Babri Masjid is a classic case of justice delayed, justice denied
The Supreme Court's order on April 19 — reviving criminal conspiracy charges against BJP and Sangh Parivar leaders, including LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Union minister Uma Bharti, in the dual Babri Masjid demolition cases — is a welcome step, albeit decades late.
As the adage goes, "Justice delayed is justice denied" — the conspiracy to demolish was hatched well before December 6, 1992, when the 16th century mosque was destroyed and a makeshift Ram temple was built with the permission of the Supreme Court.
It is also noteworthy that the case is based only on the "restricted" evidence put together by the CBI. The conspiracy started in the 1980s when the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was kicked off by the Sangh Parivar. Some instances of how this communal and violent campaign was motivated by the "Hindutva" ideology, and was given space by both the BJP and the Congress is given in the latter part of this article.
The Supreme Court's decision to shift the case to the Lucknow court from the Allahabad High Court is also a welcome step. The role of the Allahabad High Court, especially after the 1950s has been controversial.
But will the Supreme Court be able to ensure that the conspiracy charges are decided within two years? Earlier deadlines in the Babri Masjid case have often been bypassed. After all, 25 years have passed by before today's (April 19) order by the court.
The then UP chief minister Kalyan Singh, who was a major culprit has been made the governor of Rajasthan, despite the criminal charges against him. This highlights the pathetic lack of statutory powers available under the Representation of Peoples Act.
For partisan political reasons, those who demolished the Babri Masjid were not even found guilty under IPC Section 153A for creating animosity between communities. And if a strict view was taken by the CBI, which by the apex court itself was called a "caged parrot," more potential accused could have been brought to trial.
Recently, CJI JS Khehar offered to settle the Ayodhya dispute out of court since it was a matter of "sentiments and religion". He even offered that other "brother judges" could replace him if the "parties" wanted, as "these are issues of sentiments".
But the problem is that none of the parties were present in court, except BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, who was not an original party to the case.
The Muslim side's lawyer, MR Shamshad, pointed out that they were astounded by the CJI's offer and asked, "How did this appearance in the chief justice's court and the comments come about?" He stressed that "any decision cannot be one-sided". The CJI then withdrew his offer as he did not know that Swamy was not an original party to the Ayodhya dispute.
To understand the prolonged delay in filing inadequate conspiracy charges vide the Supreme Court order, it is necessary to go back to history.
In the second half of 1949, socialist leaders Acharya Narendra Dev and Acharya Kripalani were planning to stand for by-elections in Faizabad.
The Uttar Pradesh Congress leadership, led by GB Pant, had heightened the Hindu religious sentiments in Ayodhya-Faizabad. And on the night of December 22,1949, some people managed to enter the Babri Masjid and installed the idols of Ram Lalla inside it.
Incidentally, the name Babri Majid (Mosque of Babur) is a misnomer. Babar never came to Ayodhya. It was his nobleman Mir Baqi who had built the mosque.
Nevertheless, the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru asked Pant to get the idols removed, and offered to send his secretary to facilitate the effort. But Pant was adamant.The deputy commissioner of Faizabad filed a written statement in suit No.2 of 1950 on April 5 in which he denied that the Hindu plaintiff was entitled to any relief prayed for by him and stated:
1) The property in suit is known as Babri Masjid and it has for a long period been in use of a mosque for the purpose of worship by the Muslims. It has not been in use as a temple of Sri Ram Chandraji.
2) That on the night of December 22, 1949, the idols of Sri Ram Chandraji were surreptitiously and wrongly put inside it.
At this stage the RSS played no significant role. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was founded later in 1951. A civil judge in December 1950, gave the rights of worship only to the Hindus, and restrained the removal of the idols.
A later judge cited copies of affidavits allegedly from Muslims that the mosque had not functioned from 1936. No opportunity was given to the Muslim defendants or the state to file counter-affidavits.
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court on April 26, 1955, criticised the civil judge for placing reliance on these affidavits and not allowing the defendants to place their own counter-affidavits.
In May 1986, there was a strong BJP movement to allow Hindu devotees to pray inside the disputed mosque.
Around the same time, there was another movement led by the Muslim clergy against the Supreme Court judgment in the Shah Bano case, which gave Muslim women the right to maintenance.
As the Muslim clergy succeeded in convincing Rajiv Gandhi's Congress government in overturning the SC judgment it was largely seen as Muslim appeasement. That added more insult to the already injured Hindu pride over the Babri mosque standing at the purported birthplace of Lord Ram.
Under "double" fire, Rajiv Gandhi had the district magistrate and superintendent of police to testify in the Faizabad district court that they did not apprehend any law and order difficulty in enforcing this decision — to allow Hindu devotees to pray at the mosque.
The court met on a Saturday and the Muslim side was not informed or heard.
In the 1990s, PM PV Narasimha Rao stood by as the fortifications of the Babri Masjid were removed. A spate of official letters came much later. The masjid matter came before the Supreme Court. The advocate for the Muslim side, OP Sharma, warned the court that in an earlier instance of a temple being built, "militant" Hindus were allowed to congregate, forcing the police to back down fearing high casualties.
But the court ruled that the kar sevaks should be treated as state guests. It, however, noted OP Sharma's warnings in their judgment of November 29, 1992. They were influenced by a number of BJP leaders certifying that there would be no assault on the masjid. These promises were suddenly withdrawn before the assault on December 6, 1992.
The central paramilitary forces (CPMF) sent by the PM were instructed not to fire unless ordered to. The CRPF forces guarding the mosque marched out. The masjid was finally destroyed. When a group of citizens met president Shankar Dayal Sharma on the morning of December 7, he told us that he made a statement at 5 pm on December 6, asking the Cabinet to meet.
The Cabinet met only at 6pm, by which time the makeshift Ram mandir was already built. Intriguingly, Justice MS Liberhan, who was given 30 days to submit a report, took 17 years. The evidence compiled by the UP CID of the demolition, including videotapes and 48 audio cassettes, verified and seen by some citizens, disappeared after the initial period, diminishing the evidence of a conspiracy.
How with lack of investigation, lack of oversight and the loss of vital information, the conspiracy case accepted for judicial scrutiny now is not nearly as strong as it could have been. It remains to be seen how comprehensive and effective the Lucknow court will be in its findings.