An Open Letter to Sreekumar - An Analytical response to ex-IPS polemics 29/04/2009 07:47:26 H Balakrishnan
This epistle stems as a response to a news item I read in The New Indian Express of 28 Apr 2009 entitled An open letter to L.K. Advani " , written by you. Since your complete letter was not carried by the daily , but only excerpts , my response perforce will be limited only to (a) Ayodhya , (b)
2002 and (c) scriptural justification for violence.
At the outset , my apologies in this response getting long winded . However , brevity cannot be at the expense of facts. Im sure youll understand .
You have waxed eloquent by terming the demolition of the Babri Masjid as - - - Satanic acts were the handiwork of miscreants owing allegiance to the BJP €
It therefore becomes necessary to highlight the tortuous course the Ayodhya dispute has taken over the past six decades , in the first instance , to put the issue in perspective.
Caught in the Web of the Law Courts
What started as a simple title suit at the turn ofIndependence in an Indian Court of Law , got transformed into a Presidential reference of 07 Jan 1993 Whether a Hindu Temple or any religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid ( including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure ) in the areas on which the structure stood ?
In simple terms, for 44 years, our Courts of law Decided not to decide!! Let me put it to you in chronological sequence!!
Their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court had observed then : It is very desirable that a suit of this kind is decided as soon as possible , and it is regretted that it remains undecided after four years. The delay appears to be principally due to the fact that the record of the proceedings in the trial court was summoned by this court in 1953 on the application of the present appellants. Had this not been done , the suit would probably by now have been decided . - - -We , however , consider it extremely desirable that the suit should be disposed of at once and we accordingly direct that the record of proceedings is sent back to the lower court. €
In the intervening 34 years , the only contribution of the judicial process was that instead of two suits , there were five. All of them were taken over by the High Court . A Special Bench of three judges was constituted to hear them together.
On 12 Jan 1990 , the Supreme Court advised the Allahabad High Court : If thedefendants press the contention regarding the maintainability grounded upon limitation to be raised as the preliminary issue , the High Court which is trying the case will do well to entertain the request .€
The Allahabad High Court refused to heed the counsel of the Supreme Court , and by its order of 22 Aug 1990 , refused to decide any issue as a preliminary issue. An
appeal was filed against that order with the Supreme Court in Sep 1990 , for if the suits were not maintainable at all , the matter would be over . Nothing was done . The appeal remained pending.
In Oct 1991 , the U.P. Government took over the land under and around the structure.Writs were filed both in the High Court and the Supreme Court against the acquisition. On
15 Nov 1991
, the Supreme Court transferred all the writs to the High Court . It said that the High Court was taking over the case for final disposal.
Even in Jul 1992 , the hearings were going on in the High Court . When Kar Seva beganin Jul 1992, the Supreme Court said that if the U.P. Government could stop the Kar Seva, the Supreme Court would would transfer the acquisition cases to itself and decide them all together. The Kar Seva was stopped. But the Supreme Court eventually decided not to take over the cases on the ground that the hearings before the High Court were in an advanced stage. It however stressed that the High Court should expedite the hearings and decide the case expeditiously.
Kar Seva was once again set for
06 Dec 1992
. The High Court concluded its hearings on 04 Nov1992. The U.P. Government and others repeatedly requested it to deliver its judgement, one way or the other. Nothing happened. Instead, one of the judges proceeded on leave. The inevitable happened on
06 Dec 1992
. The High Court delivered its judgement on
11 Dec 1992
The Presidential Reference quoted above. Nothing happened. As stated earlier , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court decided not to decide. However , the judgement stated (para 57) : - - - -. The Hindu community must, therefore, bear the CROSS on its chest, for the misdeed of the miscreants reasonably suspected to belong to their religious fold.
