raghavan. Will it be able to ensure that investigations are carried out by men of impeccable integrity?
 

Other startling revelations from the sting operation

Babu Bajrangi, Bajrang Dal leader, Naroda, Ahmedabad, to Tehelka:

Bajrangi (prime accused in the Naroda Patiya massacre) says he was present in Godhra at the time of the train fire and vowed to kill four times as many people in Patiya as the kar sevaks who died in Godhra.

Bajrangi boasts among other things of being the first to launch an attack in Naroda Patiya, of organising the use of bombs, ramming a diesel tanker into a mosque and setting it ablaze, slitting open the womb of a pregnant woman (the Kauser Bano case) and bribing witnesses and forcing them to flee.

Questions raised:

a) Bajrangi has admitted to calling the then home minister, Gordhan Zadaphiya. This can easily be corroborated with call records of the outgoing calls on his mobile phone.

b) He claims that Chief Minister Modi told the (police) commissioner to provide safe passage to Bajrangi and even arranged for his four-and-a-half-month stay at the Gujarat Bhavan in Mount Abu (Rajasthan) not long after the massacre, when he had still not been granted bail and was on the run from the police.

c) What was the room number of the room at Gujarat Bhavan that Bajrangi occupied?

d) Where there any others with him in Mount Abu?

e) Are there any relevant entries in the Gujarat Bhavan guest register?

f) Who provided the expenses for his stay in Mount Abu?

g) Bajrangi’s interview also indicts the Gujarat courts. These are extremely serious allegations that warrant investigation. He talks of how Judge Akshay Mehta had granted bail, to him and other accused, without even looking at the case files. He first says that when Dholakia and other judges simply refused to grant bail, Modi had the bench changed. This was done three times before the matter was heard by a more sympathetic judge – Akshay Mehta – which enabled him to get bail. Four and a half months after the Naroda massacre Bajrangi was a free man. He roams scot-free today.

Ramesh Dave, the then VHP zilla mantri (leader), Kalupur, Ahmedabad, to Tehelka:

Dave says that he took DCP (SK) Gadhvi to the terrace of a locked house (in Kalupur) after Gadhvi told him that there were several Muslims who had taken shelter nearby and he wanted to "set them straight". Once on the terrace, Gadhvi started firing and before they knew it, he had killed five persons (Muslims). Dave also claims that "all the policemen helped us, they all did. One shouldn’t say it, but they even gave us cartridges."

Questions raised:

a) Did Gadhvi shoot a service revolver – if so, the victims could not have been more than 20 feet away.

b) Did he shoot a .303 rifle – if so, the bullet would go through the victim, making a hole, and could be recovered later from the scene of the crime.

c) If the shots were fired from a revolver, the bullets should have struck the victims either in the head or the chest.

d) Five dead bodies must bear near identical injuries/bullet wounds.

e) Did the doctor performing the post-mortem examinations recover any bullets from the bodies of the victims?

This is a small but critical aspect of the detailed and independent investigation that is now expected of the Special Investigation Team. Given the deep-rooted communalisation of the Gujarat state police apparatus, which will undoubtedly be drawn in by the SIT to assist in its own investigations, the task ahead will prove an enormous challenge.

Archived from Communalism Combat,  May 2009 Year 15    No.140, Cover Story 5

The post Building up an arsenal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

To stop the VHP’s ‘Ayodhya March’ and ‘Sankalp Abhiyan’, the UP State Road Transport Corporation suspended its bus service and UP’s chief minister Mulayam Singh appealed to the central government to suspend trains passing through the temple town. Roadblocks were set up in many districts throughout the state and section 144 was imposed on Ayodhya and Faizabad towns. Still, over 35,000 people were arrested for defying the prohibitory orders.

Judging by these criteria, one would have to conclude that even today the VHP is a major force to control, for which the state must combine tact along with the deployment of its coercive machinery. It has a nationwide presence, enjoying the protection of the RSS and the indulgence of the BJP. This is not surprising for the BJP alone reaps the full political benefits accruing from the VHP’s activities. That is why the Prime Minister and the deputy prime minister felt the need to appeal to the UP government to trust the VHP’s assurances of peace.

