Babri demolition

As Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Become the Norm, Combating Islamophobia is a Task Long Overdue

Today in India the many misconceptions against Muslims form the base of violence. The misconceptions are becoming stronger over the period of time and have become a part of ‘social common sense’.

In July 2024 England witnessed riots and unrest in several cities. They were precipitated mainly due to misinformation and anti immigration sentiments among the people. In these riots. Muslims were the main target. There was attack on mosques and also places where immigrants were living.

Previously, the ‘All Party Parliamentary Group’ had come up with a report defining Islamophobia and had observed that phrase ‘Islam Spread by Sword’ is one of the roots of Islamophobia.

This is a great example to emulate in our country where this and many other misconceptions and biases rule the roost. How did Islam spread? By citing the examples of some Hindu kings being killed by Muslim Kings for political reasons, it has been popularised and the myth has been instilled that Islam spread by sword. The reality of the spread of Islam in India is very different.

The Arab traders had been frequently coming to Malabar Coast of Kerala and Islam was adopted by the locals through social interaction with these traders. The manifestation of this phenomenon is perceivable through Cheraman Jumma Mosque in Malabar region of Kerala which was built in the seventh century itself.

Swami Vivekananda points out “The Mohammedan conquest of India came as a salvation of the downtrodden, to the poor. That is why one fifth of our people have become Mohammedans. It was not the sword that did it all. It would be the height of madness to think that it was all the work of sword and fire. It was to gain their liberty from the… zaminders (landlords) and from the – Priest, and as a consequence you find in Bengal there are more Mohammedans than Hindus amongst cultivators, because there were so many zaminders there.”

As such none of the kings spread their religion, barring Emperor Ashok, who sent his emissaries to spread the message of Lord Gautama Buddha.

Today in India the many misconceptions against Muslims and Christians form the base of violence. The misconceptions are becoming stronger over the period of time and have become a part of ‘social common sense’.

The process of spreading misconception began with the formulation that Muslim Kings destroyed Hindu temples. The intensification of this propaganda led to demolition of Babri mosque on December 6, 1992, the guilty of which have not been punished till date. After the Babri Mosque issue, now Kashi and Mathura have been added. Even the Taj Mahal is being propagated as Shiva Temple converted into the tomb of Noorjahan, queen of Jahangir.

Lately, the misconception about ‘Cow being a holy animal and Muslims are killing the cows’ is at the forefront. This is one of the main grounds for propagating vegetarianism on one hand and lynching on the other.

“Muslims were the target of 51% of violence centered on bovine issues from 2010 to 2017 and comprised 86% of the 28 Indian citizens killed in 63 incidents. Only 3% of these attacks had been reported before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government came to power in May 2014 and about half the cow-related violence – 32 of 63 cases – occurred in BJP-ruled States,” IndiaSpend has reported.

Human rights activist Harsh Mander, the founder of Karwan-e-Mohabbat, visits the families of lynching victims to soothe the wounds of the families and residents.

He wrote in The Indian Express, “I am profoundly chilled as I scan social media pages of Monu Manesar. He and members of his gang live stream as they openly brandish sophisticated firearms, sound sirens mimicking police jeeps, shoot at vehicles, and brutally thrash the men they catch.”

All this came to mind when Cow Vigilantes’ killed a Hindu student Aryan Mishra on the suspicion of cow smuggling. His mother questioned the reasons behind the killing, saying, “The accused mistook him as a Muslim and killed him. Why? Aren’t Muslims human? Why you need to kill Muslims”.

We do recall Akhlaq, Junaid, Rakbar Khan and many others who have been done to death on suspicion of killing the cows. Recently, while travelling from Amritsar to Palampur by road, my young colleague was repeatedly shocked to see the plight of stray cows, their menace on the road and frequency of road accidents related to cows and plight of farmers due to stray cows.

On parallel lines the non vegetarian food in tiffin is becoming another cause for tormenting Muslim students. A third standard Muslim boy in a prominent school in Amroha had brought Biryani in his lunch box. The principal of Hilton school, Amrish Kumar Sharma locked him up in the store room, commenting that “I won’t teach children who will demolish temples after growing up…”

A major problem being faced by the country is hate speech. We have mechanisms to control and punish those indulging in hate speech but on ground those indulging in hate speech are generally enjoying impunity, while some are promoted in the party hierarchy.

The Assam Chief Minister on a regular basis spreads such hate, saying that he will not let Miya Muslims to take over Assam. And uses words like flood jihad, electricity jihad and naukari (jobs) Jihad. On a regular basis he and other BJP leaders state things like this to polarize the community along religious lines.

UP Chief Minister, Yogi Adityanath began demolishing the houses and property of Muslims with bulldozers. Other BJP Chief Ministers have been following this example.

On Bulldozer menace Justice B.R. Gavai stated “How can homes of people be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law,”.

