Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: January 12, 2010
URL: http://dailypioneer.com/228656/Decoding-the-Liberhan-code.html
Since we are prone to appointing commissions
of inquiry at the drop of a hat, political writers often have to suffer the
tedium of wading through hundreds of pages of dull prose when the reports
of such commissions are tabled in Parliament or State legislatures.
While many commissions are appointed with
the best of intentions, the quality of their output can never be guaranteed.
Some commissions, which are headed by men of stature, often do painstaking
work and this diligence is obvious when one reads their reports.
Such commissions ensure a logical connect
between the evidence gathered and the conclusions drawn. However, there are
others which just do not measure up to the task either because the person
heading it is ill-equipped for the job or is unable to gather evidence - or,
worse still, allows pre-conceived notions to dictate the outcome.
The Liberhan Commission, which drained the
public exchequer of Rs 8 crore and took a record 17 years to probe the destruction
of the structure known as the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, most certainly falls
in the latter category. Large parts of this report are so incomprehensible
that if we ever institute a prize for the worst report ever produced by a
commission of inquiry, the Liberhan Commission would win it hands down.
While much has been written about this commission's
conclusions, not enough has been said about the unintelligible parts of this
report. Since public money has gone down the drain because of the prolonged
existence of this commission, it would be in public interest to reproduce
excerpts from its report and ask readers if any of them has any clue about
what it is trying to say!
Let us begin with para 149.13 on page 886,
which is a real gem. The commission says, "No one should be allowed to
recognise religion from political ends as was done in the case in hand. There
is no doubt that constitutional philosophies always have political results
but it is understood that they should not have political intentions."
Can someone please decipher this gobbledygook?
Next, take a look at this paragraph on page
884: "At the cost of repetition it may be observed that enduring freedom
is pretence for manipulating Indian affairs. Political and religious overlords
attempted to rewrite the national statistics, citing the protection of Hindus
or Hindu as a religion as their sole fiefdom. Political parties supported
by religious parties may have secured majority in particular state legislatures…
etc."
Will the commission please tell us what it
means when it says that "enduring freedom is pretence for manipulating
Indian affairs"? Is the commission hinting that we should not be a free
nation? In which case, does it want us to do away with our hard-earned freedom?
Further, will someone explain what the commission had in mind when it said
that some people "attempted to rewrite national statistics"?
Finally, here is one more Liberhan 'finding'
on page 20: "During inquiry, it has been rightly been impressed and patently
has come on record that casteism and communalism exists in almost all organisations
and institutions. Its infiltration in the community starts among the very
young persons."
There are many more examples of such 'wisdom'
in this report, but this newspaper will have to bring out a special edition
if one ever gets down to reproducing all of them.
Further, the commission ties itself in knots
when it dabbles in history and comes up with the most extraordinary formulation
in regard to the country's partition. It says on page 874 that "two religious
groups in a nation cannot claim a separate nation only by virtue of religious
identity. Though prior to partition the two-nation theory propounded by the
Muslim League was not accepted, now it has become an established fact…".
What does the commission mean when it says
the two-nation theory propounded by the Muslim League was not accepted prior
to partition? The statement that "two religious groups in a nation cannot
claim a separate nation only by virtue of religious identity" makes no
sense at all when we all know that the Muslim League did make that claim and
succeeded in dividing India. Also, the Hindus did not seek partition. So where
is the question of "two religious groups" claiming separate nations?
Justice MS Liberhan also tries to defend bogus
historians and rewrite history on page 875: "Hindu nationalist(s) draw
on Indian history to point out that the Muslim kings destroyed many Hindu
temples. Most of the Muslim emperors with passage of time were Hinduised,
and to cast a typical Muslim in the same mould as the Moghul emperors in India
would be a travesty of history." Mr Liberhan, please make up your mind.
If most of the Muslim emperors were 'Hinduised', what is the problem in casting
a 'typical Muslim' in the mould of the Moghul rulers?
Finally, in its anxiety to run down the BJP,
the commission goes so far as to offer a blanket 'secular' certificate to
all other political parties in the country. On page 874, it says, "There
is no doubt that during the elections three quarters of Hindus in India have
not voted in favour of BJP rather for secular parties." How extraordinary.
According to this commission, all non-BJP votes went to 'secular parties'.
Therefore, it would like us to believe that Mr Ram Vilas Paswan's party that
paraded a Bin Laden lookalike at public meetings is a secular party and so
is the Muslim League, the Majlis Itehadul Muslimeen and the rabid PDP headed
by Abdul Nasser Madani in Kerala. Needless to say, the commission has no doubt
whatsoever about the 'secular' credentials of the Congress which executed
a pogrom against Sikhs in 1984.
Strangely, the commission is not even aware
of the detailed work done just a few years ago by the National Commission
to Review the Working of the Constitution, which was headed by one of our
most eminent and upright judges - Justice MN Venkatachalaiah. Justice Liberhan
makes the laughable suggestion that "it is high time" we looked
into the working of the Constitution. He says Parliament must constitute "an
assembly" for this purpose.
We must now appeal to the Union Government
to appoint yet another Commission of Inquiry to decode the report of the Liberhan
Commission.
