... With relief the nation has witnessed the sixth anniversary of the demolition of the Babari Masjid pass by without any major incident ... The common people ... deserve to be complimented for the peace that prevailed ... They did not fall in the trap of either the Hindutva forces ... or the secularists ... Consequently, the turnout, whether at Mathura or Varanasi or Chennai, was poor ... Ordinary people are sick of political mobilisation in the name of religion, whether it is by the majority community or the minorities ...

... Violence has only served to disenchant the public ... Even those who feel under the sway of the Ayodhya Movement when it was espoused by the BJP through Advani's Rath Yatra did not envisage the frenzied kar sevaks razing the ... structure tot he ground ... The demolition did not have their support as the drubbing ... that the BJP received in the Assembly elections that followed indicated ... The party ... lost its image as a liberal, secular party. Various political developments ... show that the December 6 incidents has proved a liability for the BJP. Advani's Statement described demolition as a "singularly unfortunate incident" is a recognition of a political reality ...

Since, in the popular perception, Advani and Ayodhya are inseparable, he has had to pay a price ... His image underwent a metamorphosis. His "ideological rigidity" cannot be an asset (for) the BJP ... Hopefully, he and his party will now ensure that such acts are never repeated again.

Babari Masjid Truth Site

December 6, 1992 was one of the blackest days in the history of India. On this fateful day the Babari Masjid, a historic 16 century mosque, fell prey to the unholy depredations of some mindiess, bigoted people, goaded on surreptitiously by a spineless, colluding government.

The first-ever site on the whole Babari Masjid episode is on the Internet. A comprehensive and bold analysis of the sordid events that took place before and after the unforgettable incident is now available for you at:

http://members.tripod.com/~babrimasjid' and soon on 'http://www.babrimasjid.edu'.

Site Administrators: http://members.tripod.com/~babrimasjid.

(Source: The Impact International, January, 1999)

The Same Gang!

The Jeering, hooting young men who battered down the Babari Masjid are the same ones whose pictures appeared in the papers in the days that followed the nuclear tests.                                                        - Arundhati Roy in "The End of imagination"

'Regret' for December 6, Vir Sanghvi on L.K. Advani's recent remark

In an article for The Telegraph in January 1993. Written just days after the Demolition, L.K. Advani referred to December 6, 1992, as 'the saddest day of my life' ...

... The problem with Mr Advani's position on the demolition is not that it is new. The problem is that it promises much more than it delivers. Because of the language Mr Advani uses (unfortunate .... dejected .... sad, etc), one is fooled into thinking that like any moderate liberal, he regards the demolition as a sad day for Indian secularism. Perhaps he is even distancing himself from the communal passions fanned by the Ayodhya movement. Far from it. The point is not that he is a moderate but that he is every bit as hard-line as we thought he was.

His position was that he was 'dejected' by the happenings of December 6, but no, this sadness did not 'stem from any disenchantment with the Ayodhya movement'. He was upset only because these 'happenings' had impaired the RSS's reputation for discipline and 'would affect the BJP's over-all image adversely'. And he was distressed because 'the action plan' that he had worked out for constructing the temple had gone awry.

As for the Ayodhya movement itself, it was the biggest mass movement since Independence; not a 'ladder to power' but 'the dynamo for a resurgent, resolute and modern India'. Even the demolition ('happenings') was seen not as an assault on secularism but as 'a lack of firm commitment in the general masses to the rule of law' The theme of his Telegraph article was this: the demolition was the work of the frustrated masses who were exasperated with the delays caused by the judicial process. He was sorry that their frustration led to these 'happenings' because it would affect the BJP adversely. But the Ayodhya movement-which led to these 'happenings'-was a symbol of 'a modern India'. Nowhere in the Telegraph article was there one word of regret for the actual demolition.

Even the riots that followed were dismissed with the claim that they weren't so bad: "when one compares this time's fallout with what has been happening in earlier years over incidents which can be considered trifling, this time's has been a contained one." His regrets were for himself and the BJP (because their image had been dented and because his 'meticulously drawn up' action plan had been 'short-circuited') and his apologies were on behalf of others, chiefly 'the general masses' who had let the BJP down because of their 'lack of firm commitment to the rule of law'.

I find all this instructive because Mr Advani is saying exactly the same things again. To The Indian Express, he said that the incident was 'unfortunate'; it was 'a setback not only for the party but also for himself'. To The Pioneer, he elaborated on this theme: "his interpretation was that the setback was because Hindus don't appreciate aggressive attitudes".

To Outlook he made it clear that Hindutva and the Ram Temple agitation were 'an inclusive ideology and the only solution to casteist tensions'. Where is the regret? Where is the softline? Mr Advani does not regret the communal passions he whipped up with his rath yatra. He is not distancing himself from the Ayodhya movement. He is not concerned with the setback to Indian secularism. He is concerned only with the setback to the BJP. He is not sorry for the demolition. He is only sorry for himself.

... If he does indeed intend a more comprehensive expression of regret, then he must go beyond the weasel words he used in The Telegraph and in his statements to the Press this December.

He must say that the actual demolition (rather than its manner) is a matter of regret. He must say that he is sorry for the damage to Indian secularism, not just for the damage to the BJP. And he must say that a resurgent India needs to go beyond an obsession with medieval mosques (or structures if he prefers) if it is to meet the economic and political challenges of the next century.

... On December 6, 1992 Mr Vajpayee was distressed by the demolition while Sadhvi Rithambara was delighted. Both were entitled to their views and both have stuck to them. Mr Advani's problem is that he tries to package what are essentially Sadhvi Rithambara's views in Mr Vajpayee's language. And unfortunately for him, it doesn't wash. (Source: The Hindustan Times, December 25, 1998).