Babri Masjid Demolition: Injustice to the Justice System
The verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case has been delivered on predictable lines. When the Supreme Court ordered earlier in favour of the construction of the Ram Mandir on the site where the Masjid once stood, it offered a whiff of what it is to be expected in the demolition conspiracy case.
Strangely, the Supreme Court, while allowing the construction of the temple, held that the demolition of the Masjid was a criminal act. Constitutional experts then pointed out several incongruencies in the order. If the Babri Masjid demolition, termed as a major criminal act, had not taken place, it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to allow the construction of the Ram Mandir. If the Babri Masjid was not demolished, the judiciary should have first ordered its demolition as it was only then that the construction of Ram Mandir would have been possible. Having allowed the construction of the Ram Mandir at the same place where the illegal act took place, it is almost as if the highest court has covertly approved the demolition. With this, investigations against the accused in the act of demolition totally lost its significance. The order of the CBI Special Court on Wednesday is then only a parody of the justice system.
One point must be considered. The events that took place on December 6, 1992 was not just about the demolition of a mosque but about demolishing the country’s justice system. Only after obtaining an assurance from the organizers to the Supreme Court that no untoward incident would take place at the site, were they allowed entry. But the organizers did not keep their promise. By demolishing the Babri Masjid, the miscreants dealt a death blow to the legal system and the Constitution. Therefore, all leaders who were responsible for organizing the programme stand incriminated in the act of demolition. By ensuring that they are punished, the justice system should have provided itself justice. If it is not able to provide justice when it suffered injustice, how can it provide justice to the aggrieved in the country? Such questions are now being raised by people after the Babri Masjid demolition case verdict.
Even now, the court has not said that a crime has not been committed. It is only saying that there is no clear evidence about who committed the act. By stating that the day’s event was not pre-planned, the court is trying to take refuge in the sentiments of the people to protect the accused. The court has also said that the evidence against the accused is not adequate and has expressed helplessness that the audio and video transcripts provided by the CBI cannot prove the truth. “The audio is not clear”, it said. “Anti-social elements have demolished the Masjid and the accused leaders have tried to stop it”, it said and has covertly given them the title of ‘Protectors of Babri Masjid.’
The accused have been acquitted because the court has not been convinced that Advani’s Rath Yatra and the subsequent political programmes were responsible for the gathering of people in such large numbers in the site and for the demolition of the disputed site. What then was Advani trying to sow in the minds of the people as part of the Rath Yatra? What was the reason for the blood bath during Rath Yatra? Is the court then saying that Advani was trying his best to stop the ‘Babri Masjid demolition’ through his Rath Yatra?
The court has said that ‘the audio is not clear.’ There could be two reasons for this. One could be some technical problem in the audio and video tape. The other could be the court’s own inability to see what is in it. It is still not clear which of these reasons is responsible for the ‘lack of clarity in the audio.’ But, it is true that people gathered in such large numbers only after listening to the speeches of those who encouraged the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The court has termed those who demolished the Masjid as ‘miscreants’ but has chosen to be innocent about those who organized the people in the Babri Masjid site. Why did the miscreants who were in the midst of devotees demolish the Babri Masjid and how did they do it? Did they do it using bare hands, or did they demolish the walls with their feet? It would not have been possible to demolish it without strong weapons. The media had reported that huge bulldozers had worked for the demolition of the historical structure. If the act was not pre-meditated, how did the weapons reach the place? A senior Home Ministry official had stated that the demolition was pre-planned as the structure was demolished within five hours. It seems that the court could not hear his voice also clearly. Moreover, the speeches of people who participated in the programme were not the sole provocateur in the demolition of Babri Masjid. For nearly a decade, programmes had been held under the leadership of Advani. The constant conspiracies of divisive forces against the country and the Constitution resulted in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. All the leaders who were present at the site on that day are therefore accused. It seems, therefore, the CBI special court not only could not hear but also had a problem with its sight.