Why do the PM and the DyPM have such faith in the VHP, specially considering that VHP leaders Ashok Singhal, Praveen Togadia and Giriraj Kishore keep putting them and their government constantly in the dock, criticising and condemning them much of the time? Does their faith in the VHP stem from the latter’s written assurances to the UP government in 1989 to keep their shilanyas programme peaceful and to abide by the court verdict? But do those promises have any meaning today? In 1992, the VHP promised that its proposed kar seva would only be a symbolic one.

But the entire world knows what it actually did in Ayodhya on December 6. Is it not the case that along with leaders of the VHP, even deputy prime minister LK Advani and minister for human resources development Murli Manohar Joshi are among the accused, facing trial for criminal offences?

The PM and the DyPM must also know that in swearing by Ram all the time you destroy the solemnity and seriousness of that pledge. When the BJP formed a government in UP for the first time in 1991, chief minister Kalyan Singh and his entire cabinet had visited the disputed spot in Ayodhya and pledged: “We swear by Ram, this is where we will build the temple.”

Even today, Vajpayee continues to swear that he is a swayamsevak above all else. But now, even VHP leaders accuse the man who has been in the PM’s chair for over six years of being unreliable, a breacher of faith and an opportunist who uses Ram’s name purely for political gain.

Whatever Vajpayee and Advani might say about the VHP, if popular enthusiasm for its public meetings, processions, demonstrations and other such activities are taken as the yardstick, one would be forced to conclude that the popularity of the VHP is on the decline. Arguably, the only purpose of its public shows now is to regain public confidence for its own political ends.

Let’s take a closer look at the recently concluded/aborted ‘Ayodhya March’ and the ‘Sankalp Abhiyan’. In 1992, there were far greater impediments placed in the way of kar sevaks trying to reach Ayodhya. All train and bus services to Ayodhya were suspended, all roads leading to the town were blockaded and the number of those arrested ran into lakhs. Despite all this, over 26,000 made it to Ayodhya. But this time the story was different.

When Ashok Singhal and other kar sevaks were being arrested at Karsevakpuram, not a single sadhu or sant from Ayodhya was to be seen with them, nor could one find even one of their names in the list of those detained. Could it be that the sadhus and sants of Ayodhya have become disenchanted by the VHP? If the print and the electronic media are anything to go by, even those sants and mahants whom the VHP claimed as its own are now issuing anti-VHP statements. Many even categorically asserted that they are now in no doubt about the game the VHP is playing.
This is the sole reason why, despite being present in Ayodhya, the president of the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas stayed away from the “do or die” action of the VHP. His participation in the next day’s token protest rally was also mere tokenism, for he had already opposed the Bharat Bandh call given by the VHP and had also stated that the kar sevaks, too, were to be blamed for the police lathi-charge on them.

The VHP leadership is unable to explain why the sants who were with their movement earlier have now started deserting it. The basic reason is that people now clearly recognise that the temple movement is not a religious but a political movement. So much so that even some VHP leaders today feel the need to distance themselves from the agitation. People like Mahant Nrityagopal Das and Mahant Avaidyanath criticised the decision to stage a Sankalp Sabha at Karsevakpuram when such programmes had already been conducted in the national and state capitals.

The fact is that terms such as Ram mandir, Ayodhya, kar seva, kar sevaks, Ram bhakt and Ram sevaks have all been coined in recent years with the sole intent of generating mass appeal. The problem is that the VHP is now finding it difficult to regain mass confidence in the authenticity of its agenda. And sensing the public mood, even sants and mahants whom the VHP had relied on to gain legitimacy for its agenda are now deserting its bandwagon.

(The writer is editor of the Hindi daily, Jan Morcha, published from Faizabad).

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2003 Year 10   No. 92, Ayodhya

The post Ram, Ram’ to VHP now? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The voice of dissent has probably never been louder. There is now significant disillusionment with the VHP’s temple construction movement among the mahants in Ayodhya. In an important meeting held on October 7 in Tulsi Chaura mandir of Ayodhya, it was decided to oppose the VHP’s programme on October 17 and ask the administration to ban it.

The meeting was chaired by Mahant Bhavnath Das, the president of the Samajwadi Sant Sabha and coordinated by Jugal Kishore Shashtri, the convenor of a newly-formed forum called ‘Ayodhya ki Awaz’, to work towards preserving peace and harmony in Ayodhya.