I quote the Belgian historian Dr. Koenraad Elst on his take on the foregoing sentence of thejudgement. €œThis illustrates nicely what we had all suspected for a long time: the English speaking elite in
has preserved the mind-set of the Christian British colonial rulers. The ruling class has borrowed its secularism from the anti-religious reaction in the late-Christian West. India is still under BROWN SAHIB colonial domination, and the legal apparatus which denies Hindus the right to their sacred site can, in circumstances critical to the establishments legitimacy, still be used as an instrument of colonial oppression.€
A telling comment indeed!!
Nothing happened in the intervening period!! However, on
22 Aug 2003
, after morethan half-a-century of judicial pussyfooting, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) handed a sensitive report to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The ASI had been mandated by the Court to excavate the foundation level underneath and around the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. In the winter of 2002-2003 the Court had ordered a search of the site with a ground penetrating radar by the company Tojo Vikas International Ltd., which had been used during the survey for the Delhi Metro Rail. Canadian geophysicist Claude Robillard concluded from the scans that there was some structure beneath the demolished masjid (Rediff.com 19 Mar 2003). It was on this basis that the ASI undertook the excavation work.
There the matter RsIP todate !! Need anything further be stated on the state of the judicial process in
? But to our secularists , like you , the Sangah Parivar are the villains!! Jai Ho!!
:From published scholarly treatises , it can be discerned that between1975-1980, the ASI under the directorship of Prof. (Dr) B.B. Lal , a former Director General of the ASI, undertook an extensive programme of excavations at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramjanmabhumi on which the so-called Janmasthan Masjid or Babri Masjid once stood till
06 Dec 1992
. At Ayodhya, Prof. Lal excavated 14 trenches at different locations in order to ascertain the antiquity of the site. According to Prof. Lal, based his findings following the excavations, the history of the township was at least three thousand years old, if not more, and that at the Ramjhanmabhumi there stood a HUGE STRUCTURE on a parallel series of square pillar bases built of several courses of bricks and stones. When seen in the light of 20 black stone pillars, 16 of which were found REUSED AND STANDING IN POSITION AS CORNER STONES OF THE BABRI MASJID DOME STRUCTURE, Prof Lal CONCLUDED THAT THE PILLAR BASES WOULD HAVE BELNGED TO A HINDU TEMPLE THAT PREDATED THE BABRI MASJID.
Authenticating Prof Lal is this statement of Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArchaeologist (
) as appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on
15 Dec 1990
: I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the
before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER.€
Muhammad went to add: Ayodhya is as holy to the Hindus as
is to the Muslims; Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily hand over the structure for constructing theRama Temple.€
In his treatise The Baburi Masjid €
, R.Nath wrote:
The foregoing study of the architectureand site of the Baburi Masjid has shown, unequivocally and without any doubt, that it stands on the site of a Hindu Temple which originally existed in the Ramkot on the bank of the river Sarayu, and Hindu temple material has also been used in its construction.
As the Belgian scholar, Dr. Koenraad Elst has succinctly summed up this needless controversy:Science has made considerable progress, to the point of being able to decide many historical riddles such as whether a given site has a history as a place of worship. With the modern techniques available, it is rather absurd that there should be a controversy over such a simple and easily verifiable yes/no game over the existence of temple remains at the disputed site, when the matter could be scientifically decided in no time. Worse, even when science was called in to decide, the procedure was opposed by, of all people, the most EMINENT ACADEMICS. And when the scientific findings were made public, they were furiously denounced by more academics. - - - -. I for one want to be counted among those who defend the freedom of research and the scientific method, rather than among those who shriek and howl about some evil spirit in whose name EVERY LIE becomes justified, and whom THEY CALL SECULARISM. €
May I add, as your letter does, Mr. Sreekumar , just as THEIR EMINENCES OF THE JNU/AMU STABLES€ did at that juncture!!