There appears to be a possibility of appealing against the order. But people who file the appeal could be faced with a possibility of having to prove the existence of Babri Masjid at the site. Even if that were to be proved, there is no guarantee of getting justice because then it would be inevitable for them to prove the existence of a Constitution in the country. The Constitution was wrecked twice – once in the hands of the miscreants and then in the hands of the judiciary. Sadly, it was wrecked by those who should have protected it.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Shivakumar clarifies on Cartier watch, hits back at BJP leader
Bengaluru (PTI): Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Friday hit back at senior BJP leader Chalavadi Narayanaswamy and clarified with records on the expensive Cartier wristwatch he had submitted in the affidavit to Lokayukta.
Claiming that he is a "transparent person", he asked whether he or Chief Minister Siddaramaiah should not have the right to wear a watch of their choice.
His clarification came a day after Narayanaswamy, who is the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council, had questioned about the expensive watches.
"Mr Chalavadi Narayanaswamy, please take a moment to review the affidavit I submitted to the Lokayukta," Shivakumar said in a post on 'X', with documents of assets declared with Lokayukta on October 28, which mentions Rolex watch worth Rs 9 lakh and two Cartier watches worth Rs 23,90,246 and Rs 12,06,000 respectively.
The Deputy CM said, "As someone in a position of responsibility, speaking falsehoods for convenience is not only wrong but also undermines your (Narayanaswamy) integrity."
"I am a transparent person and have shared the truth openly. Do I, or even CM Siddaramaiah, not have the right to wear a watch of our choice? I urge you to refrain from making baseless remarks and exercise your constitutional authority wisely and responsibly," he said, adding that all the details are on record, and if the BJP leader wishes, he is welcome to visit the Lokayukta office and verify the affidavit himself.
Siddaramaiah and Shivakumar reportedly wore similar Cartier watches when the former visited the latter's residence for breakfast on December 2, and the opposition BJP has been critical of the expensive watches and has raised questions about it.
Pointing to reports that both the CM and Deputy CM were wearing expensive watches from the same company, Narayanaswamy on Thursday had accused Shivakuamar of not mentioning about the watches purchase to the Election Commission.
He said that Shivakumar's affidavit submitted to the Election Commission only mentioned a Rolex watch worth Rs 9 lakh and a Hublot watch worth Rs 23,90,246, but does not have any mention of a Cartier watch.
"Where have you (Shivakumar) declared a Cartier watch", the BJP leader had questioned while adding that the watch is currently valued at about Rs 47 lakh, including taxes.
Questioning whether the Cartier watch was stolen or purchased, Narayanaswamy accused Shivakumar of lying to the people by stating that he had purchased it using his credit card, and had demanded him to release the documents about the purchase.
The opposition leader, citing that the CM is a "watch lover", pointed out that Siddaramaiah, during his earlier tenure as CM, was embroiled in a controversy over a Hublot watch, which he had subsequently handed over to the Assembly secretariat, declaring it as state property.
Reacting to Shivakumar's post, Narayanaswamy on Friday, while stating that it is a well-known fact that the Deputy CM has the ability to buy and wear watches worth lakhs of rupees, asked him, "As you (Shivakumar), yourself have said, you have a Cartier watch that you bought 7 years ago, why did you not declare it in your 2018 and 2023 election affidavits?"
In a post on 'X', he said he has only put a legitimate question before Shivakumar to seek clarification. "It is up to you (Shivakumar) to answer in the right way or ignore it," he added.
Hitting back at Narayanaswamy, Shivakumar, speaking to reporters, said, anyone could check his Lokayukta affidavit and that he was ready to resign if he had lied. He also challenged the opposition leader whether he was ready to resign if proven wrong.
"Narayanaswamy lacks experience, I have filed (declaration of assets) before Lokayukta and wherever I have to. I have my watch with me. If I'm lying I'm ready to resign today itself. Is he ready? One should have basic common sense and should not speak just for publicity. I behave more responsibly than him. He should learn to work with responsibility. Let him go and see the Lokayukta affidavit that I have filed this year," he said.