He was hearing a petition against the Jahangirpuri demolition drive in Delhi after the 2022 riots. “ But the question is will the Chief Ministers listen?

Is it not time for the state to set up a committee like the one in the UK to ensure the implementation of norms which combat misconceptions? These misconceptions have spread very dangerously in society. Combating Hate and misconceptions in society is overdue to prevent communal violence in society!

Babri Masjid’s Name Deleted, Referred as ‘Three-dome Structure’ in Revised NCERT Textbook

New Delhi: The updated NCERT Class 12 Political Science textbook, released last week, has removed Babri Masjid’s name and has called it a “three-dome structure,”The Indian Express reported. The revised textbook also cut down the Ayodhya section from four to two pages and deleted multiple references of the mosque’s demolition.

Some of the significant details of the Ayodhya episode that were deleted include the L.K.Advani-led BJP’s Rath Yatra to mobilise supporters for the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Kar Sevaks’ crucial role in bringing down the Babri Masjid, communal riots in the aftermath of the mosque’s demolition on December 6, 1992, President’s rule in BJP-ruled states, and BJP’s “regret over the happenings in Ayodhya”.

IE had earlier reported that the revised political science textbook also removed at least three references to the demolition and painted the newly-constructed Ram Temple in Ayodhya as a culmination of “centuries old legal and political dispute” that was resolved by the Supreme Court in 2019. The previous version contained the sequence of events from the opening of the locks in 1986 to subsequent political mobilisation on both sides that altered the course of India’s politics.

The revised textbook is also a new version of Ayodhya’s history. While the old textbook refers to Mir Baqi as the one who built the Babri Masjid in the 16th century, the new textbook says that the “three-dome structure” was built at the site of Shri Ram’s birthplace, and that the structure had “visible displays of Hindu symbols and relics in its interior as well as its exterior portions”.

Also read: From Babri Masjid Demolition to Ram Temple Inauguration: The Trajectory of Indian Politics

Replacing the sequence of events since 1986 in the previous version, the new textbook says, “In 1986, the situation regarding the three-dome structure took a significant turn when the Faizabad (now Ayodhya) district court ruled to unlock the structure, allowing people to worship there. The dispute had been going on for many decades as it was believed that the three-dome structure was built at Shri Ram’s birthplace after demolition of a temple. However, although Shilaanyas for the temple was done, further construction remained prohibited. The Hindu community felt that their concerns related to the birth place of Shri Ram were overlooked, while the Muslim community sought assurance of their possession over the structure. Subsequently, tensions heightened between both communities over ownership rights, resulting in numerous disputes and legal conflicts. Both communities desired a fair resolution to the longstanding issue. In 1992, following the demolition of the structure, some critics contended that it presented a substantial challenge to the principles of Indian democracy.”

The national daily reported that a new subsection on the Supreme Court’s decision on the Ayodhya dispute called “From Legal Proceedings to Amicable Acceptance” has also been added.

“This states that “in any society conflicts are bound to take place”, but “in a multi-religious and multicultural democratic society, these conflicts are usually resolved following the due process of law”. It then mentions the 5-0 verdict of the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019 on the Ayodhya dispute. That verdict set the stage for the temple – which was inaugurated in January this year,” the news report said.

The new textbook concludes the Ayodhya dispute as follows: “The verdict allotted the disputed site to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust for the construction of Ram temple and directed the concerned government to allot appropriate site for the construction of a Mosque to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. In this way, democracy gives room for conflict resolution in a plural society like ours, upholding the inclusive spirit of the Constitution. This issue was resolved following the due process of law based on evidences such as archaeological excavations and historical records. The Supreme Court’s decision was celebrated by the society at large. It is a classic example of consensus building on a sensitive issue that shows the maturity of democratic ethos which are civilizationally ingrained in India.”

Images of newspaper clippings with headline “Babri Masjid demolished, Centre sacks Kalyan Govt”, and one quoting former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as saying “Ayodhya BJP’s worst miscalculation” have now been deleted. The observations in a Supreme Court judgement, convicting UP’s BJP chief minister on the day of demolition, Kalyan Singh, have also been deleted. The court had convicted Singh for contempt of court for his failure to “uphold the majesty of law”, and observed thatt “since the contempt raises larger issues which affect the very foundation of the secular fabric of our nation, we also sentence him to a token imprisonment of one day.”

The new textbook now mentions only the Supreme Court verdict of November 9, 2019 that allowed the construction of the Ram Temple. “…Every judge of this Court is not merely tasked with but sworn to uphold the Constitution and its values. The Constitution does not make a distinction between the faith and belief of one religion and another. All forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal…It is thus concluded … that faith and belief of Hindus since prior to construction of Mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed which faith and belief is proved by documentary and oral evidence,” the revised version says.

