EVEN after the Liberhan Report in full is out on websites, the national debate on Liberhan’s work still seems based on the leaks of the report, not its text. This discourse on Liberhan starts with an epilogue on it. The Liberhan report is not an inviting document anyway. The unreadable, repetitive prose makes it a difficult read in fact. But a tenacious reader, who dares to read it, will be horrified by its content and logic. Liberhan’s unconcealed propensity to suspect everyone, be it police or intelligence agencies or leaders of the Ayodhya movement, as culprits, runs through the entire report. His suspicions form the core of his logic; also most of his proofs. If anyone reading it thinks that psychiatric help may be needed to decipher how Liberhan’s propensity to suspect accepts his suspicions as proofs, it should be no surprise.

Here are some examples of his unbelievable logic and conclusions.

Liberhan confesses at the very opening of his report that he had to work with only fragmented information and misinformation. Yet he dares to write a report of thousand pages filling the gaps in the story with incredible logic and multiple and multiplied, suspicions.

His conclusions conflict with the evidence he records. He contradicts in the next para what he says in the previous one. He indicts later those whom he had exonerated earlier. He conducts ‘meticulous inquiry’ based on ‘fragmented information’. He admits his inquiry to be ‘roaming’, yet insists it is equally ‘meticulous’.

He suspects a conspiracy to demolish the structure when the Congress government White Paper, the Congress home minister and the CBI, in that sequence, had ruled out any conspiracy. He suspects and indicts Advani in one para for merely pretending to prevent demolition and, in the very next, he records — but ignores — evidence that shows that Advani was actually preventing it. He says the kar sevaks were emotionally surcharged and belligerent and were ready to face bullets; but, in the end, contrary to the evidence, rules out that demolition was due to the belligerence of the surcharged kar sevaks.

The Liberhan report illustrates how misdirected inquiries can degenerate into meandering inquisitions and how their reports can deteriorate into pamphlets. The report is far less credible than its discredited cousin produced by Thakkar and Natarajan in the year 1987. Yet, most media that trashed the Thakkar Natarajan Commision report are now celebrating Liberhan. Why? Liberhan has cited select media apprehensions about the demolition then as evidence to translate his suspicions into conclusions now.

Liberhan relies on media reports then as evidence for his conclusions of now, and that validates the media reports of then. More.

Liberhan has given a couple of hundred pages of discourse on secularism, and against communal elements or organisations — read Hindu organisations. Is that single service of Liberhan not adequate for most media to endorse him, however degenerate on merits his report is? Poor Thakkar and Natarajan. Their inquiry enabled them to lecture only on CIA, not secularism; so they were roundly thrashed.

It is time now to open the Liberhan report to show what it is. What follows here in the next three parts are the illustrative, incredible examples of how the Liberhan-logic has derailed truth and destroyed the credibility of the institution of commissions of inquiry.

‘Fragmented information’

The Liberhan Commission has worked with only ‘fragmented information’ and ‘disinformation’.

This is not some BJP charge against Liberhan. This is Liberhan’s own confession in his report. He admits at the very opening of his report (para 3.4) “The state and central intelligence agencies were both over-optimistic in their assessments and guilty of gross failure or, in the alternative, they withheld crucial records from the commission.

In either case, the commission not being a detective agency was constrained to work with the fragmented information and disinformation presented to it. This one admission makes the whole of Liberhan’s report meaningless, its conclusions worthless.

If the state and its agencies had provided him with only “fragmented information” and “disinformation”, any fair judge would return the reference. For, with unreliable information, he could not come to reliable conclusions.

This course is inevitable as his conclusions yielded by fragmented information could be wrong and would harm individual honour and in a matter like this, even harm national interest. But Liberhan, after confessing that he had only fragmented information and misinformation, proceeds to write a thousandpage thesis founded on suspicion, finally, retailing his doubts as his judgment.

‘Inquiry meticulous’

 Even after admitting that he was forced to work with fragmented information and disinformation, Liberhan says his “conclusions are presented after a meticulous inquiry into the facts and circumstances” and the “conclusions drawn are fully supported by evidence on record”. “Meticulous inquiry?” Based on “fragmented information”, “misinformation”? How do “fragmented information” and “disinformation” lead to conclusions based on “meticulous inquiry into the facts and circumstances”? Look at more of the Liberhan theatre.

In para 6.1 (page 12) Liberhan says that his work is “not an adversarial trial”. It means that this is not an inquiry directed against anyone. But in the very previous page (para 5.3) he says he “is required to gather evidence against those organisations and individuals who have vitiated that peaceable environment”. Who is to decide which organisations “have vitiated the peaceable environment”? How, in what he admits to be non-adversarial, does he detect a mandate to gather evidence against anyone? There is nothing in the terms of reference (pages 4/5), which requires the commission to gather evidence against anyone, much less organisations “who have vitiated peaceable environment”.

It only says that the commission should enquire into the role played by different organisations and agencies. But Liberhan sees it as a mandate, even an obligation, to gather evidence against some organisations! Of course, he does not name them. But, as the discourse here unveils, he actually and admittedly conducts a roaming inquiry and gathers doubts against them and condemns organisations chosen by him.

‘Roaming’ inquiry

See the next scene in the theatre. Liberhan says that “the inquiry was instituted as a roaming and fact-finding inquiry and with no restrictive mandate”. He admits that he was mandated to do and had done a roaming inquiry! And that is precisely what the law prohibits. This is not a rule framed today.

Take the famous Titanic disaster case — one of the oldest cases of inquiry. When, in 1912, some 1,635 persons lost their lives in the disaster, the British government appointed a commission of inquiry under Lord Mersey “to make a searching investigation into all questions that have arisen in connection with the loss” of the Titanic.