The Govt. Sponsored VHP / AIBMAC Debates : Now to an unreported-in-the-media fact!!Soon after it took office in Nov. 1990, the Chandra Shekhar government was advised by (late) Shri Rajiv Gandhi to narrow down the Ayodhya dispute to the specific point whether the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Hindu temple. The First meeting between the VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) took place on
01 Dec 1990
in the presence of Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (MoS), Shri Sharad Pawar, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Shri Mulayum Singh Yadav, the CMs of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and U.P. respectively. After preliminary discussions the meeting was adjourned to
04 Dec 1990
During the second meeting it was AGREED by both sides that (a) both sides will furnish theirevidence to the MoS by
22 Dec 1990
; (b) the MoS would make photocopies of the evidences by
25 Dec 1990
; (c) the two parties would then meet on
10 Jan 1991
for reviewing the evidence. A brief summary of the respective evidence presented by both sides is appended below and makes for interesting reading!! This is available in open source publications!! And yet, went unreported in the media!!
The VHP Evidence
The evidence submitted by the VHP was precise and within the parameterslaid down by the Government. All its documents were centered on the point that the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Ramjhanmabhoomi Mandir. Moreover the documents were summarized in a covering note setting out clearly the only conclusions that could be drawn.
The AIBMAC Evidence
The evidence submitted by the AIBMAC experts was no more
pile of papers, most of them being newspaper articles written by sundry scribes and prolific in polemics rather than hard facts and rigorous logic. To cite one example from this pile will be useful!! The AIBMAC had submitted as evidence that Ram was born in
, in the
, in Ayodhya at a different site, in some unknown place and finally not at all etc. So,, of each of the 8 evidences cited, 7 contradict the other!! Some Eminent Historians these, that made the AIBMAC team of experts!! Rightly has it been termed by many sane scholars as History v/s Causitary!!
There you have it Mr. Sreekumar. It doesnt need extraordinary rocket science genius to see who was in the right and who was bluffing and filibustering. Yet, it is the Sangh Parivar that must be condemned!! Thats Nehruvian Secularism, for you and me!! For me , the Ayodhya imbroglio is a shameful commentary on the judicial process in
. No more. No less please. As Arun Shourie rightly puts it : The second lesson is even more specific, and I am sorry to say that the courts are even more directly responsible for it. - - But the courts have compounded the difficulties for themselves. They have not only gone along and taken these problems on themselves, having taken them on they have prevaricated. They have allowed one legal dodge after another to be used. In the event, people have been compelled to conclude that, like the rulers, the courts are not serious about attending to the matter, that if it is left to the courts it will not get anywhere in decades.
You wrote : - - the second was the anti-minority genocide in
in which OVER 2000innocents were brutally killed €
Since you have not specified the community of the €œinnocents€
, I take it you are referring to €œover 2000 Muslims€. To set the record straight,
in 2005, the Minister of State for Home of the UPA coalition (comprising the 'secular' friends of Muslims) made a written statement in Parliament that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in those riots. So, 790 = OVER 2000 in secular mathematics, is that so Mr. Sreekumar? Now I wonder who killed the 254 Hindus? The
I am aware of the fact that you were posted inGujarat in 2002. But truth was the firstcasualty in Gujarat 2002. May I bring to your attention, an unreported event in the media? An on the spot investigation was conducted under the aegis of the New Delhi-based Council for International Affairs and Human Rights. Its findings were made public as early as
April 26th, 2002
, through a press conference held in
. Running counter to the politically correct line of an €œorchestrated attack,€
they were lar
gely ignored by the media. The members of this team were : Justice D.S. Tewatia, Vice-Chairman of the Council and a former Chief Justice of
and Haryana High Courts, wasthe leader. Other memberswere: Dr J C Batra, senior advocate, Supreme Court of India, Dr. Krishan Singh Arya, Academician, Chandigarh, Shri Jawahar Lal Kaul, former Assistant Editor, Jansatta, Delhi, and Prof. B K Kuthiala, Dean, Faculty of Media Studies, G.J. University Hisar. The team left for
on April 1 and returned on
April 7, 2002
In its introductory comments , the team stated:€œUnfortunately in todays
the vocal,articulate and dominant sections of thinkers and analysts have become predictable. Even before an exercise of analysis of events and processes begins it is possible to almost correctly forecast the inferences and conclusions that are likely to be drawn by the individuals, groups or organizations. A newspaper would publish editorials and articles supporting and proving only one point of view. The outcome of the discussion is predictable depending upon the television channel that is hosting it. Even in the case of simple journalistic reporting the personal predispositions of the reporter glare prominently in the news stories. The questions asked clearly indicate the ideological inclinations of the interviewer. So much so that even the organizations created under the statutes of the Constitution become partisan and their contentions are blind to a set of data and hyper-responsive to another set of facts. Unipolar thought process of Indian analysts and commentators has become a practice rather than an exception.