The new textbook is a part of NCERT’s fourth round of revision and updates since 2014. In April, the NCERT had responded to IE regarding the changes surrounding the Ayodhya chapter. “Content is updated as per latest developments in politics. Text on Ayodhya issue has been thoroughly revised because of the latest changes brought by the Supreme Court’s Constitutional bench verdict and its widespread welcoming reception.”

The Babri Masjid Demolition Inalterably Changed the Trajectory of India’s History

The doctrine of Hindu exclusiveness has stimulated a second partition of the country, albeit metaphorical in the sense that it is not a physical territorial split but a schismatic division of minds based on religion.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 was that seminal moment in our national life that inalterably changed the trajectory of our history. From that day on, secular India was up against it.

Even as I write, the Bharatiya Janata Party has swept the “semi-final” assembly polls, winning convincingly in three of the four major states (not including Mizoram, which, like the other northeastern states, is treated as an appendage of the Union. Who cares what happens there!). And our prime minister – the shining star of Hindutva – has triumphed again, crushing all in his wake. His gloating victory speech predicted an inevitable hat-trick of wins for the BJP in 2024 and ended with this Caesar-like brag: “Modi’s (third person, singular) guarantee begins when hopes from everyone’s promises end.” Modi is truly unstoppable!

The irresistible saffron imprint on the body politic can be traced back to December 6, 1992, that dark day when the Hindutva project was kick-started with a brutal transgression of the law. Cocking a snook at the Constitution, the kar sevaks and their Sangh parivar handlers – with a knowing wink from the law-enforcers – brought down the Babri Masjid. This heinous act of desecration was greeted by a large section of people with the kind of wild excitement seen when India beats Pakistan in cricket. The joyous response was not restricted to the lumpen elements who brought down the Masjid but was pervasive across the country, even among denizens in boardrooms and the government.

At a more profound level, the Babri Masjid demolition was a frontal assault on our collective identity as a secular nation. More than anything else, it demonstrated the power of the ethnocentric Hindutva ideology that upholds the supremacy of Hindus and purveys a pathological animosity toward Muslims and Christians. This doctrine of Hindu exclusiveness has become a more than formidable alternative to the secular principle of pluralism and inclusion enunciated in the Constitution. It has stimulated a second partition of the country, albeit metaphorical in the sense that it is not a physical territorial split but a schismatic division of minds based on religion. From the day of the Babri Masjid destruction, the Hindutva credo of majoritarian nationalism has been in deadly political and social combat with the idea of India envisaged by our founding fathers.

Also read: Thirty-One Years After Babri Demolition, an Important Reminder

Shortly before his death, Jawaharlal Nehru assessed the threat to the nation’s security thus: “The danger to India, mark you, is not communism. It is Hindu right-wing communalism.” How prophetic have been his words! While it is true that the communalism of one group feeds on the communalism of the other, it is undeniable that only majority communalism has the power to alter the nature of the Indian polity by subverting the basic principles of democracy and secularism. His warnings have gone unheeded and today the country is on the brink.

It is important to remember that at the time of Independence, the citizens of India, mainly Hindu, had outright rejected the communal for the secular. The values that embellish the Preamble of our Constitution were quite simply the will of the majority. This was the ideal that the country aspired for but given the trauma of Partition and the historical animosity between the two communities, it was always going to be a hazardous project. Even as the nation wrestled with the problems of hunger, disease and unemployment, the fundamentalist forces, Hindu and Muslim, were engaged in stymieing all attempts at cultural syncretism between the communities. Tragically, they have had unmitigated success in polarising our society on communal lines.

The trishul-waving kar sevaks atop the Babri Masjid dome represented a deviant religious militancy that undermined the country’s core values. It diminished the land of Buddha and Gandhi that was tolerant of all religions and transformed it into a deeply polarised, violent majoritarian state. At the ideological plane, the cultural eclecticism that marked the world view of Adi Shankaracharya and Gandhi was subsumed by the divisive, insular nationalism propagated by M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar.

William Hazlitt famously observed that the garb of religion is the best cloak for power. The Sangh parivar’s calculated induction of religion into the political arena with the clear intent of bestowing divinity to their politics has been hugely successful. A venom-spewing Yogi with a bulldozer in tow is the head of the largest state in the country. Skilfully using rituals to keep the Hindu ranks together, Valmiki and Ravidas pujas are conducted for the benefit of lower castes. Today the Sangh parivar, despite mangling a great religious tradition of pluralistic beliefs, can justifiably claim to identify with and represent the collective will of a large section of Hindus.

Even on the day that the Babri Masjid was torn down, it was palpably obvious that no power on earth would be allowed to rebuild it, such was the visible might of those who engineered its destruction. It would be no exaggeration to state that on the ruins of this structure was built the irresistible political juggernaut of the saffron brigade. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement which culminated in the Babri destruction resulted in a massive boost in the political fortunes of the BJP, particularly in the Hindi belt and the West. This was reflected in the 120 Lok Sabha seats that the BJP won in 1991 and the 161 seats with alliance partners that it got in 1996, compared with the measly two seats secured in the 1984 election.