The questions included whether the Board of Trade had remained inert in legislating requisite regulations and whether the ship owner was responsible, and so on. The issue was very emotive. Yet The New York Times editorially commented, “we may at least assume that the inquiry conducted by Lord Mersey will not degenerate into a roving inquisition”.

So the culture of fair judicial inquiry is as old as that. It is now a settled principle of jurisprudence in all civilised societies that when an inquiry becomes a roving one it degenerates into a fault-finding inquest.

A roaming or roving inquiry starts with suspicions as to the cause and ends validating suspicions as conclusions. Looked at in another way, a roaming or roving inquiry legitimises street corner gossip. This is what the law never allows. Yet, defying the long settled culture of the law, Liberhan claims to have had a mandate for a roaming inquiry and has produced a report based on his roaming inquiry which had yielded tons of doubts and not even a gram of proof. Read tomorrow how suspicions aggregate as proof.

E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net

http://epaper.expressbuzz.com//NE/NE/2009/12/06/PagePrint/06_12_2009_008.pdf

http://expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=nlQbYhvQ22c=

The evidence at Ayodhya: wasted 17 years of Liberhan

http://folks.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/HARI-VISHNU-INSCRIPTION-300x170.jpg The Hari-Vishnu Inscription found at Ayodhya.

By Dr. N S Rajaram 28 Nov. 2009

The ‘disputed’ structure

For all the sound and fury in the media about Ayodhya, the historical question is surprisingly simple: was there or was there not a Hindu temple at the spot known as Ram Janmabhumi that was destroyed to build a mosque? The answer is also equally simple — ‘yes’. There are two parts to the question: (1) was there a Hindu temple, and (2) was it destroyed and a mosque known as Babri Masjid built in its place. Again the answer is — ‘yes’ to both questions. It is as simple as that.

We should not allow ourselves to be diverted by the dispute whether Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya. It can neither be proved not disproved on the basis of existing evidence, just as we can neither prove nor disprove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem or Mohammed was born in Mecca. The point of this essay is the destruction of Ram Temple to build a mosque in Babar’s time.

There are basically two sources for studying the history: literary sources and the archaeological record. Following the demolition on December 6, 1992, a great deal of archeological and historical information has come to light. Thus, much of the published material, as well as the controversy about previous temples at the site have been rendered moot by new discoveries following the demolition. What is presented here is a summary of the latest evidence — literary as well as archaeological.

Literary evidence

The latest (fifteenth) edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its article on Ayodhya tells us: “Rama’s birthplace is marked by a mosque, erected by the Moghul emperor Babur in 1528 on the site of an earlier temple.” This is only one of hundreds of references to the destruction several languages. One recent author (Harsh Narain, below) cites more than a hundred and thirty references in English, French, Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian and Arabic. And I have identified several not found in his work.

The most comprehensive discussion of the primary material available is probably the book The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on the Muslim Sources by Harsh Narain. We next go on to examine several of these sources provided by Harsh Narain. When we survey this vast literature, we see that until recently, until the Secularists created the so-called ‘controversy’, no author — Hindu, Muslim, European or British official — had questioned that a temple existed on the spot which had been destroyed to erect the mosque. We may begin with a couple of references from European writers provided by Harsh Narain. These are from published sources that are widely available.

A. Führer in his The Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Archaeological Survey of India Report, 1891, pp 296-297 records: ‘Mir Khan built a masjid in A.H. 930 during the reign of Babar, which still bears his name. This old temple must have been a fine one, for many of its columns have been utilized by the Musalmans in the construction of Babar’s Masjid.’ [This is supported by archaeology, as we shall soon see.]

H.R. Neville in the Barabanki District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 168-169, writes that the Janmasthan temple ‘was destroyed by Babar and replaced by a mosque.’ Neville, in his Fyzabad District Gazetteer, Lucknow, 1905, pp 172-177 further tells us; ‘The Janmasthan was in Ramkot and marked the birthplace of Rama. In 1528 A.D. Babar came to Ayodhya and halted here for a week. He destroyed the ancient temple and on its site built a mosque, still known as Babar’s mosque. The materials of the old structure [i.e., the temple] were largely employed, and many of the columns were in good preservation.’ [Again supported by archaeological finds.]

In 1855, Amir Ali Amethawi led a Jihad (Islamic religious war) for the recapture of Hanuman Garhi, situated a few hundred yards from the Babri Masjid which at that time was in the possession of Hindus. This Jihad took place during the reign of Nawab Wajid Ali Shah. It ended in failure. A Muslim writer, one Mirza Jan, was a participant in that failed Jihad. His book Hadiqah-i-Shuhada was published in 1856, i.e. the year following the attempted Jihad. Miza Jan tells us:

…wherever they found magnificent temples of the Hindus ever since the establishment of Sayyid Salar Mas’ud Ghazi’s rule, the Muslim rulers in India built mosques, monasteries, and inns, appointed mu’azzins, teachers and store-stewards, spread Islam vigorously, and vanquished the Kafirs. Likewise they cleared up Faizabad and Avadh, too from the filth of reprobation (infidelity), because it was a great centre of worship and capital of Rama’s father. Where there stood a great temple (of Ramajanmasthan), there they built a big mosque, … Hence what a lofty mosque was built there by king Babar in 923 A.H. (1528 A.D.), under the patronage of Musa Ashiqqan! (Harsh Narain: p 105)