Prominent among the 150-200 people who attended this meeting were mahants Saryu Das, Janmejaya Sharan, Madhavacharya, Avadh Ram Das, Kaushal Kishore, Srinarayanachari, Jai Ram Das, Bal Vyas Bharat Das, Sadiq Ali ‘Babu Tailor’, and corporators Asad Ahmad and Madhuwan Das.

Madhavacharyaji revealed that Ashok Singhal was telling a complete lie when he said that the decision to organise a programme in Ayodhya on October 17 was taken by sants. He said he was present at the meeting and almost every sant opposed it. The sants were questioning the propriety of organising such programmes in Ayodhya repeatedly. When no consensus could be reached, the meeting was adjourned and VHP office bearers later decided the programme on their own and were now imposing it upon people.

Srinarayanachariji said that the VHP decision smacked of politics. Why did the VHP not organise any programmes for temple construction when there were favourable governments in UP? They want to create a situation of confrontation with the present government so that the resulting tension can polarise the Hindu votes.

The mahants were critical of the VHP for having abused the Hindu religion for political purposes. They said that they would welcome anybody in Ayodhya who genuinely came for darshan but would not welcome people like Singhal and Togadia who make a living out of the Ayodhya-Ramjanmabhoomi movement themselves but create a situation in Ayodhya from time to time where the people of Ayodhya have to starve.

Only in March last year, during the VHP’s shila pujan programme, a 17-day curfew was imposed, creating a great deal of inconvenience for the residents of Ayodhya. The Ram temple construction movement of the VHP has taken a heavy toll on the Ayodhya economy and people are now getting irritated with the gimmicks of the VHP.

Srinarayanchariji advised Singhal to move elsewhere for his agitation for the Ram temple movement and leave Ayodhya alone. He said that the Hindus and Muslims of Ayodhya were perfectly capable of solving the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute and knew how to live in peace with each other.

He recalled how in 1983, Singhal, who used to move around in a rickshaw at the time, would plead with the sants of Ayodhya to allow him to join the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Today he is enjoying VIP status while the sants of Ayodhya have been marginalised.

Volunteers of ‘Ayodhya ki Awaz’ wanted to burn an effigy of Singhal and Togadia at the end of the meeting but the administration prevented them from doing so. The station officer of Ayodhya kotwali picked up the effigy and took it away to his police station.

It is noteworthy that since the BJP-led government came to power at the Centre, the only organisation that has been allowed to hold its programmes in Ayodhya is the VHP. Other organisations are prevented from holding their programmes.

(The above report was filed by Asha Ashram, a Lucknow-Faizabad based NGO run by Sandeep Pandey and Arundhati Dhuru).

The post Ayodhya ki Awaz appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ASI report confirming the existence of a Ram temple  on the site of the Babri Masjid is suspect

The Archaeological Survey of India’s report that it has confirmed the existence of a Ram temple on the site of the Babri Masjid has delighted the supporters of Hindutva. But the report has important failings which render it suspect. The ASI has said that it has discovered the bases of pillars which originally supported the roof of a temple at a layer below the mosque. It adduces the discovery of terracotta figurines at the site to strengthen this claim. And it claims to have discovered a “circular shrine” which it conjectures contained a Shivaling, which it would have us believe, fortifies the claim to a Ram temple at the site.

However, the evidence does not indicate that a Ram temple existed at this site. On the contrary, important evidence which the ASI has not properly examined or accounted for includes animal bones and glazed ware, both foreign to a Hindu Ram temple of medieval times.
Pillar bases which supported a temple?

About the scatters of bricks which the ASI claims are the bases of pillars which supported a temple, the ASI report says: “(the) present excavation has set aside the controversy by exposing the original form of the bases… and their arrangement in rows including their association with the top floor of the structure existing prior to the disputed structure.”

But even the very first lot of scatters of bricks on the west is not aligned as a row, nor is it at a uniform distance from the western wall. Secondly, these scatters are in different strata; pillars emanating from them could not have supported the same roof.

In figures 23, 23A, 23B, the ASI performs what it calls an “isometric reconstruction”, a three-dimensional picture of what it conjectures existed at the site, and draws a temple. This has a power of misleading suggestion. From the same base plan, architects could well reconstruct other architectural forms – such as a mosque.

