Kashmiri Hindus Exodus Led To Babri Demolition….?

The Liberhan Commission contention that the Sangh Parivar’s pre-planned conspiracy had led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid is absurd. The Commission has provided a better narrative, just like Alif Laila. It has opened a Pandora’s Box, when the wounds had just started healing.

The report should have mentioned about the mass exodus of five lakh Kashmiri Hindus from the valley when Pakistan-sponsored militancy erupted in 1990, aided and abetted by Kashmiri Muslim fundamentalists. Several hundred Hindus were killed, most of them brutally, and women were raped. The beleaguered Pandit community suffered a lot. As a consequence, the silent majority Hindu community in the rest of India reacted sharply.

As per the theory of causation, every cause has its effect. There were massive demonstrations when Kashmiri Hindus were driven out forcibly from their ancestral land of birth. There was an overflow of powerful feelings and in my view contributed to events that put together finally enhanced the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which was built by Babar in Ayodhya, on a site which is also clamed as Ram’s birth place with a temple for Ram.

Babar came to India in 1526. He was a Turco-Mongol and a prince of the Timurid line in Central Asia. He established the Mughul Empire in India. In fact, an attempt to destroy the disputed structure was made in December 1990, immediately after the forced exile of the Kashmiri Hindus but the karsevakas, motivated by the Sangh Parivar and Hindu zealots, failed in their attempt to dismantle the disputed structure. The then chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav took a tough line.

From what I gathered during a visit to Ayodhya in 2006, the actual planning to demolish the disputed complex must have begun in early 1991. In the first place, believing the disputed structure was a mosque, why the Shila puja was allowed? Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister then. It was against the wishes of the Muslim minority community. That happened in 1986. And again, because of the Congress Government’s folly, the Kashmiri Hindus were at the receiving end then. They became the target of communal violence, mostly in south Kashmir.

The Shila puja led to communal hatred in India and sporadic violence prevailed. It had its adverse effect in the valley which remained curfew-bound for days. The acts of vandalism continued. Many historic temples were razed to the ground and destroyed. Houses were looted and set on fire. When I toured South Kashmir as a UNI journalist along with other colleagues, I could see many burnt houses, including that of former Law Minister P L Handoo. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, now PDP patron, was the Pradesh Congress Committee chief then.

If a commission of enquiry is constituted, it should go into the nemesis of the trouble and make a thorough probe, rather than indulge in mere blame-game. The Liberhan Commission report is replete with errors. It contains list of politicians some of who were not present in Ayodhya on the ill-fated day. Some were already dead. It is ridiculous to suggest that “Party affiliations must end the moment a legislator is elected”.

Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley has justifiably described the Liberhan Commission report as a ‘tragedy of errors’ and a ‘national joke’. It is for the first time any commission has been given 48 extensions, costing the State Exchequer Rs eight crore. Ironically, the judge has recommended that no ‘retired person should be given any extension. It is indeed a paradoxical recommendation from a judge, who retired long ago and has enjoyed 48 extensions.

V P Singh was the Prime Minister when secular values were torn into shreds in the valley. The BJP leader has aptly remarked that ‘A fair secular society requires equality of all. A secular order is not irreligious’. If the UPA Government wants secular order to prevail in a true spirit, why allow puja in Government premises? It is a mockery of so-called secularism. Why allow photos of gods and goddesses in offices? Similarly, Friday prayers need not be held during office hours.

President’s rule under Article 356 should have been promulgated in Uttar Pradesh to deal with the grave situation in Ayodhya. Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao was reluctant to invoke these powers. Under the Constitution, the Centre is competent to intervene. It has intervened on earlier occasions. As former Maharashtra Governor P C Alexander notes, the President (Centre) could have assumed ‘all or any of the provisions exercised by the Governor of UP’. The Centre has resorted to such action on more than 100 times in the past.

But PV Narasimha Rao was indecisive. His cabinet remained divided on the invocation of the powers under Article 356. He was otherwise known for his policy of ‘inaction’.

The Liberhan Commission seems to justify Rao Government’s ‘policy of inaction’. It is preposterous to assume that the Central leadership was ‘helpless’ in dealing with the situation. The demolition would have been negated but for the Centre’s apathetic attitude.

People are interested in economic development and not about religious disputes. Several hundred temples and mosques stand side by side at many places across the country. All these places of worship can serve as national monuments. Destruction can only lead to chaos.

- Asian Tribune -