In fact, as late as 1923, the book Asrar-i-Haqiqat written by the Hindu scholar Lachmi Narain Qunango assisted by Maulvi Hashmi confirms all of the above details. The book leaves one with the impression that many sources were still available to them, especially to the Maulvi who served as Pandit Lachmi Narain’s munshi. This brings us to a Persian text known as Sahifah-i-Chihal Nasa’ih Bahadurshahi written in 1707 by a granddaughter of the Moghul emperor Aurangazeb, and noted by Mirza Jan in his Urdu work Hadiqah-i Shuhada previously cited. Mirza Jan quotes several lines from it which tell us:

…keeping the triumph of Islam in view, devout Muslim rulers should keep all idolaters in subjection to Islam, brook no laxity in realization of Jizyah, grant no exceptions to Hindu Rajahs from dancing attendance on ‘Id days and waiting on foot outside mosques till end of prayer … and ‘keep in constant use for Friday and congregational prayer the mosques built up after demolishing the temples of the idolatrous Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Avadh … (Harsh Narain: pp 23-24; emphasis added.)

Then there is the evidence of the three inscriptions at the site of the mosque itself, at least two of which mention its construction by Mir Baqi (or Mir Khan) on the orders of Babar. Babar’s Memoir mentions Mir Baqi as his governor of Ayodhya. Some parts of the inscription were damaged during a riot in 1934, but later pieced together with minor loss. In any event, it was well known long before that, recorded for instance in Mrs. Beveridge’s translation of Babur-Nama published in 1926.

Overwhelming as all this evidence is, the archaeological evidence is still stronger.

Discoveries at the site I: The Temple City of Ayodhya

Let us next look at what archaeology has to say about the Ayodhya site. The first point to note is that Ayodhya lies in a region that is generously watered, and has therefore been densely populated since time immemorial. As a result, archaeological work at Ayodhya is more difficult, and has not been on the same scale as at Harappan sites lying a thousand miles to the west. Here is what a leading archaeologist, Dr. S.P. Gupta (former director of the Allahabad Museum), has to say about recent excavations at Ayodhya.

From 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992.

At Ayodhya, Professor Lal took as many as 14 trenches at different places to ascertain the antiquity of the site. It was then found that the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more… When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found re-used and standing in position as corner stones of piers for the disputed domed structure of the ‘mosque’, Prof. Lal felt that the pillar bases may have belonged to a Hindu temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD…

On further stratigraphic and other evidence, Lal concluded that the pillar bases must have belonged to a Hindu temple that stood between 12th and the 16th centuries. “He also found a door-jamb carved with Hindu icons and decorative motifs of yakshas, yakshis, kirtimukhas, purnaghattas, double lotus flowers etc.”

What this means is that Lal had found evidence for possibly two temples, one that existed before the 13th century, and another between the 13th and the 16th centuries. This corresponds very well indeed with history and tradition. We know that this area was ravaged by Muslim invaders following Muhammad of Ghor’s defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan in the second battle of Tarain in 1192 AD. This was apparently rebuilt and remained in use until destroyed again in the 16th century by Babar.

http://folks.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Temple-ruin-165x300.jpg Temple Ruins found at the demolished site of Babri Structure.

Excavation was resumed on July 2, 1992 by S.P. Gupta, Y.D. Sharma, K.M. Srivastava and other senior archaeologists. This was less than six months before the demolition (which of course no one then knew was going to take place). Their particular interest lay in the forty-odd Hindu artifacts that had been discovered in an adjacent pit that had been missed by Lal. These finds had been widely reported in the newspapers. Gupta, a former Director of the Allahabad Museum and an expert on medieval artifacts had a special interest in examining the finds. He tells us:

The team found that the objects were datable to the period ranging from the 10th through the 12th century AD, i.e., the period of the late Pratiharas and early Gahadvals. The kings of these two dynasties hailing from Kannauj had ruled over Avadh and eastern Uttar Pradesh successively during that period.

These objects included a number of amakalas, i.e., the cogged-wheel type architectural element which crown the bhumi shikharas or spires of subsidiary shrines, as well as the top of the spire or the main shikhara … This is a characteristic feature of all north Indian temples of the early medieval period and no one can miss it — it is there in the Orissa temples such as Konarak, in the temples of Madhya Pradesh such as Khajuraho and in the temples of Rajasthan such as Osian.

There was other evidence — of cornices, pillar capitals, mouldings, door jambs with floral patterns and others — leaving little doubt regarding the existence of a 10th – 12th century temple complex at the site of Ayodhya. So B.B. Lal had been right in believing there was an earlier temple — prior to the one destroyed by Babar. More discoveries were made following the demolition of December 6. All these discoveries leave no doubt at all about the true picture.

So archaeology also leaves little doubt about the existence of the prior temple. Then came the explosion of Decembr 6, 1992, which demolished not only the Babri Masjid but also the whole case of the Secularists and their allies. It revealed a major inscription that settled the question once and for all.

Discoveries at the site II: the Hari-Vishnu inscription

The demolition on December 6, 1992 changed the picture dramatically, providing further support to the traditional accounts — both Hindu and Muslim. Some of the kar-sevaks, no doubt influenced by all the publicity about history and archaeology, went on to pick up more than two hundred pieces of stone slabs with writing upon them. A few of these proved to belong to extremely important inscriptions, more than a thousand years old. In effect, the kar-sevaks had done what archaeologists should have done years ago; they had unearthed important inscriptions — in howsoever a crude form — something that should have been done years ago by professional historians and archaeologists. The inscriptions, even the few that have been read so far, shed a great deal of light on the history of not only Ayodhya and its environs, but all of North India in the early Medieval, and even the late ancient period. Here is what S.P. Gupta found upon examining the two-hundred and fifty or so stone pieces with writing upon them. The most important of these deciphered so far is the Hari-Vishnu inscription that clinches the whole issue of the temple. It is written in 12th century AD Devanagari script and belongs therefore to the period before the onslaught of the Ghorids (1192 AD and later). Gupta tells us:

