FRONT PAGE | Wednesday, December 2, 2009 | Email | Print | 
Liberhan report put to ridicule
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), whose senior leaders have been held culpable by Justice Liberhan for leading the country to the “brink of communal discord” during the Ayodhya movement, tore apart the commission’s report by pointing out at a series of “contradictions and anomalies” in it.
The Parishad said it was important to note that the commission rarely visited the spot where the alleged incident took place. “The report loses its credibility in the absence of a visit by the commission to the spot. The Government had notified that the commission’s office would be in Lucknow, but it never functioned from there,” VHP said in a statement here.
To the commission’s observation that the demolition was pre-planned, the VHP referred to Chapter 1, page no 15, para 7.4 of the report wherein it admits: “No evidence, lead or information was 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)”.
Moreover, the commission noted (at page 782, para 130.24) that, “....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 and BJP for demolition.”
The VHP also pointed out to Justice Liberhan’s adverse comments on the Supreme Court in his report. At page no 935, para 163.2, the commission says, “For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court, 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.”
“This is a highly irresponsible comment by the Chairman of the commission, who himself was a High Court judge.
This unbecoming comment amounts to contempt of the court. Interestingly, the commission did not call the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh to appear before it. Yet, the commission made these disparaging remarks against the Governor. It is unbecoming of a retired High Court judge to comment on the apex court,” the VHP said.
The VHP said the commission has admitted to the existence of a Ram temple and construction of mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 at Ayodhya. Justice Liberhan noted at para 18.9 on page 62: “Suffice to say, the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 is now an admitted fact.”
The report also noted (in para 18.3 on page 63) that “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.”
Justice Liberhan has agreed that “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of Lord Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city” and “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.”
The VHP pointed out that in para 158.3, the commission says 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”.
The outfit says the commission failed to make any adverse comment on certain individuals despite observing in para 26.2 on page 88 that “...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, a Member of Parliament from Hyderabad, challenged the opening of locks along with some others became a forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation”
The commission also noted in para 26.4 on page 89 that “Muslims variously protested between January 1 and March 30, 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 Jama Masjid, Shahabuddin and Suleiman Sait, etc.”
The outfit said that after more than 40 extensions “during seventeen long years and wasting taxpayers’ money the commission had prepared a 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 thereafter before the submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards the apex court of the country, media, head of the State (Governor) and other respectable segments of the society are highly unacceptable,” it said.
Email | Print | Rate:
|