The Liberhan Commission report on the demolition of the Babri masjid throws no new light on the dastardly designs of its its 67 execrable perpetrators. What it does is throw an unlikely pebble at the towering reputation and legacy of what it thinks is the 68th: Atal Behari Vajpayee.
The BJP’s rare “moderate face” has been a carefully constructed and preserved structure, designed to appeal to the soft side of India’s aspiring middle-class millions while providing the smokescreen to the saffron brotherhoodlums; a “mukhauta” in the words of K.N. Govindacharya.
That mask has been, well, unmasked by the lead-laced fingers of Justice Liberhan on the basis of a single videographed speech delivered by Vajpayee on the eve of the demolition, December 5, 1992.
Without calling the former prime minister to the witness box and without giving him a chance to explain, Liberhan calls Vajpayee a “pseudo-moderate” who can be held “culpable” of the crime of being the country to the point of communal discord by his “sins of omission”.
Given that the great voice of Vajpayee is now at the mercy of a voice-box, he cannot even defend himself from the miscarriage of justice at the hands of a judge. However, it speaks for the state of the saffron scrum that no one but no one has mounted a defence of a defenceless man.
Thankfully, Sudheendra Kulkarni steps up to the plate in today’s Indian Express:
“The most egregious part of the Liberhan report is its indictment of former Prime Minister Vajpayee, condemning him, along with Advani, as a “pseudo-moderate”. This will no doubt please communists and Muslim extremists, but, anyone who knows Vajpayee (and also Advani) knows that nothing can be a worse travesty of truth.
“I suspect that this character assassination of Vajpayee by a government-appointed commission has been done deliberately to dishonour him in India’s official history, so that only members of a particular family are recognised by posterity as true nationalist leaders.
“Implicating Vajpayee raises some serious questions. Does the mere fact that he gave a speech supporting the Ayodhya movement make him a “pseudo-moderate? Are we then to believe that only he/she is a moderate Hindu who opposes the BJP, and counters the demand for a Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya?
“I too supported the Ram Mandir movement before 1992 (when I was not in the BJP) and I continue to support it even now, when I am no longer in the BJP. There are millions of ordinary, non-communal but proud Hindus like me who feel outraged by Liberhan’s warped belief that the only correct definition of secularism is that which disregards legitimate Hindu sentiments and silently acquiesces in the negation and falsification of the long history of temple-breaking by bigoted Muslim rulers. If Islamic bigotry could blast Bamyan Buddhas in the age of television in the 21st century, are we to believe that religiously inspired temple-destruction didn’t happen in medieval India?”
Cartoon: courtesy Satya Govind/ The Charicaturist
Read the full article: Vajpayee a pseudo-moderate? A canard
VHP themselves agreed that “Vajpayee was also involved in Ram Janmabhoomi movement”
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/72666/Top%20Stories/Vajpayee+was+also+involved+in+Ram+Janmabhoomi+movement:+VHP.html
There is no need for others to assasinate BJP, they themselves are doing that. Condition of BJP is like pakistan now, where taliban turned around to attack their own countrymen. RSS, VHP and BJP themselves are destroying themselves, in fact the truth is coming out… smoke screenz being cleared. Its all out in the open! BJP is being stripped….
So, churumuri is back to its favourite game of pinching the baby and rocking the cradle? Just what does it expect the BJP to defend? Vajpayee’s non-culpability for a crime the BJP and its benefactors take great pride in, or Vajpayee’s image as a moderate which the BJP and its supporters abhorr?
Surely either defence is injurious to the BJP’s own street cred?
The defence of Vajpayee should come from himself or from those who know him and respect him and what he stands for. That defence is unlikely to come from the thigh-slapping thugs who do not know him and do not respect him and what he stands for.
Raj:
VHP has very less credibility as they are a bunch of fanatics, who can’t see beyond their narrow ideology – as they have repeatedly proven. They would bring in any name to bring respectability to their actions and claims.
There is really no credible evidence to suggest that Vajpayee was complicit, except perhaps that he didn’t do anything forcefully enough to stop his colleagues (just as in case of Gujrat).
Can you also find him Guilty of Gujarat Massacre because post massacre he did say in a speech “Pehle aag kisne lagayi” (Who lit the fire first)… That was a bad comment.. But, that’s all that is..
> That defence is unlikely to come from the thigh-slapping thugs who do not know
Nicely put. For BJP – Vajpayee was a necessary Mukhota. But, that doesn’t mean Vajpayee was Pseudo-Secular…
Here is an historical anecdote. Subash Chandra bose was forced to give up Indian National Congress President post inspite of he winning majority votes. The reason was Mahatma Gandhi wanted Pattabhi Sitaramaiah as the president and didn’t like a revolutionary mind to head congress. The fact that he did win didn’t go down well with Mahatma, and he was sulking. Bose gave up, and his friends asked him – why did you give up when presidentship was rightfully yours.
He is said to have commented something to the effect – “If I call for a strike a few thousand people will rise up, but a single call from Gandhi will make the entire nation rise up. So, how can I not have his support and still lead congress”.
Vajpayee in a way was the person who brought mass support for BJP. He could sulk, could control RSS to a great degree at times, but couldn’t control it all times.
Gandhi couldn’t control Congress all the time. Chauri-Chaura incident is an example of that. Just because Congress workers went rioting, burnt and killed some 23 policemen, doesn’t mean Gandhi was involved in that violent incident, even though he called for the strike that went out of hand.
Now don’t jump on me saying how can I compare Vajpayee and Gandhi, there is absolutely no comparison. Gandhi called off strike, did penance for Chauri-Chaura, Vajpayee stopped at some words of regret.
I was just drawing up an analogy.
with all due respect to our former pm vajpayeeji, i feel that no one is or could ever become mahatma.. But one thing is any person could show feelings of remorse if he or she is really sorry for his actions. Though i don’t believe in the pseudo secular attribute but i feel that if u disagree with a decision of ur association better quit it or dissociate from that decision totally by opposing it. On the other hand justice liberhan is also not justified in not giving Mr. Vajpayee a chance to defend himself