This inscription, running in as many as 20 lines, is found engraved on a 5 ft. long, 2 ft. broad and 2.5 inches thick slab of buff sandstone, apparently a very heavy tablet … Three-fourths of the tablet is found obliterated anciently. The last line is also not complete since it was anciently subjected to chipping off. A portion of the central part is found battered, maybe someone tried to deface it anciently. The patination [tarnishing including wearout] is, however, uniform all over the surface, even in areas where once there were inscriptions. (In The Ayodhya Reference: pp 117-18)

Gupta is an archaeologist and not an epigraphist trained to read ancient inscriptions. It was later examined by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Chairman of the Epigraphical Society of India who gave the following summary. What the inscription tells us is of monumental significance to the history of Medieval India.

The inscription is composed in high-flown Sanskrit verse, except for a very small portion in prose, and is engraved in chaste and classical Nagari script of the eleventh-twelfth century AD. It has yet to be fully deciphered, but the portions which have been fully deciphered and read are of great historical significance and value … [It has since been fully deciphered.] It was evidently put up on the wall of the temple, the construction of which is recorded in the text inscribed on it. Line 15 of this inscription, for example, clearly tells us that a beautiful temple of Vishnu-Hari, built with heaps of stones … , and beautified with a golden spire … unparalleled by any other temple built by earlier kings … This wonderful temple … was built in the temple-city of Ayodhya situated in Saketamandala. … Line 19 describes god Vishnu as destroying king Bali … and the ten headed personage (Dashanana, i.e., Ravana). (op. cit. 119; emphasis mine. Original Sanskrit quotes given by Shastri have been left out.)

Need we say more — a temple for Hari-Vishnu who killed the ten-headed Ravana, in the temple city of Ayodhya? So Ayodhya was known as a temple city even then; Saketa was the ancient name of the district. The inscription confirms what archaeologists Lal and Gupta had earlier found about the existence of a temple complex. And yet the Secularists and their allies have been telling the world that there was no temple!

Summary of findings

We may now sum up the findings based on both literary and archaeological/epigraphic evidence:

1. All the literary sources without exception, until the Secularists began their negationist masquerade, are unanimous that a Rama temple existed at the site known since time immemorial as Rama Janmabhumi.
2. Archaeology confirms the existence of temples going back to Kushan times, or about 2000 years. This date may well be extended by future excavations assuming that such excavations will be permitted by politicians.
3. Archaeology records at least two temple destructions: the first in the 12th-13th century; the second, later, in all probability in the 16th. This agrees well with history and tradition that were temple destructions following the Ghorid invasions (after 1192 AD) and restored, and was destroyed again in 1528 by Babar who replaced it with a mosque. This is the famous — or infamous — Babri Masjid that was demolished by kar-sevaks on December 6, 1992.
4. A large inscription discovered at the site dating to 11th-12th century records the existence of numerous temples including a magnificent one in which Hari-Vishnu was honored as destroyer of the ten-headed Ravana. Ayodhya was always known as a temple city.

These facts drawing upon several literary and archaeological sources leave no doubt at all that a temple located at a site sacred to the Hindus was destroyed to build a mosque under Babar’s express orders.

Bibliography

The Ayodhya Reference: Supreme Court Judgement and Commentaries. 1995. New

Delhi:Voice of India. Ayodhya and the Future of India. 1993. Edited by Jitendra

Bajaj. Madras: Centre for Policy Studies.

Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor. 1996. Edited, translated and

annotated by Wheeler M. Thacktson. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

Elst, Koenraad. 1990. Ram Janmabhoomi vs. Babri Masjid. New Delhi: Voice of India.

Goel, Sita Ram. 1991. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Volume I (A

Preliminary Survey). New Delhi: Voice of India.

Goel, Sita Ram. 1991. Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them. Volume II (The

Islamic Evidence). New Delhi: Voice of India.

Harsh Narain. 1993. The Ayodhya Temple Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources.

Delhi: Penman Publishers.

Rajaram, N.S. (1998). A Hindu View of the World: Essays in the Intellectual Kshatriya

Tradition. New Delhi: Voice of India.

Rajaram, N.S. (2000). Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New

Delhi: Voice of India

Liberhan doesn’t even notice that underneath Babri structure were temples.

Here is a precise report (not from Liberhan!):

Open source literature indicates that from 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992. He discovered a Hindu temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD. Supporting Prof. Lal's discovery was Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArcha eologist ( Madras Circle ), who was a trainee at that juncture. He had written : " I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER.”

Then came the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court mandated ASI excavations at the site in the summer of 2001, using 'ground penetrating radar'. Here again the ASI team discovered the ruins of a demolished 16th Century A.D. Hindu Temple.

The fact of the matter is that the archaeological evidence is irrefutable and has already shown the existence of two Hindu Temples at the site - one belonging to the Delhi Sultanate Period and the second during Babur's reign. That these  never appeared in the media is an altogether different story.

