Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Liberhan Commission report - just one sided view?

So now that the report is 'officially' out, one can see how legal experts, constitutional experts are junking the report. And that is because it seems a large part of it was written while the honourable judge was 'daydreaming' (if I put down factual errors in a list, it would be a long one). While the political fraternity and the media are looking at the aspects of the report based on their affiliations, one can notice that while the report focusses heavily on what happened, it seems to suffer from selective amnesia on why it happened. Let me give you some examples:

The role of the Muslim leadership in build-up to the 6th Dec - The report says how the Muslim leadership was adamant on it's course and did not produce the settlement claim or any historical documents at the negotiation meeting where VHP produced the necessary historic and legal documents for the settlement. The fact that the leadership for 2 consecutive meetings did not bother to produce any legal or historcial documents slearly shows that all they wanted to do was to prolong the exercise and frustrate those leading the temple movement. Bukhari of Jama Masjid had gone to the level of saying that no judgement or negotiation where a Rama Idol is kept int he structure will be accepted and that there would be disintegration. It is surprising that everyone has so far been completely silent about how the inflexible attitude of these leaders played a major role in deepening the crisis. Also when VHP was doing Kar Seva on non disputed land, they put pressure on government to get it suspended too . They combined with the 'secular' leadeship to ensure that hardly any negotiation meetings took place between 1990-1992. And even when there was a talk of getting the courts to get an early judgement, these leaders played the game of delay.

The 'secular' leadership and their inaction / provocation - Was Narsimha Rao really so naive and foolish that he was day dreaming when the Kar Seva was allowed by SC and a huge mass had gathered? Wasn't he supposedly the father of Indian Economy boost as well as a shrewd politician who overstayed his tenure and luck? Did he really not think the situation was very volatile? Very surprising considering the fact that he was one of the chief negotiators earlier as the Home Minsiter of India under Rajiv Gandhi and had worked with leaders of both the communities. Also the fact that inspite of Hindu leaders meeting him regularly to get a settlement and urgng him to convince the Musllim leadership, he hardly did anything. He was inactive in the period that VHP suspended the kar seva to reach a negotiated settlement.Also the report is silent on the role of Late Rajiv Gandhi who as the Prime Minister ordered the locks of site to be opened to perform pooja. The way he played footsie with both the communities left him was nothing but pure communal politics. On the other hand, the so-called secuar leaders like Mulayam Singh and V P Singh continued their game of appeasement by indulging Bukhari inspite of his utterances. Though there is a very miniscule mention of how Mulayam administration fire callously furing the earlier Kar Seva in 1990, there has never been any doubt that Mulayam used his administration to kill scores of Kar Sevaks but got away with any rap just because he mouthed secular slogans. The fact that all these leaders continued to address the structure as a mosque (inspite of requests from a section fo the society to call it disputed structure till negotiations were complete) played a major role in incensing the already motivated kar sevaks.

So while the report, the media and the political class focusses only on one side of the story, it is high time, one looks at the other hand which was responsible for the clap else thse claps will someday become a slap on the Indian soul.

No comments:

Post a Comment