Also read: Why the Places of Worship Act Must Be Preserved

Three decades later, the BJP is the nation’s hegemon, the undisputed power at the Centre and ruling in several states. In its wake, the social ecosystem is steaming with schismatic tensions and the rhetoric of hate. Gratuitous everyday cruelty manifested in lynchings, ghar wapsi, beef vigilantism, love jihad and the crushing of dissent plays out under the benign gaze of the state.

Even the last bastion of our democracy – the Supreme Court – has bowed to majoritarian sentiment. The site of the demolished mosque has been bestowed to the deity “Ram Lalla”, and in doing so, the court has neither delivered justice nor adhered to the fundamental tenets of the law. Instead, aastha or faith of the majority community has prevailed. Today the country waits with bated breath for the grand inauguration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya by the prime minister on January 22, 2024, a pompous ceremony that will affix an authoritative seal to the cohabitation of the state with the religion of the majority. Damn secularism!

It is significant that this regime’s overwhelming victory in three of the four states that just the other day went to the polls, has come at a time when we have never been worse off as a nation. While the rich are being provided the wherewithal to grow richer, raging unemployment and an uncontrolled price rise have obliged the government, by its own admission, to provide free rations to 80 crore people for the last two years which is to be continued for another five years. The social fabric is in tatters; Kashmir is more alienated than ever; there is a civil war in Manipur. The Chinese are stomping all over our territory and we have no friend in the neighbourhood, with even the Maldives giving us the cold shoulder.

But instead of concentrating on the real concerns of the common man, the Opposition has sought to exploit caste and religion to beat the BJP at its own game.

Whereas the ill usage of religion for political purposes has yielded massive dividends for the BJP, it has certainly boomeranged on the Opposition when it tries to play with soft Hindutva. (Of course, one cannot overlook the harmful impact of the Kamal Nath-Digvijay Singh duo for the Congress defeat in Madhya Pradesh. They ignored their INDIA alliance partners and thought that low cunning alone would see them through.)

Let’s face it. As a nation, we have irreversibly cast off the idea of India as a united, multicultural country with common goals and aspirations, a shared history and on a joint search for a better future for all. In its place we have Hindutva as the unofficial ideology of the state. And today, there is neither brotherhood nor love, but only manic hate. Jai Shri Ram!

Mathew John is a former civil servant. The views are personal.

‘Mumbai Mafia’ Has a Few Insights but the Documentary Ultimately Feels Slim and Superficial

Netflix’s latest true crime offering is a typical ‘snackumentary’ – a filmmaking equivalent of franchise fast food that aims for the easiest pleasures, not hard-fought longevity.

A Netflix true crime documentary often relies on a template: drone shots, dramatic reconstructions, archival footage, thumping thrills. That style once made nonfiction appealing, but its indiscriminate application over the last several years has made it formulaic and, at its worst, contrived. You won’t find a director’s voice in these films – only the streaming platform’s. Not all true crime pieces – or documentaries in other genres even – need stylised narrative desperation. Indian true crime documentaries on Netflix, with the major exception of Bad Boys Billionaires, have ranged from embarrassing (Crime Stories: India Detectives) to mediocre (A Big Little Murder) to middling (House of Secrets: The Burari Deaths).

Netflix’s latest offering, Mumbai Mafia: Police vs The Underworld, enters a terrain that’s spawned a surfeit of stories: the ‘encounter’ cops and the gangsters. But an international platform like Netflix – hosting a diverse audience – creates another narrative problem: how to tell a story that doesn’t spoon-feed its well-known details, such as the Mumbai underworld to an Indian audience, and yet explains it enough to not alienate the other unfamiliar viewers.

Filmmakers Raaghav Dar and Francis Longhurst don’t have an inventive solution. So their 87-minute documentary takes its time setting up the first act, replete with all the identifiable tropes, where each incident has produced enough fictional films and documentaries: the rise of organised crime in Mumbai, the ‘shootout at Lokhandwala’, the Babri Masjid demolition, the 93 Bombay blasts. Its talking heads try their best, however, to sustain the audience’s interest. A (very) animated Minty Tejpal, a crime reporter in the 90s, cuts a dramatic and entertaining figure (sometimes too dramatic, such as calling the Babri a “Muslim mosque”).

But an obvious lack of moderation makes the initial segment limp. When the movie was still explaining the Bombay riots, it pricked my patience and compelled me to check the progress bar: 40 minutes — almost half the runtime. Till then, it had introduced a few cops – most notably the pivotal Pradeep Sharma – who only touched upon their increasing tussles with the underworld. But soon, Mumbai Mafia turns on its head via two key inclusions: the cops’ unchecked killings, along with their seniors’ approval, media deification, movie portrayals; and their abject lack of moral compass.

