Siddhartha Varadarajan on why the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt.

Siddhartha Vardarajan writes in the Wire-

India is perhaps the only country in the world where a real crime – committed in broad daylight, with evidence recorded by video cameras and presented in court by prosecutors – counts for less than an imaginary transgression that supposedly happened five centuries ago and left behind no witness accounts or  contemporary records to establish what transpired.

No democracy maintains that a prima facie illegal action continues to be a 'real crime' if no arrests were made or convictions secured and,  over the lapse of time, the vast majority of its people remained unswerving in their belief that the act in question was in accord with natural justice.

Siddhartha is two years younger than me. He graduated from the LSE four or five years after I did. Why does he not know this? What is wrong with the man?

On December 6, 1992, top leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party – the party that today runs the government at the Centre – gathered in Ayodhya as part of a well-planned conspiracy to demolish a historic monument that was part of the cultural and archaeological heritage of the Indian people.

The vast majority of the Indian people didn't want the Babri Masjid. It wasn't a legacy, it was a scar-  a reminder of enslavement and humiliation at the hands of alien warlords.  

The word conspiracy implies a secret plan not something incessantly publicised over a period of time and done in the open.

Why is Siddharta- writing for an Indian audience- pretending that the plan to destroy the Babri Masjid was some big secret? 

 These leaders included L.K. Advani, who went on to become deputy prime minister but is today outside the party’s charmed circle, Uma Bharati, who is currently a cabinet minister in Narendra Modi’s government, and scores of other major and minor figures.

All of whom received a great boost in their political fortunes precisely for this reason. None have been convicted of 'incitement or 'conspiracy'. Why? An action deemed by the people to be salutary is not a conspiracy at all. No incitement can occur where people have already made a particular determination which, moreover, is widely endorsed by the vast majority of the citizenry.

In the run up to the demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid, the BJP conducted a poisonous propaganda campaign whose aim was the creation of a Hindu vote-bank.

Ordinary people use poison to kill pests. The creation of a Hindu vote-bank requires the dissolution of caste based vote-banks. Hindutva has won approval from the masses because it reduces the salience of pestilential casteist politicians. 

Why is Siddhartha pretending that the BJP, or its predecessor, the Jan Sangh, did not aim ab ovo at 'consolidating' the Hindu vote? What on earth were they doing till the Ayodhya issue gained salience? Were they twiddling their thumbs?

 The ‘Ramjanmabhoomi’ movement it launched aimed at replacing the mosque with a temple for Ram and rested on three claims that ought to have had no place in either a movement supposedly driven by Hindu belief or in a democracy governed by the rule of law.

There is no a priori reason why any claim whatsoever can't have a place in either Religious Belief or in a Democracy governed by the rule of law where that Religion is the majority's.

To suggest otherwise is to assume not just that Religions have a perfect logical structure but also that defeasible, secular, jurisprudence has, by the supernatural agency of a Judge Hercules, an indefeasible principle of harmonious construction.

The first was that the God whom Hindus revere as omnipresent was actually a historical personality

Hinduism asserts that a historical personality can be omnipresent. Not all such personalities are incarnations of the Lord. However, they are to some degree 'limbs' of the Godhead. For jurisprudence, Lord Rama has legal personality and has been awarded a share in the disputed site.

 second, that he was born at the very spot where the Babri Masjid stood, 

Hindus do assert that Lord Rama was born at exactly that spot. They may qualify this assertion in various ways but the acceptation of  'Ram's birthplace' is indeed the very spot where the BJP wants to construct a grand temple.

and third, that the mosque had to be removed, by force if necessary, so that a grand temple – of the kind allegedly destroyed by Babar – could be built in its place.

The laws of physics require the removal, by force- not persuasion- of an existing building so a new one may be constructed. No doubt, Babar and Aurangazeb and so on had magical powers and thus didn't have to use force to destroy temples. They just dropped a polite hint and the masonry of the Hindu shrine obligingly reconfigured itself as a Muslim place of worship.

If all of this was theologically (and historically) suspect, it was also legally absurd. A state governed by a constitution cannot upend the rights of individual citizens because some group makes a demand on the basis of its beliefs.

