Madhav Godbole was Union Home Secretary when the Babri Masjid was demolished. Pune-based Godbole, who also served as Justice Secretary and held several high positions in the bureaucracy in the 1980s and early 1990s, has recently written a book, The Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir Dilemma: An Acid Test for India’s Constitution. He spoke with Seema Chishti. What is your key takeaway from the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi crisis, and the demolition of the Babri Masjid? As I have brought out in the book, the demolition of Babri Masjid signified a total breakdown of not just the rule of law, but of the Constitution itself. The demolition could have been avoided if three successive Prime Ministers — Rajiv Gandhi, V P Singh and P V Narasimha Rao — had intervened effectively to find a solution to the dispute. All constitutional bodies — the central government, the state government, the Governor, the judiciary, and the all India services (IAS and IPS) — failed in discharging their responsibilities. Even after the demolition of Babri, the stand of the two communities — Hindus and Muslims — has not changed, as if time has stood still over the years. If another catastrophe like in Ayodhya takes place, India will be as vulnerable as it was in 1992, when the mosque was demolished. Several individuals with close links to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement are associated with the government in various capacities today. Is that relevant as the verdict is about to be delivered? Ideally, it should make no difference to upholding the principles, precepts and values of the Constitution whichever political party is in power, as every holder of office, while taking over, undertakes to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. But this is easier said than done. Secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, is being questioned and flouted in flagrant disregard of constitutional precepts. Communalisation and politicisation of civil services, which are the main instruments for upholding the rule of law, has become a cause for serious concern. After all, the strength of democracy lies in its institutions. Equally important is the role of civil society and the media, among others. Why didn’t then PM Narasimha Rao invoke Article 355 or 356 (in Uttar Pradesh) before the demolition? Could that have prevented the events of December 6, 1992? Prime Minister Rao was of the view that Article 356 (of the Constitution) could not be used preemptively. My view, based on Supreme Court decisions, is quite the opposite. Invoking Article 356 (along with Article 355) and imposition of President’s Rule in UP, as advised by the Ministry of Home Affairs, with the concurrence of the Ministry of Law, was the only way Babri could have been saved from destruction. Not imposing President’s Rule meant giving a free hand to (then UP) Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, and he made full use of it by literally presiding over the destruction of the mosque. As I have argued in the book, after the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, Article 356 was invoked more than a hundred times. This was one occasion which fully warranted its use, but unfortunately, on this very occasion it was not used. With the Supreme Court verdict in the title suit appeals only days away, what should be the focus now? Strong pressure of public opinion must be built that, whatever may be the decision of the highest court, it will be fully respected and accepted by all. A meeting of the National Integration Council may be called to build a national consensus and resolve for the purpose. At the same time, it must be made unambiguously clear by the central and state governments that any breach of law and order would be put down firmly. What is your prognosis for India after the decision? Will there be closure, or could the judgment open a Pandora’s box? The Supreme Court, in its majority judgment in the Special Reference No. 1 of 1993 dated 24 October 1994, had underlined that it is in the national interest that there is no loser at the end of the process, so that the final outcome does not leave behind any rancour in anyone. The court had also said that unless a solution is found which leaves everyone happy, that cannot be the beginning for continued harmony between “we the people of India”. This was of course with reference to the expected negotiations between the contending parties. I have suggested in my book a similar approach to resolving the dispute. I sincerely hope this will come about as a result of the judgment of the apex court. India cannot shirk the existential question of separation of religion from politics, as it has done so far. I believe that India’s religious, racial, linguistic, cultural, ethnic and even sartorial diversity is its strength, and under no circumstances should it be permitted to be compromised and diluted.
