Babri leaders press for action against culprits

Sheetla Singh,editor of Faizabad-based Hindi daily Janmorcha,said: “Besides the question of unnecessary delay in completion of the inquiry,it must also be asked who brought the mob at Ayodhya in 1990 and 1992.” She is a main witness of the demolition of Babri Masjid and also submitted before the commission.

Claiming that the then state and the Central governments took no step to save the Babri Masjid,she said: “When the then UP chief minister Kalyan Singh resigned,only two domes of the mosque were demolished and another was safe,but the then Union government led by PV Narsimha Rao didn’t impose the President rule till the entire structure was razed.”

“Even after the president rule was imposed,the VHP activists continued with the construction of the temporary temple at the disputed spot,” Singh added.

Another senior journalist CK Mishra said: “It was not just the demolition of a historical building but the destruction of the faith of Hindus and Muslims.” He has been covering Ayodhya issue since 1984 and was also a chief witness before the Liberahan Commission. “The mob gathered in Ayodhya on December 6,1992 and attacked Babri Masjid after being provoked by Ashok Singhal,Lal Krishna Advani,Uma Bharati,Sadhvi Ritambhara,Murli Manohar Joshi and other senior VHP leaders,” he added.

The main plaintiff of the Babri Masjid case in High Court,Hashim Ansari,said: “Congress alone is responsible for keeping the idols in the Babri Masjid in 1959,unlocking the mosque and beginning the Puja in 1987,and for the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.”

Lawyers speak
Advocate K P Singh,CBI counsel in Ayodhya case:
Nobody knows the contents of the report. It is for the PM to decide whether he is going to place it for discussion in Parliament. As for the pending cases in the Lucknow and Rae Bareli courts,evidence is still being verified.
IB Singh,counsel for R N Srivastava who was Faizabad DM at the time of the demolition of the Babri Masjid: Evidence collected by a commission holds no relevance for a court of law where criminal proceedings are taking place.