None of this was 'theologically' or 'historically' suspect. Hindus do think Lord Ram was the incarnate Lord, just as Christians think Jesus Christ was the incarnate Lord. Hindus point to a particular place in Ayodhya as the birthplace of Ram. Christians to a particular place in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Lord Jesus. 

Legally, no absurdity arose. In 1991, the English Court of Appeal decided that a Hindu 'Shivalingam' had legal personality in Indian law and therefore could sue to reclaim a Nataraj statue which belonged to the Temple in which it had been consecrated (Bumper Development Corporation vs Commissioner of Police). The Judges observed that 'It is not permissible to reject uncontradicted expert evidence unless it is patently absurd'. Since expert evidence had confirmed the identity of both the Shivalingam and the Nataraj statute and since Indian law, not English law, conferred juridicial personality on Hindu Gods and Temples and 'Shivalingams', no absurdity arose in the case.
Similarly, Indian judges have argued that Indian Gods have a type of juridicial personality such that title based on adverse possession is defeated. It is noteworthy that Pakistan does not recognise mosques as possessing a similar legal personality- as in the case of the Shahidganj Gurudwara in Lahore.

This not to say that any and every action by devotees of a God are legal. Concerning the destruction of the disused Babri Masjid, the plain fact is that the Executive could have vigorously prosecuted those involved and it is possible that the Apex Court would have confirmed any sentences handed down. But, politicians at that time felt that jailing BJP or other leaders on this issue would cause them to sweep the polls. 

The next thing that would happen would be a BJP super-majority able to change the laws and, if necessary, the Constitution. 

 In 1987, Rajiv Gandhi trampled on the rights of Muslim women in order to win the support of reactionary Muslim clerics who were upset at the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Shah Bano case. That act of injustice was finally reversed 32 years later. But the appeasement of Hindu chauvinism that began with his decision to reopen the locks of the Babri Masjid continues unabated with the courts least bothered about the rule of law despite the mosque’s demolition by Sangh parivar fanatics 25 years ago.

Siddharta is an American citizen. But, he went to Mayo College. Did he not notice that India was being run by Hindus when he was at School? There was no question of 'appeasing' Hindus- as though they represented an alterity, not the ipseity. Rather, different parties competed with each other by appealing to Hindu tropes and imagery. 

Chamberlain did not appease Hitler by putting on lederhosen and singing the Horst Wessel song. He appeased Hitler by becoming complicit in a crime against the people of Czechoslovakia. Rajiv Gandhi appeased the Muslims by becoming complicit in an un-Islamic crime against pure and devout women. He did not appease the Hindus- rather he appealed to them by his sweet nature and Lord Ram like good qualities. His widow, Sonia, is the ideal pativrata. Go on the internet and try to find some crazy Hindu or Sikh nutjob who alleges that either Rajiv or Sonia were not as perfectly faithful to each other as Lord Rama and Seeta Devi. You can't. Why not? Nobody really believes that Rajiv and Sonia weren't a happily married couple. Nor does anyone believe that a structure called 'Babur's mosque' has any great sanctity or that it wasn't built on the ashes of a Hindu Temple.

To get a sense of perspective on what the demolition of the Babri Masjid meant then and means today, consider the global outrage that greeted the destruction of the Buddha statues at Bamiyan by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. 

Siddhartha returned to India from America many years ago. He is writing for Indian people. Why would Indian people need to 'get a sense of perspective' by looking to Civil War ridden Afghanistan? There is no similarity between the two cases. The Taliban was on a collision course with America. A senior ISI general, Hamid Gul, said on TV, in English, that the Taliban wanted to lure the U.S military into Afghanistan where they would be slaughtered and despoiled of their hi-tech weaponry. The destruction of the Bamiyan statues was a message to the West. That is why it attracted global outrage. By contrast, the Babri Masjid was a purely Indian affair with no strategic implications even for its neighbours. 
One way to 'get a sense of perspective' on the Babri case is by looking at the Hazratbal incident of 1963. The claim was made that a hair had been stolen from a mosque and riots in India and Pakistan ensued.

Like the Sangh parivar, who said the sight of the mosque at Ayodhya offended them, the Taliban declared that their beliefs did not permit the statues to remain standing. 

Were the Buddhist statues erected upon the ruins of a demolished mosque? No. The two cases are not comparable. Perhaps Siddhartha believes that the BJP wants to gain power in every country and to demolish every mosque, in the same way that the Taliban wanted to gain power in every country and destroy every antiquity or extant place or worship tainted by the suspicion of idolatry.

