In a world-shaking event two years ago, some Hindu fanatics demolished the 360-year-old historic Babri Masjid. India’s Muslims protested against the outrage and the Indian state viciously pounced upon the protesters killing more than 2000 Muslims. There were allegations that the Congress(I) government headed by Rao was not only responsible for the butchery but was also hand-in-glove with the rioters. These allegations have now been confirmed by Congress top leaders themselves. Former human resources development minister Arjun Singh, disclosed recently that he had informed the then home secretary, Godbole of the danger of the demolition of Babri Masjid three days prior to the tragic events of December 6, 1992. The Congress (I) spokesman pooh-poohod the claim while minions of the prime minister sought to explore the possibility of silencing Godbole somehow

But Godbole in a media interview, almost confirmed Arjun Singh when he said that the latter had spoken to him on December 3, 1992. The meaning of Arjun Singh’s claim is quite clear: the minister had conveyed his apprehension about the conspiracy to demolish the Masjid to the Indian government well in time to avoid bloodshed, but the prime minister, who was personally looking after the Ayodhya dispute, let the Hindu fanatics have their way. In a related statement, the former Indian health minister Makhan Lal Folder, came out with another starling disclosure that he too, had told the prime minister repeatedly after July 1992 and more specifically on December 3, 1992, at the political affairs committee of the Indian cabinet, that there was the danger of the Masjid being demolished but the prime minister had assured him that there was a contingency plan to save the masjid. But nothing was done in practice. The former minister said that the inability of the Rao government to prevent the demolition in the face of repeated warnings at both political and administrative levels have in one stroke, wiped out the trust and faith of the Muslim masses in the Congress.

These authoritative statements point to the only logical conclusion, that the Indian prime minister himself wanted the masjid to be demolished so that the Ayodhya problem was “solved” once and for all. Thousands of Muslims protesting against the demolition were dealt with, with a heavy hand by the government and more than two thousand of them were killed. The helpless Muslims of India could do nothing in the situation.

But they availed themselves of the first opportunity to each the prime minister and his coterie a lesson. The Congress (I) lost in the elections to the assemblies in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. It was this defeat that prompted Arjun Singh, Fotedar and other dissidents to correct the mistakes and draw the alienated Muslims into the fold of the ruling party.

The picture is fairly clear. In a country where the prime minister himself encourages demolition of shrines belonging to a minority community, democracy can only be a sham. It may be recalled that Rao was the Indian home minister when several thousand Sikhs were killed in the wake of Mrs. India Gandhi’s assassination. The whole world knows about Indira Gandhi’s grand plan to demolish Akal Takhat.

In a recent report, a respected U.S. institution. “Freedom House” has aptly described the Indian press as only “partly free.” Perhaps, Freedom House in its future reports will further expand the thesis. Not only the Indian Press, but all organs of state are only partly free and impartial. In fact, India, as such, is not much of a democracy. It is hoped that the Clinton administration will learn some lessons from the Freedom House reports and those of other institutions. The U.S. administration needs to have a better appreciation of the Indian reality and modify its policy of lending blind support to the Rao government. Arjun Singh, Fotedar, Muslims and other minorities are not the enemies of America. The administration, by its unwise policies of favoring economic opportunity over human rights must not convert them into the enemy. The President has to act, vis-a-vis India, more rationally than he has acted so far.

Article extracted from this publication >> February 10, 1995