In figure 23A, which it must be remembered is no more than a hypothetical reconstruction; these scatters of bricks against the south chamber wall have been presented as though they were encased structures. But Plate XXX, an actual photograph, shows this is not true. Stone blocks lie on top of and within scatters of brick-bats. These would not have provided a firm foundation for any load-bearing structure. The roof of the temple could not have been supported by such weak foundations. Indeed, what they claim are rows of pillar bases, could otherwise be interpreted: as simply cavities filled up with brick-bats and debris.

If this were such a sacred place, the birthplace of Ram, then why was there no temple according to the ASI claim, till the Sultanate period, XIIth-XVIth century AD? Why was it a site of continuous human habitation till then? The Archaeological Survey does not address this question.

If indeed, as they say, the mosque stratum is less than 50 cm below the surface, and the “temple”, so-called, immediately underneath, why did they not stop once they had found the “temple”? For that was their brief from the High Court: to determine whether there had been a mosque and a temple. Why did they, first, go more than 2 metres deep in some trenches and, second, take so many months to complete the excavations? Did they think they had not yet found the temple, and were they still desperately looking for it? And, failing to find it, did they thereafter label — what they had originally thought was part of the mosque or some earlier Muslim religious site such as an Idgah — a “temple”?

A twelfth century construction, if it existed on the same site and pre-dated the mosque, could have been either a secular structure or a Muslim religious site which re-used earlier material. The fact that blocks are re-used in the masjid does not mean that the temple was destroyed to build it.
The hypothesis of the temple is tailored to the theory of the Hindutva archaeologists BB Lal and SP Gupta, made in a pamphlet they produced after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and a website. The pamphlet focuses on so-called “pillar bases” (pp 55-67). Yet there is no evidence to show that this is a temple, or that Vaishnava or Ram worship was conducted here. There is not a single specifically religious artefact. Much is made of a “divine couple”. But there is no indication of divinity – only a fragment of two waists.

Most importantly, if this were such a sacred place, the birthplace of Ram, then why was there no temple according to the ASI claim, till the Sultanate period, XIIth-XVIth century AD? Why was it a site of continuous human habitation till then? The Archaeological Survey does not address this question.

Circular shrine
In Period V, he ASI says it found a round brick shrine with a water channel – a small Shivalinga installation. The circular shrine is dated to the seventh to tenth century AD (p269). The ASI says that the hall of the Sultanate Period of the 12th century – which it would like us to believe was a Hindu temple – was built at a higher level — and following it. Then how can the shrine be presented as evidence of “remains” which indicate “whether there was any temple/structure which was demolished and mosque was constructed on the disputed site”?

Since the shrine was not demolished to build the mosque, surely it is no proof of the existence of a Hindu temple which may or may not have existed before the mosque came up.

“Now viewing in totality and taking into account the archaeological evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth century onwards unto the construction of the disputed structure along with (sic) the yield of stone and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of divine couple and carved architectural members including foliage patterns, amlaka, kapotapali doorjamb with semi-circular pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pillar, lotus motif, circular shrine, having pranala waterchute in the north, fifty pillar bases in association of the huge structure, are indicative of remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India.”

Now this foliage and the decorated bricks, could have belonged to either a secular structure; or been material reused in a Muslim religious structure of the 12th century.
And “viewing in totality” means taking the Siva shrine into account. But how does that help? The Siva shrine does not prove existence of a Ram Mandir.

Terracotta
The press has made references to figurines of terracotta being found. These may not be significant as they are not confined to Layer VII. They occur, in fact, even in the mosque levels! The ASI says this is because the peripheries of the mound were dug and the earth brought up to level the ground, and raise it, for the various structural activities. Therefore there is a big mix; and the findings of terracotta cannot date the “temple”.

Animal bones
If what the ASI has chosen to mention is important though misleading, what it has left out is equally significant. The presence of both animal bones and glazed ware at different levels of this site causes awkward problems for the claim of a Ram temple here.

The ASI report has had to acknowledge that animal bones were found because of the insistence of observers appointed by the Court that they be recorded. But it refuses to identify them by the stratum they were found, and hence the period (of time) to which they belonged.

“Animal bones have been recovered from various levels of different periods (emphasis added, 270, Summary).” But which levels, which periods?