H. Balakrishnan

 Sunday, November 29, 2009 | Email | Print | 


Liberties Liberhan took

Chandan Mitra

Remember Gulzari Lal Nanda? Although he was Prime Minister twice, I can bet only the 60-plus generation of informed citizens and quiz show participants will recall the name, fame or lack of it. GL Nanda last hit the news pages about 20 years ago when he was unceremoniously thrown out bag and baggage from a flat in Delhi’s Defence Colony for non-payment of rent. The elderly Gandhian leader died shortly thereafter in near-penury after leading a long ascetic life. The ramrod straight Congress leader of yesteryear used to wash his own clothes and cook his own meals till he was too old, infirm and bed-ridden. Upon the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963 and Lal Bahadur Shastri in early 1966, Nanda was sworn in as Prime Minister for brief periods by virtue of being the senior-most member of the Cabinet. Although described as Acting PM by the media, his name adorns the record books because the Constitution does not recognise any category as ‘Acting’. He dutifully resigned on both occasions after the party chose Shastri and Indira Gandhi respectively to head the Government and was re-inducted into the Cabinet by both his successors.

Poor Gulzari Lal Nanda has been resurrected once more, this time in rather unflattering light. On page 336 of the 1,000-page-plus Justice MS Liberhan Report, there is a stinging indictment of Nanda along with former RSS chief Prof Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiyya) and Dau Dayal Khanna (a respected advocate of post-Partition refugee rehabilitation). They have been blamed for being “ardent Hindus” who created an atmosphere in which radical Hindu sentiment could grow. Nanda’s ashes must be churning in their urn at the bracketing. But more sinisterly, Liberhan insinuates that the efforts by leaders like GL Nanda eventually culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid!

If anyone has the patience or masochistic passion to labour through Liberhan’s voluminous essay on the state of the Indian polity since Independence, he will discover many prize gems of this nature. Still one thing must be said in Liberhan’s favour: Loyalist ho toh aisa! The man who appointed him to the job to which Liberhan clung on for 17 long years emerges as the silent hero of the so-called inquiry report. And why not, for thanks to PV Narasimha Rao, the retired Supreme Court judge was able to secure a bungalow in Central Delhi, a posse of staff, vehicles and other facilities at his disposal. As a result of Rao’s largesse and the indecision of subsequent United Front, NDA and UPA Governments, Liberhan’s Commission cost the exchequer a whopping Rs 8 crore in salaries alone! We don’t as yet know what the total extent of us taxpayers’ money that was squandered on producing the costliest essay in history!

Having plodded through much of this alleged report, I was left wondering who actually wrote the document. Almost every page reeks with JNU’s left-secularist ardour, barring the occasional bad grammar. It seems so pre-determined that the entire purpose of undertaking what was meant to be an “impartial inquiry” becomes a breathless blitz against Hindu sentiment. Terms like pseudo-moderate, used particularly to lampoon Atal Bihari Vajpayee give the game away. It’s typically JNU intelligentsia’s too-clever-by-half retort to LK Advani’s famous coinage — pseudo-secularist. There are long passages of pedestrian political philosophy lamenting how some politicians prioritise pursuit of power, as if politicians are supposed to renounce politics, abjure power, migrate to the jungles and meditate over their destiny! 

Copious tears are shed over the presumed attempt by some people to perpetuate casteism (what’s that got to with Babri?) and damage India’s secular fabric although that is a basic feature of the Constitution. (The word ‘secular’, incidentally, was introduced in the Preamble of the Constitution along with ‘socialist’ only by an amendment passed during the Emergency years by Indira Gandhi). Also ironic is the fact that Justice Liberhan took nearly 182 months to compile his report when the same thing was completed by the CBI in 9! Cases are going on in various courts on the basis of CBI charge-sheets since then. In other words, the Liberhan report is of mere academic interest today although the use of ‘academic’ in the context of this boring essay is rather misplaced.

It is not my intention to compete with Justice Liberhan to produce an antidote for insomnia. I shall, therefore, refer only to something that concerns me personally. Having just come across LK Advani’s testimony before the Commission spanning from April 2001 to January 2002, I was surprised by the number of references to my reports regarding the fateful events of December 6, 1992, that appeared in Hindustan Times (of which I was then Executive Editor). On several occasions, the Commission’s counsel Anupam Gupta, whose ideological affinities are well known, attempted to trip up Advani by referring to passages in two reports I filed from Ayodhya (“All domes collapse under kar sewaks’ onslaught” published December 7 and “Control room that had no control”, December 8, 1992). In his reply to one of Gupta’s queries, Advani said: “I would think that as Chandan Mitra has said this, Chandan Mitra would be a very valuable witness before the Commission because I can affirm that he was present on the terrace (Ram Katha Kunj, makeshift dais where BJP/VHP leaders had assembled) for most of the time. And, therefore, if the Commission were to hear from him what precisely he saw and heard, that would be a very valuable testimony.”

Interestingly, I never got any summons from the Commission although it questioned 1,500 witnesses and virtually every journalist who was present in the Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid complex that day. In its report, the Commission narrates at length the alleged manhandling of Ruchira Gupta who was reporting for Business India those days. It reproduces without verification her (patently false) claim that she was manhandled by kar sewaks and her clothes torn. Had the Commission summoned me I would have testified under oath that nothing of the kind happened. She accompanied me, despite my pleas to the contrary, when I decided to visit the structure under destruction. In fact, she was saved by an assistant to Pramod Mahajan who pushed her out of the way because some kar sewaks got agitated by her remarks and demanded to know who she was, doubting her claim to be a kar sewak despite the saffron bandana she wore to pretend being a member of the demolition squad.

