The Liberhan Commission report relating to the events of December 6,1992 at Ayodhya is the big political issue of our time. However,reading the report clearly demonstrates that it is deeply flawed both in terms of procedural compliance,and on substance.
The Commissions very first mandate was vide para 2.1.1 of the report,to examine the sequence of events leading to and all the facts and circumstances relating to the occurrence at Ayodhya on December 6,1992. If this was the very first mandate then it was incumbent on the Commission to examine the role not only of P.V. Narasimha Rao,who was prime minister during the crucial period but also the role of Rajiv Gandhi and Buta Singh,who was home minister when Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister; because during that regime the locks were opened in the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and the shilanyas was permitted. The Commissions silence is baffling,because one cannot understand how their role would not come under scrutiny while examining the sequence of events leading to December 6,1992. The Congress Party even now admits Raos culpability,because of which he was denied the Lok Sabha ticket in 1998. One can draw necessary conclusions from the Commissions eloquent silence.
Similarly,at page 958 of the report,the Commission has held sixty eight individuals culpable. Under section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,it is incumbent to give reasonable opportunity of defence to a person whose reputation is to be prejudicially affected. There has to be a notice. Nearly 25 out of the 68 persons held personally culpable,which is prejudice indeed,were not given any notice at all. This includes Atal Bihari Vajpayee,one of the countrys most popular leaders and a former prime minister. In his case the Commission,on July 29 2003,by an elaborate order rejected the plea to summon him. Yet,he too has been held individually culpable in patent violation of law. The sweeping comment that merely because one supports the demand of the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya (feeling shared by millions all over) perforce he is also responsible for the destruction of the structure,is not only based on no evidence but laughable indeed. This list includes Devaraha Baba,a much respected saint worshipped by many in the country,who has already taken samadhi over ten years ago. Even the former acting Prime Minister Gulzarilal Nanda,who was hardly part of the movement,has come under cloud in the report.
Even on substance,there is a conscious attempt to ignore relevant material while determining culpability,and that too in a sweeping manner. The reports conclusion is replete with very critical references against the RSS as solely responsible for the incident. It may be relevant to note that after December 6,1992 the RSS was banned under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 and one of the grounds was its involvement in the demolition. The notification declaring RSS unlawful was sent for adjudication by the tribunal headed by Justice P.K. Bahri,Delhi high court judge,as is the legal requirement. The adjudication by Justice Bahri was notified by the home ministry on June 18,1993 wherein,at page 71,the learned judge noted the evidence of PW-7,a very senior IB officer,that there was no material evidence to show that these associations (RSS) had pre-planned the destruction of the disputed structure. The report also notes the white paper prepared by the Central government,which does not support the pre-planning theory. The tribunal accordingly held that there is no sufficient ground to declare the RSS unlawful.
Obviously,the judicial verdict of June 18,1993,just seven months after the events of December 6,1992,which exonerated the RSS,would carry greater sanctity than the Commissions report which has come after seventeen years and which holds the RSS as a villain. One is entitled to ask why Justice Liberhan did not take into account the 1993 decision at all. There is another serious flaw. On page 334,vide para 57.4; the Commission has held that the RSS is communal and against the secular principle of the Constitution because it supports Hindutva or cultural nationalism. While doing so,the Commission surprisingly ignored the Supreme Court judgment in the Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhu Case (1996 (1) SCC page 130) where on para 44 the Supreme Court has clearly held that It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on the Hindu religion or,that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depict an attitude hostile to all persons practicing any religion other than the Hindu religion. If this is the legal position settled by the Supreme Court which is equally binding on the Commission,then how can Justice Liberhan take a sweeping contrary view against the RSS on the ground that it is communal to espouse Hindutva or cultural nationalism?
L. K. Advani,as the deputy prime minister,deposed before the Commission for a full three days and replied to all the relevant questions. Apart from his deposition there was enough material before the Commission to show that he tried his best to stop the kar sevaks. Yet,the Commission has come to a curious conclusion that his attempt was feeble. The BJP is perfectly within its democratic right to take a position that the Ram Temple must be constructed there,because Hindus have believed for thousands of years that Lord Ram was born there and its denial itself is the worst manifestation of pseudo-secular politics. Yet,the Commission has a problem with the BJP because it held such view.
The Commission cannot become the arbiter of political or social choices. Its recommendation no. 1.16 that a government which has religious issues on its political agenda must be barred is patently undemocratic. If the people of the country elect a political party which advocates and opposes the discriminatory character of religion-based politics and the resultant competitive vote-bank,the Commission holds that it be prevented from coming into power even if the voters have given it a massive majority. We are being advised about a new rule of democracy by the Commission whose bias is self-evident.
The writer is a BJP MP
