The guilt of Ayodhya

The demolition was followed by riots. Hundreds of people were butchered. Is murder an act of actual killing or of creating a climate where murders take place?

Defence Minister George Fernandes has been a commissar, not a yogi. He understandably does not appreciate the pull of morality. He gave a ‘clean chit’ to his state minister Hiren Pathak, who quit the Union Cabinet having been chargesheeted in a case relating to ‘murder’ in 1985.

“It does not make any sense after a lapse of 15 years,” Fernandes said. Does murder cease to be a murder after the passage of time? Should the family of the bereaved give up hopes of getting justice because the court or police have been late in processing the case? Does the punishment for ‘killing’ become time-barred? Should the accused be automatically cleared after a particular period?

Even if one were to use all the legal quibbling to throw dust in the eyes of the people, it would not be possible to condone any ‘murder,’ much less of a head constable who was killed. The statement by Fernandes was, in fact, an interference in the process of justice. When the country’s defence minister says something the lesser persons in the judiciary are bound to take notice of it. The sessions court had only chargesheeted Pathak. Punishment, if any, was still to come. Then there was a right to appeal to higher courts. Since then the sessions court has dropped the chargesheet, although the final disposal of the case is yet to take place.

The defence minister’s argument that the perusal of the case “after a lapse of 15 years” does not “make sense” is puerile. He does not seem to take into account the gravity of the matter. The dust of time does not obscure the facts. Nor does the pronouncement like the one made by him dilute the reality. The real question is moral. I recall an incident where Mahatma Gandhi stalled the membership of Forward Bloc member Ishwar Singh Kaveeshwar to the Congress Working Committee. When told that Gandhi had put a question mark against his name, Kaveeshwar met him to know the reason. Gandhi took out a postcard from his drawer. It was a complaint. Kaveeshwar had not returned a sum of Rs 500 which he had borrowed. “But this is more than 12 years old. It is time-barred,” said Kaveeshwar in his defence. Gandhi said the question was not legal but moral. He was not inducted into the CWC.

This incident may not appeal to Fernandes. But he should know that the moral aspect is central to the thought of socialism. Wrong means will not lead to right results. Without moral side, human behaviour, standards and values will have no intrinsic strength. It is absurd to imagine that out of the conflict the socially progressive are bound to win. Without morality, governance will be reduced to
‘jungle’ raj.

In fact, the BJP should be commended for having taken a moral stand. It asked Pathak to resign. It also asked Gujarat Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel to tell Ashok Bhatt, a minister, to step down after being chargesheeted. The party should have applied the same yardstick to the three Union ministers — L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati — who have been arraigned in a CBI complaint relating to the demolition of the Babri Masjid. What beats one is the logic of arguments that gravity of the chargesheets, which were filed against Pathak and Bhatt, is more than that of the complaint against Advani and his two colleagues. All of them are in the dock. True, the three are not accused of vile and loathsome crime like murder. But crime is an act that is against the law. Any felony or misdemeanor is a crime. What will be the court’s inclination is difficult to predict. Still, Advani and his two colleagues are the accused.

The demolition, as is known, was followed by the worst communal rioting since Partition. Hundreds of people were butchered. Is murder an act of actual killing or of creating a climate where murders take place In any case, it is for the court to decide. The BJP cannot ride high horse. Kalyan Singh, the party’s chief minister at the time, has accused the RSS and the BJP. “I was given the impression that there were no plans to demolish the disputed structure.” His charge is serious and puts the BJP in a quandary.

But one is shocked over the statement by Law Minister Arun Jaitley, otherwise a sensible person. He has not only defended Advani but has said that “the case is concocted”. Should a law minister give his verdict before the court does? Doesn’t his defence influence the process of justice? A crime does not cease to be a crime because it is given the name of ‘political movement’. Over the years, crime and politics have, in fact, become synonymous. President K.R. Narayanan said so without mincing words during his address to the nation on the eve of the Independence Day. He said: “Crime and violence of all kinds at every social and political level have developed an ‘unholy alliance.”

The Ram temple agitation was the ventilation of religious bias against all those who believed in the rule of law. It is unfortunate that the minister has jumped into the arena. Again, the question is moral. Legal parameters cannot confine it. The basic thing is that wrong means will not lead to right results and that this is no longer merely an ethical doctrine but a practical proposition. The two chief ministers, S.M. Krishna of Karnataka and M. Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu, have neither legal nor moral defence against what they have done to placate an outlaw, Veerappan, who has committed scores of murders. Kannada matinee idol Rajkumar has been released since. But that is on a different level. Both Krishna and Karunanidhi should have tendered their resignation once the Supreme Court made remarks which are, in fact, strictures against them. The word ‘complicity’ was used for Karnataka for having a ‘package’ deal with Veerappan. The judgment is nearly a fortnight old. Both chief ministers have had time to go through the remarks made by the court. Surprisingly, there is no response from them. Karunanidhi has blamed Krishna for not fulfilling the undertaking given to Veerappan on the release of 51 of his associates one year ago. How does it matter who promised whom when the Supreme Court has taken both of them to task? Both have no business to remain in office.

They may have an explanation which meets the requirement of law. Here again the question is moral. Do the chief ministers have no responsibility for “discrediting the democratic authority” and agreeing to the release of TADA prisoners without weighing its impact on police morale or the states’ administration? It appears as if they are not aware of the dividing line between right and wrong, moral and immoral. They have no realisation of what is wrong. The President should ask them to quit because he is the custodian of the Constitution. The Prime Minister’s response is clear from the manner in which he asked Pathak to step down.

Earlier Columns