I was not remotely associated with the BJP those days and my reports in HT were factual and non-commentative, unlike those of my Leftist compatriots. Those two reports are still widely referred to by Western researchers into the demolition and its aftermath. Yet, the Commission never thought it fit to call me for evidence. But then, I am in august company. Justice Liberhan who liberally savages Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his report, never called him to testify either. After the leak of the document, Liberhan even denied on camera that Vajpayee had been pilloried. I can excuse the retired judge. If anybody takes 17 years to compile a litany of half-truths and untruths, memory can well play truant. Unless, of course, the report’s authorship itself is in some doubt! 

http://dailypioneer.com/219008/Liberties-Liberhan-took.html

AUM

VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD

Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022

Tel. 011-26178992, 26103495 Fax : 26195527

Dec. 1, 2009

ANALYSIS OF THE LIBERHAN AYODHYA COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT

COMMISSION EXPOSED MORE THAN THE FACTS

The Commission was constituted with the following terms of reference to enquire into the following issues:-

1. Sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the occurrence in the RJBM complex at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 involving the destruction of the RJBM structure.

2. The role played by the Chief Minister, Members of the Council of Ministers, Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by the individuals, concerned organizations and agencies in or in connection with the destruction of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure.

3. The deficiencies in the security measures and other arrangements as prescribed or operated in practice by the Government of Uttar Pradesh which might have contributed to the events that took place in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex, Ayodhya town and Faizabad on 6th December, 1992.

4. The sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assault on media persons at Ayodhya on 6th of December, 1992 and

5. Any other matter related to the subject of enquiry.

Preliminary observations:

The Commission took seventeen long years to present its final report. The Commission has cost the nation tens of crores of rupees. It has failed to come up to the expectations of the people. It has failed to dig out facts and serve the purpose for which it was constituted. The report appears to be the handiwork of a prejudiced mind that had made up his mind to give the report on a particular persons &/or institutions. The Commission seems to have decided beforehand to give a report of guilty to some individuals and organizations and to give a clean chit to others. In the process, the Commission has ended in exposing itself more than exposing the truth behind the episode. The report stands punctured with numerous contradictions and anomalies.

It is important to note that the Commission has rarely visited the spot where the alleged incident took place. Its report is paralyzed with the absence of detailed visit of Ayodhya and the fact that it has been written only in office. Further, the office of the Commission was declared by the Government of India to be in Lucknow, but he never functioned from there but from Delhi. 

Went beyond the terms of reference: 

Comments: It is absolutely misplaced and irrelevant to the terms of reference. The alleged comments are also reported to have been made (and also denied) much after December, 1992.

2.       At Page No. 958, Para No. 171, the Commission has listed, among others, the some persons as culpable, viz., Deoraha Baba, A.B. Vajpayee, Badri Prasad Toshniwal, Moropant Pingle, Onkar Bhave, Prof. Rajendra Singh, Gurjan Singh, G.M. Lodha, Champat Rai and so many others.

Comments: But all these persons were never called to defend themselves by the Commission. If there was any evidence or proof against any individual, then it was a legal and moral binding on the Commission to have called them to present their case and defend themselves. As a judge of High Court he should have known that this was a primary requirement for justice under the law of jurisprudence and nobody could be held guilty unless he was called to defend himself.     

3.     In this list, Commission has mentioned the name of Shri Pravin Togadiya also. On or before December 06, 1992, the sphere of activities of Shri Togadiya was limited to Gujarat only. And so, he was neither on the dais nor amongst the speakers of the day.  

4.       At Page 931, Para 162.2 Commission says: "There is no requirement that the media must be unbiased or independent or that it must not take sides"

Comment: Everywhere in the world in any form of govt. has anybody so far said that the media should not be free, fair, impartial and objective. The above comment of the commission ventures to promote a fourth estate that is unethical, irresponsible and not honest to itself.

5.       At Page No. 935, Para No. 163.2 the commission says

"For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the Governor, the inexplicable irresponsibility of the Supreme Court's observer and the shortsightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb."

Comment: This is a highly irresponsible comment by the Chairman of the Commission who himself was a judge of the High Court. This unbecoming comment amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Commission did not call the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh to appear before him. Yet, he made these disparaging remarks against the Governor. The Commission also failed to understand that he was only a judge of the High Court and a judge of the High Court has no right to comment on the Apex court, that is the Supreme Court.  

Conspiracy

6.       At Page 917, Para 158.9 the commission says

".........Prognosis of evidence leads to the conclusion that the mobilisation of the Karsevaks and their convergence to Ayodhya and Faizabad was neither spontaneous nor voluntary. It was well-orchestrated and planned......"

But, the same report states:-

At Chapter No. 1, Page No. 15, Para No. 7.4, the Commission states

..."...no evidence was lead or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise by any of these counsels..." (of the Muslim organisations).

Of the above same chapter in Para 7.5, "......there was no effective participation on behalf of Muslims as a community or otherwise. No alternative theory or any version was put forth on behalf of the Muslims before the Commission..."

In the same paragraph 7.5, it states "...responsible educated literate citizens claiming to be the leaders of a particular community or the ones who participated in negotiations preceding the demolition etc. never came forward to disclose any material or fact in any form....."

At Chapter 10, page 775, para 130.5

"No documentary or direct evidence is possible in a conspiracy of this nature, nor unimpeachable and firm evidence of some action of planning of demolition was obtainable"     

At page 782 para 130.24 commission says:

"....Home secretary Godbole stated that there was No information of planning and as such it could not be inferred that there was a conspiracy of the Congress & BJP for demolition,..."

Comment: Then, on what grounds, evidence and justification has the Commission come to the conclusion that it "was well-orchestrated and planned".   

At the same time it needs to be taken note of the fact that after demolition of the alleged structure on December 06, 1992 three organizations namely RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal were banned through Government notifications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 10th December, 1992. As per the requirement of this Act, a Tribunal headed by Justice P.K. Bahri, the sitting Judge of Delhi High Court was constituted on 30th December, 1992. Being a constitutional body, after due trial, the tribunal delivered its verdict on 18th June, 1993 which has been published by the Government in official gazette (The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section-II).

