|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, December 15, 2000 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
Opinion
| Next
A specious interjection
WITH HIS ``DISCLOSURE'' of information about a low intensity
blast having brought down the Babri Masjid (rather than the storm
troopers of the Sangh Parivar), the RSS chief, Mr. K. Sudarshan,
is playing the now familiar game of the Sangh Parivar; to say
different things at the same time. This, indeed, was evident when
the Bajrang Dal chief, Mr. Vinay Katiyar, reacted, almost
instantly, to reiterate that the Babri Masjid was demolished by
the `kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992. The summons by the Justice
M. S. Liberhan Commission of Enquiry to Mr. Sudarshan for his
deposition must, in the normal course, help in ensuring the
veracity of the RSS chief's claims; after Mr. Sudarshan made a
statement where he had implicated even the Prime Minister of the
day, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, the Commission of Enquiry could not
have shut its eyes. The summons in that sense is only legitimate.
It is another matter that such an interjection and that too eight
years after the Commission was constituted and when charges have
been framed against almost all those accused in the case -
including Mr. L. K. Advani, Dr. M. M. Joshi and Ms. Uma Bharti -
in the CBI Special Court can only be seen as dilatory tactics.
The Liberhan Commission of Enquiry has also summoned Mr. Advani,
Dr. Joshi and Mr. Narasimha Rao to depose before it. There are
indications that the Commission's inquest is in its final stages.
Insofar as there is scope for enquiring into broader aspects of
the demolition, particularly the political dimensions of the
incident, it is imperative for Mr. Advani, Dr. Joshi and others
to depose and allow themselves to be cross-examined. It is in
this context that the remarks by Mr. Sudarshan and the decision
by the Commission to ask for his deposition as well as by Mr.
Narasimha Rao assumes significance. The CBI Special Court, after
all, will have to restrict itself to the criminality of the
December 6, 1992, events; and considering the fact that the point
at issue is not just the actual act of the demolition but many
other aspects involving the pluralist and democratic fabric of
the society, the inquest by Mr. Justice Liberhan becomes
important.
Be that as it may, it is clear that the RSS chief's public
utterances fit into a definite pattern. The leaders of the BJP,
particularly those in the local rungs of the organisation, as
well as the various other Sangh Parivar outfits were engaged, all
these years, in claiming credit for having brought down the
structure. The party's functionaries had gone about seeking a
mandate from the people, particularly during the State Assembly
elections in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajastan and Himachal
Pradesh (November 1993) to ``complete what was left unfinished on
December 6, 1992''. The top leaders of the BJP no doubt appeared
ambivalent about the demolition as such (even while letting their
local leaders describe the demolition as an achievement) but all
of them were categorical about their ``commitment'' to build the
temple at the site where the Masjid stood. And this, indeed, was
the message that Mr. Vajpayee sought to send to his cadre through
his December 6, 2000, statement that ``the demand for the
building of a Ram temple was the expression of nationalist
feelings''.
Mr. Sudarshan's claim that the demolition was not the doing of
the kar sevaks does not hold in this context. There is no way
that the RSS and the leaders of its various arms - the VHP, the
Bajrang Dal and even the BJP - can be absolved of their role in
not just the demolition but also in the fratricidal violence
witnessed across the country in the aftermath of the demolition.
And as for the leaders of the BJP, their role in whipping up
sectarian passions during the mobilisation for the `kar seva'
leading to the tragic denouement on December 6, 1992, cannot be
dismissed as a mere ``accident'' as the BJP leaders chose to
describe the vandalism indulged in by the hordes. It is necessary
to look at Mr. Sudarshan's remarks in this larger context.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : Opinion Next : Uncover the Manipur scam | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2000 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|