The role of the mainstream English media had come for special strictures from this group ofindependent and politically incorrect thinkers. The concluding part of their report on the media stated: The Study Team is of the considered opinion that the media in general failed to perform as conscious and socially responsible gatekeepers of information. It followed in the footsteps of an American journalist who said, My job is to report the facts. I give a damn to the consequences. Telecasting images that spread hatred and instigated violence is unhealthy, but their repeated telecast is lethal. The media acted as an interested party in the confrontation, not a neutral reporter of facts. The team was alarmed at the intensity of hostile attitude among the people of the state for
press and television news channels. This attitude was especially articulated by delegations of intellectuals like lawyers, doctors, and businessmen. Even the tribals complained that the media had no time to hear their tale of their agony and was spreading canards against the Hindus.€
And, I regret to state that you are only parroting what
the media has already done, Mr. Sreekumar.
Unfortunately, Truth has a surprising habit of popping up at inconvenient times!! I refer to the findings of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the directions of the Supreme Court that came out in the open on 13/14 Apr 2009. Remember the likes of Teesta Setalvad, Harsh Manderet al ? The news still hot from the oven is how the mass of wild accusations accompanied by shrill activism that Ms Teesta Setalvad hurled against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi came back and hit her after seven years. The biting happened in stages but with the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team tabling its report, the wound has been officially exposed. Over the years, every new finding on the post-Godhra riots seems to be doing two things: Lessening the culpability of Mr Modi, and exposing the fabrications of activists like Ms Setalvad. But this is not all.
And now, the SIT report, which directly implicates her. Among other findings, former CBIdirector RK Raghavan, who heads the SIT, lists these: (a) The horrendous allegations made (by Citizens for Justice & Peace) were false; (b) Cyclostyled affidavits were supplied by a social activist and the allegations made in them were untrue; (c) witnesses were tutored to present false testimony to the court; (d) Incidents that didnt actually occur were manufactured €” the alleged gang-rape of Kausar Banu and her foetus being ripped out, dead bodies being dumped by rioters in a well in Naroda Patiya, etc. In a word , Teesta Setlvad and her cohorts had no case.
Which brings me to a question that has been troubling me ever since the news of thefabrications came out in the open : Will all those who uncritically relied on Ms Stelvads words and activism now have the moral decency to apologise, withdraw their statements, and admit they are wrong? But, I believe, I know the answer. The silence of the editorial classes on this aspect bears eloquent testimony!!
You had written : - - If there is a scriptural justification for the liquidation of the Babri Masjid, kindly convey it to all Hindus - -
Here is it!! From the Bhagawad Gita - €œAhimsa Paramo Dharmah" ("Non violence is the greatest Dharma."). And the very next line : €œDharma himsaa tathaiva cha. ("So too is all righteous violence.")!!Spoken by Lord Krishna!!
Swami Chinmayananda in his commentary on the first line stated : €œThis line in its over - emphasis, has sapped both initiative and energy in our millions, and, instead of making us all irresistible moral giants, we have been reduced to poltroons and cowards. And banking on this cowardly resignation of the majority, a handful of fanatics have been perpetrating crimes which even the most barbarous cave dwellers would have avenged. To clothe our weaknesses, we attribute to them glorious names and purposefully persuade ourselves to believe that they are brilliant ideologists!