At Page 71 of this gazette, the tribunal holds "...It is pertinent to mention that PW-7 has categorically admitted that there was no material evidence to show that these associations had pre-planned the destruction of the disputed structure. It is admitted by PW-7 again that a video recording of the events which took place on the fateful day on December 06, 1992 at Ayodhya was prepared by the IB..."

On page No. 72 in the same verdict Justice Bahri states "...even the white paper prepared by the Central Government does not support this theory of pre-planning for destruction of the disputed structure by these associations or their workers..."

It is worth mentioning that PW-7 Mr. Padhi was a very senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau and authorised by the Government of India to present the case before the Bahri Tribunal.

The above facts clearly shows the prejudiced mind of the Commission which has written its report in a pre-meditated manner. Justice Bahri was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal he was heading, was a judicial body whose verdict was binding on the Government. On \the other hand, the report of the Liberhan Commission has no legal binding on the Government and is just recommendatory in nature which the Government may or may not accept.

The Commission seems to have been suffering from the same ailments which he mentions in Page No. 1, Chapter No. 1 (Introduction), Para No. 1.1 "...For some, the temptation of power is supreme. The usual means for acquiring power is through politics. There is always an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one's own purpose -- nothing matters beyond political desirable results, however achieved. In the process of acquisition of power the consequence of the process on the institution, the nation, individuals and society as a whole does not matter. Life itself becomes politicised. Objectivity or intellectual honesty or logic is lost in the process..." 

Comment:  His words apply more aptly to the Commission itself. Despite government orders and wish, he never functioned from Lucknow. He stuck to Delhi with "an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one's own purpose".

Supports Ramjanambhoomi

By accident or design, the Commission seems to have made some inadvertent observations which cannot be contradicted or controverted. He has ended up supporting the Ramjanambhoomi case:

In Chapter No. 2 (Ayodhya & its Geography)

page No. 23 the Report says:

Para 9.1:    "Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city."

Para 9.2:    "Ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors, pilgrims, Sadhus and Sants, monks, travellers, tourists."

Para 9.3 :   "Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, khosla(sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ra Janam Bhoomi"

Para 9.4:    "Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers, pilgrims,sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith."

Para 9.5 :   ..."This Place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the past with the present & the future. this religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after success ruler had gone by.

Page 25, Para-10.3 :

"On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a population of about 2,10,000. It has a large number of temples mostly dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu."

Page-26, Para-10.10

"The town is currently inhibited (sic) (inhabited!) With a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations."

Page 29, Para 12.1

"There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines, tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area; rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”

Page 29, Para 12.2

"Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman Garhi, Preethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and Kasushalya Bhawan........"

Page 32, Para 12.12

"The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi in his statement with no contradiction."

Chapter-4 (Sequence of Events)

Page 61, Para 18.6

"In the year 1528, the Mughal Emperor Babar ordered his commander Mir Baqi to erect a mosque at Ayodhya. Protagonists of the present movement claimed that after demolishing the temple at the birth place of Ram, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque i.e. the "disputed structure."

Page 61, Para 18.8

"Worship of idols installed on the Ram Chabutra by Hindu devotees in general was performed for a considerable period. There was no objection from the Muslims staking the counter claim prior to the shifting of idols into the disputed structure in 1949."

Page 62, Para 18.9

"It is, however, not the Commission's mandate to record a finding with respect to the exact question of history and a discourse on whether a mosque was constructed at the place of temple is outside the Commission's purview. Suffice to say, the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 is now an admitted fact."

Page 63, Para 18.13

"Although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from going to the disputed structure or from offering Namaz therein either by the judiciary or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since 1934. No processions were taken out inside the disputed structure nor any grave dug there about."

Comment:  This clearly shows that the Commission indirectly confirms that a mosque was constructed at the site of the temple. Ayodhya is in existence from times immemorial while Babur came much afterwards and the mosque was constructed in 1528 CE.

Page 88, para 26.2 say:

"...It is noteworthy that no member of the Muslim community from Ayodhya was a member of the Babri Masjid Action committee or other committee protesting the opening of locks at the disputed structure. Sultan Shahabuddin Owaisi, aMember of Parliament from Hyderabad challenged the opening of locks alongwith some others became a forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation"

Page 89 Para 26.4 says:

"Muslims variously protested between 1st of January to the 30th of March, 1987. Apart from giving calls for, boycotting Republic Day (which call was later withdrawn), Bandhs were observed and a public rally held at Boat Club in Delhi.Public threats of violence were made by personalities no less than the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, Shahabuddin and Suleiman Sait, etc."

Comment: Yet the Commission fails to make any adverse comment on these individuals.

In Paragraph 158.3 the Commission says that it "...never became a movement...". Whereas, in Para 158.9 & 159.10, it contradicted itself with the contention as to "...entire process of the movement" and "...leaders of the movement".

Chapter 1 (INTRODUCTION)

Page 15, Para 7.3

"Prominent members of the Muslim community claimed on behalf of their constituents, to be adversely affected by the demolition, in their sentiments and emotions. They claimed that their religious feelings were hurt. Initially various councils (sic) (counsels) representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee, Waqf Board, other Muslim organizations and individuals appeared and associated with the Commission before and during the framing of the Commission's rules."

