If a Gandhi was active, Babri wouldn’t have fallen: Rahul

Speaking to reporters on the way from Meerut to Deoband in the Muslim heartland of UP, Gandhi said: “Had anyone from the Gandhi family been active then, it would not have happened at all. I have heard my father telling my mother that he would have stood in front of the masjid to protect it.”

“Since 1991, the Congress has not fought elections in UP in a proper fashion. But this time we are going to do that.”

And addressing students at Deoband’s Islamic seminary, Rahul reminded them of his family’s heritage. “I am blind to caste and religion. I see everyone as Hindustani... If one Hindustani tries to harm another, I promise I will come in between. Please remember that I am the grandson of Indira Gandhi,” he told the audience.

Though aimed at garnering crucial Muslim votes in the Assembly elections, his remark that the Babri Masjid demolition would not have taken place if a Gandhi had been active in politics then betrays both ignorance of history and a dynastic arrogance that smack of political immaturity.

But none, including Arjun Singh, quit the party over the demolition. As such, it was a collective failure of the Congress and the Central government. To distance his family from the party at this stage and give the impression that only the Gandhi family was the custodian of secular values which the party did not uphold is unlikely to help the Congress’s overall image — and as such is bad politics.

But it is also skewed history because well before Narasimha Rao took over power, it was the Rajiv Gandhi regime’s flirtation with “soft Hindutva” that helped the Ramjanmabhoomi campaign launched by the RSS-VHP-combine from the mid-1980s.

In fact, apart from December 6, 1992, two other dates are significant in the bitter Babri Masjid-Ramjanmbhoomi dispute that eventually led to the demolition. The first is February 1, 1986 when the locks of Babri Masjid were opened to allow Hindus to worship the Ram Lalla idol in its precincts. The Faizabad court order allowing the opening of the locks and the Central government’s decision to overturn the Supreme Court verdict on the Shah Bano case by adopting the Muslim Women’s (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill in May 1986 were widely seen as twin initiatives of the Rajiv regime to appease fundamentalist elements in both communities, a balancing act of sorts that backfired badly.

... contd.