Under Objectives and Methodology, page 9, the report says: “samples of plaster, floors, bones, charcoal, palaeo-botanical remains were also collected for scientific studies and analysis.” But from which strata? This question is avoided. And what scientific studies and analysis was done on the bones? This is nowhere explained.

Why are such animal bones not identified by stratum? These bones are material evidence; yet they were not photographed, perhaps to minimise their importance.

As a Hindu I am aware that specific vessels of specified materials are used in ritual. Surely if the temple was built in the medieval Sultanate period, and functioned as one for several centuries, we should be able to find in it some distinctive remains of pottery which would be appropriate to a Hindu sacred structure?

The significant question which the ASI report avoids dealing with is: have they appeared at a strata below the mosque, that is, period VII, XIIth to XVIth centuries AD? If so, the temple theory collapses.

At page 10 the report says: “As per the instructions of the High Court in order to maintain transparency all the excavated material including antiquities, objects of interest, glazed pottery and tiles and bones recovered from the trenches were sealed in the presence of advocates, parties and nominees and kept on the same day of their recovery in the strong room provided by the Authorised Person (the commissioner of Faizabad Division) to the excavation team for the specific purpose, which again was locked and sealed every day when it was opened. Thus the time available for their documentation, study, photography, drawing and chemical preservations was limited to just a few hours only and that too not in the case of material recovered from the trench towards closing of the work for the day.”

Is the ASI preparing excuses for the sloppiness of the work done? Where is the stratigraphy, analysis, photography, chemical preservation of the bones found at the site?

Glazed ware
Glazed ware was unknown in India before the coming of Islam. So it would not be found in a pre-Islamic site such as a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

It is significant that any identification of the glazed ware found at the site, by the specific layers in which it has been found, and therefore the period, has been omitted. At page 270, the report says: “In the last phase of the period VII (the medieval-Sultanate period, that of the supposed temple) glazed ware shreds make the appearance… celadon and porcelain.”

At page 73, under “Pottery”, the report says: “Hence the pottery of these periods (Mughal, late and post-Mughal) are not dealt with separately but are recorded along with the pottery of period VII (Medieval-Sultanate).”

And at page 108, it says: “The pottery of medieval Sultanate, Mughal and late and post-Mughal period (period VII to IX) combined together indicates that there is not much difference in pottery wares and shapes and hence they are not segregated, but instead clubbed together. The distinctive pottery of these periods is the glazed ware…”

Glazed ware has not been separated by stratum in the photographs. Even in Plate 77 which shows porcelain ware of a very late, probably British period, no stratum or period is mentioned in the photo-caption.

The ASI would have us believe that stratum VII is a temple, and stratum VIII a mosque. Then why did they club the pottery of these together? They say, the pottery is so similar. Would a temple in use since the 12th century for 400 years, and a mosque in use since the beginning of the Mughal period have similar pottery?

Even in a medieval temple, contemporaneous with Islam in India, glazed ware would not be used. As a Hindu I am aware that specific vessels of specified materials are used in ritual. Surely if the temple was built in the medieval Sultanate period, and functioned as one for several centuries, we should be able to find in it some distinctive remains of pottery which would be appropriate to a Hindu sacred structure?

Instead, the fact that the pottery from even phase VII is glazed and otherwise similar to Mughal pottery indicates that this may well have been a Muslim sacred or secular site.
One reason they may have clubbed the pottery together is that they first thought strata VIII and VII belonged to the same Mughal building, the Babri Masjid. Only later, under pressure, did they decide to interpret phase VII as being a temple.

In sum
To summarize. What are claimed to be the bases of pillars which held up the temple turn out not to be pillar bases at all. The Siva shrine at a lower level adds no strength to the claim of a Ram temple. The terracotta from different levels has been so jumbled up that it can be linked to no particular stratum and period. And the presence of animal bones and glazed ware makes it difficult to claim that a Ram temple existed on this site between the XIIth and XVIth centuries.

Mosque
And, finally, the ASI Report (figure 23 included) accepts the existence of a mosque. Were there a mosque since 1530 AD, where is the sense in prolonging the title suit? Clearly the site belongs to the mosque.

The post A mosque, it looks like appeared first on SabrangIndia.