The first part – just by the nature of the story itself – is fascinating and disturbing. A city where many cops look more murderous, more amoral, more sociopathic than the gangsters. A city doomed and destined to be ruled by one gun-toting gang or the other. The cops Sharma and Ravindra Angre (who looks so pissed off that ‘Ravindra Angry’ sounds better on him) complicate the story further, almost bragging about their killings. It reminded me of Joshua Oppenheimer’s The Act of Killing (2012), where the perpetrators of the Indonesian genocide admitted their murders on camera, producing documentary filmmaking’s finest hour: the state-sanctioned horrific human condition. Mumbai Mafia provides crucial context, too: journalist Puja Changoiwala compares the extent of the two massacres – the cops killing around 1,200 people, more than five times the death count in the Bombay bomb blasts.

Dar and Longhurst also explore the other aspects of the story, as their documentary gathers renewed purpose and vitality. They interview an ex-D-company member, Shyam Kishore, treating his transformation and fear – Sharma had scared him so much that he lay low Goa in for years – with dignified empathy. The cop A.A. Khan, who headed the Lokhandwala shootout, calls the encounter killings “morally reprehensible”. Crime reporter S. Hussain Zaidi, who has had the best seat in the stadium for decades, provides fresh perspectives, questioning Sharma’s self-image, calling out his new “ego”-ridden avatar.

The cops complement these commentaries. Just listen to Sharma when asked, “How did you feel on a human level about all this?” He replies: “I ultimately killed a criminal – not some saint.” Sharma then leans back and says, “Naturally, you feel bad, but well…” Mumbai Mafia even manages to produce unexpected dramatic irony, when Sharma, jailed in a fake encounter case, had to literally share space with the “filth” he was purportedly trying to clean. When Angre, also jailed for fake encounters once, is asked if he “feels bad” about the system discarding him, he (almost) shouts: “I don’t feel bad. Only cowards feel bad; I get angry.” The documentary also finds a nice conclusion – tying its theme and story – with the arrest of Abu Salem, showing the crucial difference between justice and retribution.

Also Read: ‘Encounter Specialists’ Were Seen as a Bitter Yet Necessary Medicine: Retired IPS Officer

Yet given its dense subject, Mumbai Mafia ultimately feels slim, soft, and surface-level – a primer as opposed to an investigation. Instead of interviewing (and interrogating) Sharma and Angre in detail, it’s too busy being a slick piece – inundating us with snazzy newspaper and video clips – that only scaffold its story, not build it. Had it investigated the cops’ attitudes and the increased extensions of their frightening powers more – and the larger system that looked away when they ran amuck on the streets – it’d have been much more nuanced and memorable. Would it have been easy? Of course not. Sharma and Angre talking on camera – given their histories (the former was jailed again last year for the pradeep sharma thewire.in arrest) — feels like a mini-coup itself, but impressive art demands time.

Mumbai Mafia, as a result, is a typical ‘snackumentary’ – a snack-type documentary that gives you enough to whet your appetite about the real world, eliding the necessary vigour that such a story demands, helping you feel intelligent without taxing your brains, converting a complex piece into easy house party anecdotes. A filmmaking equivalent of franchise fast food that aims for the easiest pleasures, not hard-fought longevity.

‘Concluding That No One Demolished Babri Masjid Will Haunt India Forever’: Chidambaram

The Congress leader, speaking at the launch of Salman Khurshid’s book ‘Sunrise over Ayodhya – Nationhood in Our Times’, spoke about Hindutva, secularism and intolerance.

Former Union minister and Congress leader P. Chidambaram said that India will forever be haunted by the conclusion drawn after the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Ayodhya title dispute that “no one demolished Babri Masjid”, much like “no one killed Jessica”.

He was speaking at the launch of Salman Khurshid’s book Sunrise over Ayodhya – Nationhood in Our Times on November 10. The book provides an account of nearly three decades vis-a-vis politics, religion and the Indian state from the day Babri Masjid was demolished in December 1992 until the Supreme Court judgment on the matter in November 2019. Some Hindutva supporters, including BJP leaders, have criticised the book, and criticised Khurshid of comparing Hindutva outfits to radical jihadist groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram.

The Wire has prepared a transcript of the speech delivered by Chidambaram, where he touches upon several key issues pertaining to religion, Hindutva politics, secularism and others. The transcript has been slightly edited for style and clarity.

Good evening to all of you. It’s good to address an audience in flesh and blood, rather than look at a blank screen. My good friend Salman Khurshid, my good friend Digvijay Singh, Ragini and friends, [hello].

Like everyone else, I was born into a family that practiced a religion; it happened to be the Hindu religion. We worshipped a variety of gods from village deities to Lord Ganesh, Lord Shiva, Lord Subramanian, Lord Krishna. My mother performed the usual rituals, observed the usual festivals, and all that was described as the way of life of Hindus.