Siddharta is a journalist. He held a senior position in India in 2001. He knows very well that the Bamiyan destruction was considered a riposte to Western sanctions and an insulting offer of money to preserve the statues. Of course, after 9/11, the full picture emerged. The Taliban had decided to provoke a war with America. 

There haven’t been Buddhists in Afghanistan for centuries yet every right-thinking Afghan was appalled by this act of terrorism. 

Why were there no Buddhists in Afghanistan? Why did the non-Muslim population of that country plummet under the Taliban? Was it because Muslims killed or forcibly converted or drove out non Muslims so as to establish their own cruel and despotic rule? If so, surely the correct analogy between Afghanistan and India would be one whereby Buddhists blew up Mosques built over Stupas. But, Buddhists in Afghanistan have no such power. Why? They don't exist.

Around the world, the wanton destruction of historical monuments like the Babri Masjid is considered a war crime. 

Rubbish! Unarmed civilians can't commit a war crime. Wanton destruction of a historical monument by drunken hooligans may be deemed a war crime provided those hooligans were armed and part of a military or militia outfit and hostilities were actually ongoing. 

Last year, the International Criminal Court in The Hague convicted a local leader in Timbuktu, Mali for his role in destroying some of the ancient city’s historical monuments that he considered un-Islamic.

This 'local leader' was part of an al-Qaeda affiliate. He was not an unarmed civilian but part of a murderous militia which controlled territory.

CBI’s strategy is to delay matters

During a television debate on terrorism in September 2001 where Narendra Modi was a participant – he was then just an RSS pracharak – I cited the demolition of the Babri Masjid by Hindu fanatics and the killings that followed to challenge his claim that “all terrorists are Muslims”. He refused to even acknowledge that the destruction of the mosque was a crime.

Modi was something more than 'just an RSS pracharak'. That's why he was appointed Chief Minister of Gujarat a couple of weeks later. In September 2001, the word 'terrorist' had salience in connection only with Muslims, not Hindus. That's why the SRK's film, titled 'My name is Khan- and I am not a terrorist', did not spawn a string of imitations with titles like- 'My name is Khanna- and I am not a terrorist'.

Siddhartha appears to be genuinely outraged that Modi did not 'acknowledge that the destruction of the mosque was a crime'. Similarly, there were British Public School/ Oxbridge men who were outraged that Jawaharlal Nehru did not consider the actions of I.N.A soldiers to be a crime. Instead, Nehru put on his barrister's wig to defend those soldiers who had been arraigned for 'treason'. Why? I.N.A soldiers were patriots not traitors even though the letter of the law suggested otherwise.

We know now from the peculiar manner in which the Central Bureau of Investigation is handling the criminal case that Prime Minister Narendra Modi probably still believes there is no need to punish anyone for the demolition.

Is Siddhartha utterly mad? Nobody in their right mind thinks Modi wants to punish anyone for the salutary act which catapulted his party and him into a position of dominance. 

 All the material witnesses in the case have been examined in the trial court and there is ample video footage as evidence to ensure the conviction of the main accused. Yet the CBI is dragging its feet, telling the trial court that it needs to examine still more witnesses in order to prove its case.

Conviction for what? 'Incitement'? But that is known to be Time Barred ever since the prosecution of Bal Thakeray seventeen years ago. 

During the first NDA government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Advani, the CBI simply dropped the ball on the case. But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate criminal charges against top Sangh leaders and order ‘day-to-day hearings’ at the trial court, the BJP’s strategy is to deliberately prolong matters and ensure that the demolition case goes on and on.

The CBI dropped the ball long before that. Why? The CBI plays anti-crime football, not political baseball. What would be the point to preparing a court case which would advance only the interests of the accused?

This CBI’s ‘go slow’ strategy was put in place by Y.C. Modi – a police officer who is close to the prime minister and has now been given charge of the National Investigation Agency as a ‘reward’.

The CBI 'go slow' strategy was put in place by the Congress Government of Narasimha Rao. From the evidentiary point of view the thing was a slam dunk then and there. The thing could have been done in six months. If, that is, it was politically do-able.