Continuing, Swamiji stated : €œIndeed, non - violence is the supreme policy to be adopted by man to foster enduring peace in the world; but there are certain dire moments in the life of individuals, as of nations, when we will have to meet force with force in order that justice be done. If only we all learn that dharma - himsa is equally noble as ahimsa. Under the present available scheme of chaos in this country, when under the planned instigation of a few power blind, reckless men, a minority community is rendered into a murderous gang of fanatics, it is the duty of the majority to win back the erring thousands.
In the great work, Gita Rahasya, that he wrote in the Mandalay prison, the Lokmanya invokes Sriamartha, Meet boldness with boldness; impertinence by impertinence must be met; villainy by villainy must be met. Large-heartedness towards those who are grasping? Forgiveness towards those who are cruel? Tilak invokes the advice of Bhisma, and then of Yudhisthira, Religion and morality consist in behaving towards others in the same way as they behave towards us; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons. Of course, act in a saintly way in the first instance, the Lokmanya counsels. Try to dissuade the evil-doer through persuasion. But if the evilness of the evil-doers is not circumvented by such saintly actions, or, if the counsel of peacefulness and propriety is not acceptable to such evil-doers, then according to the principle kantakenaiva kantakam (that is, €œtake out a thorn by a thorn€
), it becomes necessary to take out by a needle, that is by an iron thorn, if not by an ordinary thorn, that thorn which will not come out with poultices, because under any circu
mstances, punishing evil-doers in the interests of general welfare, as was done by the Blessed Lord, is the first duty of saints from the point of view of Ethics. And the responsibility for the suffering that is caused thereby does not lie with the person who puts the evil out; it lies with the evil-doers. The Lord Himself says, Tilak recalls, I give to them reward in the same manner and to the same extent that they worship Me. In the same way, he says, no one calls the Judge, who directs the execution of a criminal, the enemy of the criminal...
I could add some more , but, for the moment the foregoing ought to suffice!!
Your open letter disappointed me for the simple reason that it lacked sorely in even an iota of intellectualism. Your secular polemics reminded of the words of wisdom written by that intellectual Kshatriya, (late) Shri Sita Ram Goel in his €œPerversion of Indias Political Parlance€
, where he wrote : The most significant cont
ribution made to Indias politics and public life by the language of Leftism is character assassination. Most of the time, the Leftists are poor in facts and logic but prolific in foul language €
. He wrote it in 1984. It has stood the test of time!!
In conclusion, a verse from the Katha Upanishad would be in order. In English it would read as follows: Living in the midst of ignorance, considering themselves to be wise, the deluded wander confused, like the blind led by the blind.€
As your open letter is an appeal to the Hindu Voters, and in the light of the foregoing, my family and myself deeply regret our inability to go along with your contentions. Our minds are made up as regards our voting preferences!!
Dear Mr. Sreekumar I commend the following scholarly treatises for yourreading. It may help 'enlighten' your good self please:
(A) "Perversion of India's Political Parlance" - Sita Ram Goel - Voice of India, New Delhi
(B) "The Ayodhya Reference" - Voice of India - New Delhi
(C) "Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them" Vols 1 & 2 - Sita Ram Goel - Voice of India , New Delhi
(D) "Ayodhya: The Finale" - Dr.Koenraad Elst - Voice of India, New Delhi
(E) "Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls" - Dr.N.S. Rajaram , Voice of India , New Delhi
(F) "Indian Controversies" - Arun Shourie - Rupa & Co
(G) "Godhra: The True Story" - Nicole Elfihttp://www.jaia-bharati.org/nicole-elfi/ni-godhra-ang.htm
(H) "A Lie Split Wide Open" - Sandeep. B. http://www.sandeepweb.com/2009/04/22/my-op-ed-a-lie-split-wide-open/