That way of life did not stop my mother to admit me to a Catholic convent or to a Christian missionary school or to a Catholic college or to accept for five years of high school A.K. Muza as the class leader, nor to accept Harun Mohammed as the school leader. Nor, did it interfere with our way of life if we visited the St. Lazarus Church which was the closest place of worship to my home, nor the famous St. Thomas Cathedral at its annual festival, which attracted thousands of people, mostly non-Christians. That, we were told, is a way of life. It didn’t stop me from keeping the picture of Mother Mary under the pillow, nor did it prevent me from going to the chapel in Loyola College. Those things did not interfere with our way of life.

We are now told that that is not the way of life; Hindutva is the way of life. No less than our former chief justice of India [J.S. Verma in 1995] said that seeking votes in the name of Hindutva did not amount to seeking votes in the name of religion, because Hindutva is not a religion, it is a way of life.

So looking back, I have practiced Hindutva for the last several years without knowing what I was doing. It is very difficult to reconcile what I learnt as the Hindu way of life and what is being propagated today as the Hindu or the Hindutva way of life. Be that as it may, I certainly do not know as much about religion as my good friend Digvijay [Singh].

Obviously, words have acquired a new meaning; practices have acquired a new meaning. Whatever Gandhiji thought was Ram Rajya is no longer the Ram Rajya as understood by many, many of our fellow citizens. Likewise, what Pandit [Jawaharlal Nehru] told us about secularism is certainly not the way secularism is understood by many millions of our fellow citizens.

For example, secularism has moved away from acceptance to tolerance, and from tolerance to an uneasy coexistence. Secularism has moved away from community living to living apart, to living in ghettos. Secularism has moved away from having friends among all communities and all religions… and I have tried this on young students and listeners, ‘How many of you among the Hindus have a Muslim friend?’, and those who said they had a Muslim friend couldn’t count more than one. So I think these words have acquired a very different meaning, and unless we recognise what has happened to our country in the last 15 or 20 years, we would not be true to what we believe India should be.

Today we live in a world where lynching is not condemned by anyone in authority – certainly not the prime minister, certainly not the home minister. An advertisement by an internationally well-known watchmaker and jeweller has to be pulled out because it portrays a Muslim daughter-in-law living happily in a Hindu joint family.

[Editor’s note: The Tanishq advertisement depicted a Hindu daughter-in-law of a Muslim family.]

An advertisement by another well-known brand, Fabindia, has to be scrapped because someone interpreted three Urdu words as denigrating Diwali. And none of us rises in protest when riots at Muzaffarnagar and northeast Delhi limp along to a predictable conclusion when witness after witness turn hostile and the judges have to castigate the police for shoddy investigation. Certainly, no one in high authority seems to be stirred by these contemporary, everyday occurrences.

This book is about what happened in Ayodhya, what happened to the Babri Masjid. That story started in 1992 and came to a completely unexpected end on November 9, 2019, exactly two years ago. The jurisprudential basis of that judgment is extremely narrow; it is a very thin ledge. But due to the passage of time, what the author points out is, both sides have accepted it. Because both sides have accepted it, it has become a right judgment. Not the other way around. It is not a right judgment which both sides have accepted. Because both sides have accepted it, it has become a right judgment.

My good friend Salman Khurshid does not want to rock the boat. He does not want to stir the hornet’s nest. I understand his reluctance to do so.

Watch | Watch: SC’s Ayodhya Verdict Was Right But Imposes Sacrifice on Muslims in Hope of Closure: Salman Khurshid

Digvijay spoke about truth and reconciliation. I thought he emphasised reconciliation more than truth. Nelson Mandela promised truth and reconciliation, but first, the truth must be told, and then there can be reconciliation.

The truth was that what happened on December 6, 1992 was a terrible wrong. It was an incident that debased our constitution, that defied the Supreme Court, and created, what appeared to be at that time, an unbridgeable chasm between two communities. It was wrong, terribly wrong. I will say it 100 times, it will always be a terrible wrong. Having said that, it is perfectly right to say, a wrong has been committed, but please reconcile. But I think it is patronising to tell the people of this country – over 200 million Muslims – please reconcile because that is what it is.

Forty-six concerned retired officers belonging to the various services of India issued a long statement after the judgment of the Supreme Court saying, “We also pledge that we will not allow our great constitution to be emptied of its soul.” The judgment of the Supreme Court, whether it emptied the soul of the constitution, is for each one of you to decide. But leave the judgment aside, every day there are occurrences that empty a bit of the soul of our constitution. And yet, no one in high authority is willing to stand up and speak for this grave debasement, denigration of our constitution.

