Documents contradict Cabinet Secy’s Ayodhya claims
NEW DELHI, JUNE 14: The Ayodhya inquiry has received conflicting versions from the officials themselves on the crucial question whether th...
NEW DELHI, JUNE 14: The Ayodhya inquiry has received conflicting versions from the officials themselves on the crucial question whether there was any intelligence failure in the Babri Masjid demolition.
The cabinet secretary, Prabhat Kumar, has claimed that “there was no indication of any threat to the security to the disputed structure” on December 6, 1992. He said this last week during his deposition before the Justice M S Liberhan Commission on the role played by him in 1992 as principal home secretary of Uttar Pradesh.
Prabhat Kumar’s claim of an intelligence failure is totally at variance with the documentary evidence already adduced before the Liberhan Commission by a member of the Union Public Service Commission, S N P Sinha, who was in 1992 the head of UP’s intelligence department.
But Prabhat Kumar got away with that claim on June 9 because he was asked about the intelligence aspect only towards the end of the day and his cross-examination was adjourned soon after that. He is, however, bound to be confronted with Sinha’s evidence at the next hearing of the Commission on June 21.
The outcome of Prabhat Kumar’s cross-examination on June 21 will have far-reaching implications because his claim of an intelligence failure is in tune with the BJP’s position as well. If he fails to counter Sinha’s evidence, it may prove embarrassing to the BJP. Especially because it will reinforce the allegation being made by Kalyan Singh, since his exit from the ruling party, that the demolition was the result of a conspiracy hatched by the BJP, RSS and VHP.
The Commission had in fact summoned Kalyan Singh to appear on June 21. But in the last hearing, Kalyan Singh filed an application through his counsel saying he did not want to depose “at this stage.” It will be interesting to see how the Commission will deal with Kalyan Singh’s plea. Prabhat Kumar also disregarded the Commission’s summons for a long time. Finally, the Commission had to issue an arrest warrant against the cabinet secretary to make him appear.
Earlier, Sinha put a mass of documentary evidence on the Commission’s record to show that “there was absolutely no intelligence failure” in the demolition of Babri Masjid. Sinha’s evidence included the following intelligence reports sent to the police and the administration in the run-up to the demolition:
1.12.1992: A meeting of Shiv Sena activists on 28.11.1992 specifically decided that no trace of the Babri Masjid should be left at the Ram Janmabhoomi site.
2.12.1992: The Kar Sevaks, especially those of the Shiv Sena, are in an aggressive mood. On 1.12.92, they demolished six Mazars in Ayodhya. Foolproof police arrangements will therefore have to be made to secure the disputed structure and keep the crowd of Kar Sevaks under control. If they get agitated at any point, it will be difficult to save the structure.
5.12.1992: There are several shortcomings in the security arrangements. Watch towers have not been constructed. CCTVs are not working. The security arrangements at the entry and exit points of the disputed structure are far from satisfactory.
Since Sinha’s deposition is contrary to the line taken by the police officers, it is not surprising that that their counsel grilled him closely before the Commission in a bid to demolish his case. Here’s an example of how Sinha was cross-examined by I B Singh, counsel for D B Roy, then SSP of Faizabad and later BJP MP:
I B Singh: I put it to you that the entire responsibility for the events of December 6, 1992 is due to the failure of the intelligence and that you are shifting the responsibility to others?
Sinha: These suggestions are thoroughly unfounded as is evident from my deposition. It clearly shows that the failure was not on the part of the intelligence department but on the part of field officers who were charged with the direct responsibility to take adequate measures to safeguard the structure. Intelligence department fed timely intelligence bearing on the security of the structure.
Share