Page 15, Para 7.4

"Thereafter, it was in the last stages, i.e., almost after a decade, that the counsel for the Muslim Law Board joined the proceedings. Mushtaq Ahmed started appearing before the Commission after half a decade of its existence; before the joining or associating of the Muslim Law Board before the Commission. Azad Makhmal representing Shahabuddin and another lawyer A. Haq showed up once or twice but made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry. Mushtaq Ahmed did, however, cross-examined some witnesses intermittently. After a decade of the Commission's inquiry, one Bahar-ul-Barki representing the AIMLB appeared along with senior Counsel, Yusuf Muchhala representing the Muslim Personal Law Board and cross-examined some key witnesses like L.K. Adjani in part. No evidence was led or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise, by any of these counsels. O.P. Sharma, advocate who also joined almost the fag end of the inquiry conducted himself equally ineffectually."

At Page 17 Para 8.3 the Commission says:

"The dispute with respect to disputed structure is proclaimed to be as ancient as history. Innumerable writings in books and research papers, commission proceedings were placed on the record of the commission. The title of the property was never settled much less finally by any civil court which is still pending before the honourable high court till date. From time to time rulers of the time permitted the people of their faith the possession."

Story of acquisition of 2.77 acres of land surrounding the structure:

The 2.77 acres land was acquired by the UP Govt. on Oct. 1991 for public purpose. This acquisition was challenged in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High court  by a local Muslim. The case was heard by full bench comprising of Hon'ble justice H.C. Mathur, Hon. Justice Brijesh Kumar & Hon. Justice S.H.A. Raza. The arguments were over by Nov.04, 1992. The date fixed for the pronouncement of the judgement was 4th December 1992. Justice Mathur & Justice Brijesh Kumar had already written their openion regarding this acquisition order. But the justice Raza delayed the pronouncement of its Judgement to the 11th of December 1992 which was after the 6th December, date fixed for commencement of karsewa.

This deliberate delay in pronouncement of the order infused a sense of disappointment in the mind of the people to get justice and ultimately led to the incidents. The Kar sevaks broke loose and climbed up the disputed structure. The structure was made to collepse in five hours and a temporary canopy (makeshift structure) was errected on the debris of the disputed structure where the Pooja is going on.

A few words regarding the civil suites:

The first civil suit regarding the title of Ram Janambhoomi was filed in 1950 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 1/1989). The second suit was filed in 1959 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 3/1989). The third suit was filed in 1961 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 4/1989). The fourth suit was filed in 1989 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 5/1989). For 40 years the cases remained hanging fire in district court of Faizabad.

After 40 years, in 1989 these cases were transferred to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since then another twenty years have passed. Due to the retirement of one or the other judge, the bench had to be reconstituted eleven times and consequently the justice is not only been delayed but also derailed and denied.

Conclusion:

Even after 40+ extensions during seventeen long years of the country's valuable time and wasting four years in marely preparing huge volume of useless report, the commission declared  many prominent personalities as culpable without giving them a chance of hearing. It is shameful that in its long list of culprits one had already been died before the date of incident and seventeen therafter before submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards the apex judiciary of the country, Media, head of the state(governor) and other respectable segments of the society are highly unacceptable. 

Convened by Chamapat Rai, Joint General Secretary-VHP, and compiled by members of the team i.e. Amba Charan Vashisth, K.K. Sharma, Vinod Bansal, Rakesh Upadhyay.

Kindly Note & Circulate to all your contacts.

REGARDS

VINOD BANSAL
(MEDIA COORDINATOR)
VISHWA HINDU PARISHAD, Delhi
M - 98109 49109
ivhpmedia@gmail.com

List of Temples destroyed in Kashmir after Dec 6, 1992

http://ikashmir.net/templesdestroyed/4.html

 List of Hindu Temples Destroyed by Muslims

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple1.html

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple2.html

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple3.html

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/temple4.html

Temples destroyed in Pakistan/Bangladesh

http://hindustan.net/forums/showthread.php?t=613

Law is an ass; does not notice the history of peoples' reverence for Shri Rama.

What Liberhan fails to reveal despite 17 years of judicial scrutiny is that Rama Janmabhoomi temple was destroyed in 1528 CE. The movement dates back to this event and it is simplistic to ignore the sense of history ingrained in peoples’ hearts. The reverence of Shri Rama dates back further into the mists of history; the tradition is that Valmiki Ramayana is itihasa, document of history of Hindu people, Hindu rashtram. So, the Liberhan report indulges in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri, ignoring over 400 years of history. A clear case of the law being an ass.

Muslim Hindu should introspect and see how justice can be rendered to the hurt Hindu rashtram. 

kalyanaraman

http://www.hvk.org/ram/janm/ap1.htm Shri Rama Janmabhoomi Movement

Summary of the evidence proving destruction of Shri Rama Janmabhoomi temple in 1528 AD

                        This Annexure gives the summary of the evidence provided by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in December 1990 to the government of India. This evidence was compiled in context of the discussions organised by the Chandrashekar government, and the moot point then was: Is there proof that an old and persistent tradition among Shri Rama devotees has considered the site as the sacred Shri Rama Janmabhoomi, and that Shri Rama worship ttok place there in a temple, before and until the Babri structure was built? It has also been published by the VHP, and many have written about the points made therein. The evidence establishes the vandalism at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi site in 1528 AD. 

The full evidence is available at the following websites:http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/rjm/index.html 

As a response to a White Paper prepared by the Narsimha Rao government in February 1993, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) brought out its own document in April 1993. The section relating to the evidence of the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi temple not only gives a summary of the evidence, but also includes comments made by the Government of India on the submissions made by the VHP. While the government comments have not been made public, the BJP's White Paper is in the public domain. To the best of our knowledge the BJP's reproduction of government notes have not been denied. 

The relevant section is available at the following websites: http://www.hvk.org/ram/a8.html

The full White Paper of the BJP is available at the following websites:http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/index.html