Truth Needs to be Told

Babri Masjid demolition and its aftermath are discussed threadbare in this insightful book

Lt Gen. Z.U. Shah (retd)

I have just finished reading this brutally frank and insightful book, The Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir Dilemma: An Acid Test for India’s Constitution by Madhav Godbole. The former home secretary was in the saddle when the Babri Masjid was demolished and its repercussions shook the nation to its foundation.

Since then the divisive tentacles of communalism have gripped the nation. Godbole saw things from close quarters and has truthfully reported his observations. I also had a telephonic conversation with him to clarify some doubts on the issue. Foremost, why did it take him three months after the horrific incident to put in his papers for premature retirement since his sane advice and series of recommendations was spurned by his super ‘Boss’, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. If he had resigned immediately, it would have had an electrifying impact. His explanation was that attempts were being made to make him the scapegoat and he had to protect his honour, which was only possible whilst he remained in service.

The cover of the book and the author’s note on the jacket convey the essence of its contents. The Preface argues that if unbiased and real facts on the incident are widely disseminated, it would help change perceptions. This is over optimism since the social media has intractably hardened views and cemented positions. Chapters 1-3 cover the subject of the book’s title. The author mentions that L.K. Advani was the architect of the Ayodhya movement and the Babri Masjid could have been saved if Rao had acted on the advice given by the home ministry. He also asserts that all organs of the central and state government, governor B. Satyanarian Reddy, (VP Singh’s appointee in 1990) and chief minister since 1991 (Kalyan Singh) of Uttar Pradesh and, regretfully, the judiciary failed in their responsibility. It was not the Constitution which was found wanting but the people who were in charge of administering it who failed the Constitution.

I was on a one-year sabbatical at the College of Combat, Mhow, MP when the tragedy unfolded on 6 December 1992. We sat glued to our TV sets watching the smug faces of the leaders of various Right-wing organisations, delirious with joy, as the demolition progressed. What surprised me was the paralysis of the large number of law-enforcing personnel present there. They were passive if not complicit. The ‘ostensible long arm of the Centre’ was totally paralysed as there was no political will to act. Would the same be repeated if an Ayodhya like situation developed at Varanasi and Mathura?

1


The PM was lulled into a sense of complacency by the assurances given by the UP government and the governor of the state that the shilanyas would be peaceful. A recommendation for imposing President’s Rule and moving central paramilitary forces to Ayodhya in the face of stiff opposition by the state government in order to prevent the influx of kar sewaks were brushed away by the prime minister. The reason for recommending the above was that once the kar sewaks assembled in large numbers, the options available to the central government would have been closed. The procrastination on the part of the prime minister resulted in just that. He refused to judge the gravity of the situation and ridiculed the idea of holding a cabinet meeting at midnight when the situation warranted it. Rao’s ‘feigned amnesia