Liberhan Ayodhya commission report online – read it
The Liberhan Ayodhya Commission report is online.
Read it for yourself at http://mha.gov.in/uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=571
I suggest a slightly different reading order.
First read Chapter 12, where the author ambitiously takes on the “Definition of Secularism”.
Here is an excerpt :
Religion and state have thus been separated so that people are polarized by the electoral process on any ground other than those of religion, caste, culture, or creed.
146.9 Page 872 (emp added)
This is where the report is a massive let down. No Indian wants to pay 8 crores and wait 17 years to hear Mr Liberhan’s philosophical takes. He should have stuck to analyzing the Babri Masjid case and then to look for criminal culpability. Almost all the BJP leaders claim they did it, so whats the point in saying ‘Yeah, they are right’ ? He goes on to define Hinduism, gives us a history lesson including such gems as how the Mughals were “hinduised”, we get to hear his vision of casteless India. There are umpteen instances of such high sounding theorizing. After every such instance, the enemy is projected as the one who wants to attack the innocence of this system. A lot of rants are actually not against the demolition but against the “political format” the movement took.
This my friends, is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.
Do we really have such a system in place ? What if the opposite were true and that the Indian state has been carefully guided into a gorge over the years by the pillars of democracy who have failed us. A gorge where the state engineers inequality, prevents rational examination (strict scrutiny) even of compromises sought to made to fundamental rights, and eventually fixes your position in society. In such a gorge, the only power worth having is a place on the table where such engineering takes place. Is it not ? Wont we be forced to see the following in a different light ?
Murli Manohar Joshi admitted that although the issue had the propensity to divide the country, the religious issue had to be put in a political format.
149.10 Page 885
Elsewhere, the author draws heavily from Amartya Sen. There are about a dozen quotes attributed to him in the chapter titled ‘Secularism’. Such as this one :
Sen wrote that, Even among those who see themselves as religious Hindus, a great many would dispute Ram’s divinity. The identification of Ram with divinity is common in the north and west of India.
146.3 Page 869
Actually, there is no place in India where Ram’s divinity is disputed. The best Mr Sen has is probably the Dravidian movement. Only those unfamiliar with the Dravidian movement will fall for this. We happen to be in the know. It is a plain fact that people of Tamilnadu are deeply religious and have the largest and most elaborate temples to Lord Ram. You could probably put all the Ram temples in Delhi combined into Sholingar or Suchindram. The dravidian movement is about castes jostling for space at the ‘engineering table’. Just come to TN and you will find that almost every Sumo, Scorpio, Endeavours with the Dravidian parties flag in the front will sport a Hindu God sticker montage at the back. It will be easy to dismiss such things from a distance, but people see this and draw the correct conclusions. In any case, I dont think anyone really wants Mr Liberhan to pronounce his grand judgment on Lord Ram. This is an example of straying off the track.
Even if we concede that Lord Ram is considered divine only in the North and West. What is the point he is driving at ? Almost all the hindu “fascist leaders” and illiterate kar sevaks were from the North and West. Are their actions then understandable because in their regions, Mr Sen says that Ram really is considered divine ?
I never thought I’d agree with anything Vir Sanghvi says. But here is his verdict :
24 Nov 2009 … “RT @virsanghvi: If I was the government of India, I would ask Liberhan for my money back. 17 years, 9 crores spent and complete rubbish . via Twitter.