With Gujarat police officer Rakesh Asthana as special director, Y.C. Modi’s tactic of burdening the case with additional witnesses – some of whom are not even likely to assist the prosecution’s case – will ensure the case goes on indefinitely, unless the Supreme Court intervenes again to put an end to this charade.

The Supreme Court is no respecter of persons but it knows very well that it will lose salience if it overplays its hand- more particularly because of current scandals re. judicial corruption, misconduct, and paranoid schizophrenia as punctuating a harrowing habitus of incompetence, illiteracy and outright imbecility.  By contrast, the BJP faces no similar crisis of legitimacy.

The BJP’s hope, of course, is that a resolution of the title suit in favour of the ‘Ramjanmabhoomi’ camp – or forced mediation where the full might of the state is ranged against the Muslim side – will render the demolition case infructuous or at least rob the party of any political stigma when its leaders are eventually convicted. With nothing tangible to offer voters by way of delivery on their election promises, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah would like to hold the Ayodhya card in reserve as a means of polarising the electorate on communal lines. Certainly, the statements and actions of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath on Ayodhya indicate the party is working to a plan.

Either the demolition case, which pertains to events which occurred a quarter of a century ago, is already infructuous or it can't become so by the passage of another year or two. The title suit is not germane.

Anti BJP politicians have dropped the Masjid issue because it hasn't consolidated a Muslim vote-bank. The Judiciary may also drop it because it fears push back against  the Collegium system.

So what remains to be retrieved from the rubble that the mosque was reduced to 25 years ago? The architects of the crime have prospered and are today in power. 

This is because, as a matter of law, there was no crime. Everyone is innocent till proven guilty.

Their pursuit of a Hindu vote-bank remains as determined as ever. Their demonisation of Muslims continues, as does their disregard for the fundamental rights of citizens. The institutions of the state which refused to take a stand in the face of majoritarian violence then – the police, paramilitaries, the bureaucracy and the courts – appear today even less likely to act as a check. How then will this chapter of shame come to a close? When the citizens whom politicians have convinced to think of themselves as Hindus go back to taking pride in being Indians again.

So- this is the crux of the matter. Siddhartha thinks some Indian people were brainwashed into thinking of themselves as Hindus. This lead to 'a chapter of shame'. Only when those who think of themselves as Hindus (apparently this happens because politicians convince Indians that they have this identity) stop thinking of themselves as Hindus- which can happen, by law, only through conversion- only then will Hindus 'go back to taking pride in being Indians again'. However by then they won't be Hindus at all.

Siddhartha was so proud of being Indian he chose US citizenship. Unfortunately, he did not convert to some other religion. Thus, he too is at risk from evil politicians. Suppose they convince him that he is a Hindu? What will happen? He will undoubtedly run amok destroying mosques and churches and synagogues.  Supreme Court must take suo moto action. Just imprisoning evil Hindutva pracharaks isn't enough. Even from behind bars they might convince Siddhartha that he is a Hindu. This will cause him to write such a 'chapter of shame' in the annals of Indian journalism that the Hague Tribunal will summons him for War Crimes.

Siddhartha may believe that his American citizenship protects him from the great peril which Indian citizens have succumbed to. Thus he speaks not of 'we' but 'they'-

When they act to reclaim their republic and its ideals of justice, liberty, equality – and fraternity – from the clutches of parivars and dynasties.

What about Siddhartha's own star spangled Republic? Perhaps he will return to it when its citizens reclaim their republic from the clutches of elected politicians and inculcate the ideals of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity by inviting ISIS to rule over them.

In the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the country with no Buddhists, public and official sentiment favours the rebuilding of the Buddhas. 

Wow! Siddhartha thinks the Afghans want to rebuild Buddhas. He doesn't get that 'public and official sentiment' is hypocritical because of the dire situation in that country. What is wrong with this man? Why does he equate a country at War with one at peace?

However, in the secular republic of India – a country with 170 million Muslims – the rebuilding of the Babri Masjid is not even on anyone’s agenda.

Including the vast majority of those 170 million Muslims. 

 So shameful is the political discourse now that other parts of the country’s Islamicate heritage – including the Taj Mahal – are being targeted by BJP leaders.

Targeted? For what? Destruction? Does Siddharta really believe that Yogi Adityanath is going to demolish the Taj Mahal? What planet is he living on?