On Communal Situation in Chikamangalur

A fact-finding team commissioned by the People's Union for Civil Liberties - Karnataka, which included members of Citizens for Democracy - Karnataka and South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring ... visited Bababudangiri and Chikamangalur on the 21s and 22nd of January, 2000 ... The following are the findings of the team.

1. The fact-finding team is of the opinion. That Bababudangiri represents a unique example of composite culture of India. Hindus and Muslims alike offer their obeisance to the place in a very cordial manner. It was never a point of dispute throughout the centuries.

2. It is only after 1975 that the dispute emerged regarding the management of the Dargah/Peetha. The then caretaker of the Dargah, Shah Khadri and two Hindu litigants challenged the government order, making it a Wakf property. The judgement pronounced that the shrine is revered equally by the Hindus and Muslims, and ordered the status quo to be maintained. The court also upholds the rights of Shah Khadri regarding the inheritance.

3. In the post-Ayodhya development, the Sangh Parivar took up the programmes to make it a controversial spot. After the fizzling out of the Idgah Maidan issue in Hubli, they targeted Bababudangiri/Datta Peetha Dargah to rouse communal passions. This is connected with the BJP's game plan of securing a foothold in Karnataka and to extend its supremacy.

4. From 1984 onwards, the Datta Jayanthi celebrations were made a formal affair. The various Hindu swamijis who had never bothered to visit the place earlier made a beeline to the shrine. With this; the shrine which was the property of a single family suddenly came under attack as though it was a public property ...

5. The whole issue reached a flash point in 1998, with the Sangh Parivar's aggressive politics of confrontation wherein the rathayatras were organised to rouse communal passions. The Sangh. Parivar succeeded in making it an all-Karnataka controversial issue and a flash point of communal confrontation.

6. (In) December 1999 the State administration allowed the Sangh Parivar-led Hindutva forces to perform Hindu rituals including yagnas and homas and installation of idols which were never a tradition in. the shrine nor were allowed by the Court of law which in fact had directed all the parties to the dispute to maintain the status quo ...

7. The local administration was hand in glove with the activities of the Sangh Parivar by providing all facilities and support.

8. Overall, it is the state Government which has fallen into the trap of the Sangh Parivar foregoing its secular responsibilities.

Recommendations

Ø  The status quo ante of 1975 should be maintained.

Ø  The Sangh Parivar should not be allowed to hijack the affairs of Bababudangiri.

Ø  The government should take firm measures to stop the Sangh Parivar from repeating its machinations to rouse communal passions ...

Ø  The State machinery should stop providing facilities to the activities of the Sangh Parivar to perform Datta Jayanthi and also prevent vandalism ...

Ø  The district administration which was hand in glove and connived with the Sangh Parivar should be completely revamped.

(Source: PUCL Bulletin, April, 2000)

Rajindar Sachar On Criticism of PUCL by RUHR

... The gratuitous and baseless allegation that PUCL has provided a platform for Hindutva ideology is the unkindest cut of all. PUCL and its Bulletin have been the first to condemn communal politics. It produced the investigative report, "Who are the Guilty?" in collaboration with PUDR on the 1984 killings of Sikhs in Delhi; it was active during the Srikrishna panel enquiry; and many other investigative and enquiry reports relating to communal riots, atrocities on Dalits, etc.

PUCL held public protest meetings to demand implementation of Srikrishna Commission report. It has repeatedly demanded that 6 December be declared a Day of Repentance every year to atone for the demolition of Babari Masjid. (Source: PUCL Bulletin, April, 2000)