This book, of course, is a splendid record of what happened in the last 28 or 29 years. One doesn’t have to go to any other source, any other record. Everything that you want to know about what happened before and after 1992, and up to this date, is there in this book. It is in that sense an extremely useful reference book for future historians.

After the Supreme Court judgment, things took a predictable course. Within a year or so everyone who was accused, something like 300 people were accused, were acquitted. So like ‘No One Killed Jessica‘, no one demolished the Babri Masjid. That conclusion will forever haunt us. That in this country of Gandhi and Nehru and Sardar Patel and Abdul Kalam Azad, 75 years after independence, we are not ashamed to say that no one demolished the Babri Masjid.

Judge Who Acquitted 32 Accused In Babri Case Verdict Appointed ‘Up-Lokayukta’

Retired judge Surendra Kumar Yadav joins the anti-corruption watchdog less than a year after delivering the controversial judgment.

New Delhi: Retired judge Surendra Kumar Yadav, who gave the verdict in the high-profile Babri mosque demolition case last year, took oath as an up-lokayukta in Uttar Pradesh on Monday.

“Yadav was appointed as the third up-lokayukta by the Governor on April 6. On Monday, Yadav was administered the oath by Lokayukta Sanjay Mishra in the presence of other senior officers,” an official statement said. The Lokayukta is from a non-political background and functions as a statutory authority probing cases primarily related to corruption, government mismanagement, or abuse of power by public servants or ministers.

As a judge of special CBI court, Yadav had on September 30, 2020 acquitted all 32 accused, including BJP veterans L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi, Uma Bharti and Kalyan Singh, in the case of demolition of Babri mosque in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

Yadav was supposed to retire in 2019, but he was given an extension of one year by the Supreme court in July that year. The court said that the extension would only be for the purpose of concluding the trial and delivering a verdict in the case. The Supreme Court then fixed September 30, 2020, as the deadline for the trial court to pronounce its judgement in the nearly three-decade-old case.

Also read: Special Court Acquits All 32 Accused in Babri Demolition Case

In his observations, the judge said that the demolition was not pre-planned and the accused persons were “trying to stop the mob and not incite them”. He added that there was not enough evidence against the accused and that the court cannot probe the authenticity of the audio and video evidence provided by the CBI.

The anti-corruption watchdog comprises the Lokayukta and three up-lokayuktas. The other two up-lokayuktas are Shambu Singh Yadav, who was appointed on August 4, 2016, and Dinesh Kumar Singh, who was appointed on June 6, 2020. The tenure of an up-lokayukta is eight years.

(With inputs from PTI)

Allahabad HC to Hear Plea Against Acquittal of Babri Masjid Demolition Accused

The petition filed on January 8 by Ayodhya residents Haji Mahmood Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad will be heard by the Lucknow bench of the high court on Wednesday.

Lucknow: The Allahabad high court will hear on Wednesday a plea against the acquittal of all 32 accused, including BJP veterans L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

The petition filed on January 8 by Ayodhya residents Haji Mahmood Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmad will be heard by the Lucknow bench of the high court.

Their counsel is All India Muslim Personal Law Board executive member Zafaryab Jilani, who has also been the convener of the Babri Masjid Action Committee.

The petition, challenging the verdict of a special CBI court last year, was on Tuesday listed for hearing before Justice Rakesh Srivastava.

While filing the petition, Jilani had said the two Ayodhya residents moved court because the CBI has not yet appealed against the September 30 judgment. The petitioners have claimed that they are witnesses in the trial.

The trial judge had refused to accept newspaper clippings and video clips as evidence because the originals were not produced in court.

He also held that the CBI could not produce any evidence that the accused had a meeting of minds with the ‘kar sevaks‘ who demolished the structure.

The petitioners have pleaded that the CBI court committed an error in not convicting the accused despite the presence of ample evidence on record. The trial judge did not appreciate the evidence of conspiracy in the right perspective, their petition said.

The petitioners have sought that the record from the trial court be summoned, its judgment set aside and the all the 32 accused held guilty and punished accordingly.

Former deputy prime minister Advani, the then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, former Union ministers Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti and Ram Janmaboomi Teerth Kshetra Trust president Nritya Gopal Das were among those cleared by the lower court.

The Babri mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992 by a mob of ‘kar sevaks’.

In November 2019, a Supreme Court ruling on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute paved the way for the construction of the Ram temple at the contested site.

Meanwhile, the CBI court had continued to hear the separate case related to the destruction of the mosque.

Petition in Allahabad HC Challenges Special CBI Court’s Babri Demolition Acquittals

Ayodhya residents Haji Mahboob and Haji Sayyad Akhlaq Ahmad filed the petition in the Lucknow bench of the high court.

Lucknow: Two Ayodhya residents on Friday moved the Allahabad high court, challenging a special CBI court’s ruling that acquitted all 32 accused including BJP veterans L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi the 1992 demolition of Babri mosque.

Ayodhya residents Haji Mahboob and Haji Sayyad Akhlaq Ahmad filed the petition in the Lucknow bench of the high court on behalf of All India Muslim Personal Law Board.

The two decided to challenge the special court’s judgement after the CBI did not move the high court against the acquittal of the accused by the special court, said a counsel for Ayodhya residents.

Twenty-eight years after the Babri Masjid was razed, the special court last year had acquitted all 32 people including BJP veterans L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi and Uma Bharti, accused of inciting a mob of kar sevaks to demolish the Babri mosque.

The mosque was believed to have been built after razing a temple existing at the exact birthplace of Ram.

In a judgment that ran to 2,300 pages, the special CBI court said there was no conclusive evidence against the 32 accused of being involved in any conspiracy to bring down the disputed structure in Ayodhya.

Foundation For Ayodhya Mosque To Be Laid on Republic Day

The blueprint of the mosque complex, which will include a multi-specialty hospital, a community kitchen and a library, will be unveiled by the IICF on December 19.

Ayodhya: The blueprint of the mosque to replace the Babri Masjid will be unveiled this Saturday and its foundation will be laid on Republic Day. The foundation will be laid on the five-acre land allotted for it in Ayodhya, members of the Trust formed for its construction said.

“The Trust chose January 26th, 2021 for laying the foundation stone of the Ayodhya mosque as on this day our Constitution came into effect over seven decades ago. Our Constitution is based on pluralism, which is the leitmotif of our mosque project,” said Athar Hussain, secretary of the Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation (IICF). The IICF was set up by the Sunni Waqf Board six months ago to build the mosque.

The blueprint of the mosque complex, which will include a multi-specialty hospital, a community kitchen and a library, will be unveiled by the IICF on December 19th. The plan for the project has been finalised by its chief architect, Professor S.M. Akhtar.

“The mosque will have a capacity to hold 2,000 namazis at a time, and the structure will be round-shaped,” Akhtar told PTI.

Also read: Ayodhya: Once There Was A Mosque

The Supreme Court on November 9th last year had paved the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya, and directed the Centre to allot an alternative five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a new mosque at a “prominent” place in the town in Uttar Pradesh. The state government allotted a five-acre land in Dhannipur village in Sohaval Tehsil of Ayodhya.

“The new mosque will be bigger than Babri Masjid, but won’t be a lookalike of the structure. The hospital will take centre stage in the complex. It will serve humanity in the true spirit of Islam as taught by the Prophet in his last sermon 1,400 years ago,” Akhtar said.

“The hospital won’t be a usual concrete structure but will be in sync with the architecture of the mosque, replete with calligraphy and Islamic symbols. It will house a 300-bed specialty unit, where doctors will work with missionary zeal to provide free treatment to the ailing,” he said, “The mosque will be self efficient for power as it is designed based on solar energy and a natural temperature maintenance system.”

“When we talk about the hospital project at Dhannipur, one thing is sure that it will be a multi speciality hospital,” Hussain said. “The community kitchen will serve good quality meals twice a day to cater to the needs of nourishment of the poor people living nearby,” he added.

“We can establish a nursing and paramedic college to provide human resources to the hospital. We can manage doctors from local resources from Faizabad and for specialised needs in terms of critical surgeries we have a group of doctor friends in prominent government and private institutions who want to offer their services,” he said.

“We are looking forward to corporate funding for the hospital. There are many donors who are willing to contribute when we have 80 G approval. After that, we will go for FCRA and seek foreign funds from Muslims of Indian origin,” the IICF secretary added.

The Babri Masjid was demolished in December 1992 by “kar sevaks” who claimed that the mosque in Ayodhya was built on the site of an ancient Ram temple.

SC Refuses To Extend Security for Former Special Judge Who Declared Babri Verdict

“Having perused the letter, we don’t consider it appropriate to provide security,” the bench said.

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Monday refused to extend the security of former special judge, S.K.Yadav, who had pronounced the verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case which acquitted all 32 accused, including BJP veterans L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi and Uma Bharti.

A bench, headed by Justice R.F. Nariman and comprising of Justices Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari, was considering the former judge’s request to continue his personal security in view of the sensitivity of the case decided by him on his last day in office. “Having perused the letter, we don’t consider it appropriate to provide security,” the bench said.

On September 30, the special court had acquitted all 32 accused in the case saying there was no conclusive evidence that they were part of any conspiracy to bring down the disputed structure in Ayodhya.

The 16th century mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992, by kar sevaks who believed that it occupied the site where Lord Ram was born. The destruction triggered riots that left hundreds dead in the country and widened the rift between the communities.

Last year, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had ruled that the 2.77-acre land claimed by both Hindus and Muslims would be handed over to a trust for the building of a temple. The top court had also ordered allocation of five acres of land at another site in Ayodhya for building a mosque.