BJP hopes to hit Cong with Left, SP & BSP help

NEW DELHI: Two days after the contents of the Liberhan Commission report surfaced in public domain, leading political players are not sure which way the scale would tilt when the two Houses of Parliament discuss the panel’s findings next week.

To show its sincerity in following up on the report, the UPA government on Wednesday set up a task force to study its findings and recommendations.

The Liberhan Commission has, expectedly, indicted almost the entire top leadership of BJP. There are no surprises in the panel’s decision to rap the saffron brass for their role in either abetting the assembled kar sevaks to go in for the denouement or their failure to prevent the demolition. If the report had stopped at that, Congress managers would have certainly got hold of a lot of ammunition to pillory their main political adversary.

But that is not how things have turned out. The panel’s indictment of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, dubbed by its report as a `pseudo-moderate’ who was merely executing RSS’ larger political project, and the clean chit given to the late P V Narasimha Rao, who was the prime minister when the mosque was razed, have changed the dynamics of the discourse considerably.

After its initial display of diffidence, BJP, now appears to be fairly convinced about its ability to turn the tables on Congress when the discussion on the report is taken up in the two Houses of Parliament. The stand taken by the other opposition parties, including the Left, Samajwadi Party and BSP, have added to the confidence levels of the saffron leaders. These outfits are gearing up to ensure that the Babri taint sticks on Congress too.

Outside the Congress tent, few political leaders and observers are ready to buy the Liberhan Commission’s charge that Mr Vajpayee was ``culpable’’ of ``taking the country to the brink of communal discord.’’ His stand-off with RSS on a host of issues, including the VHP’s demand to hand over the non-disputed areas in Ayodhya, and the economic policies being pursued by his government, during his stint as the prime minister, are still fresh in people’s mind, and bear testimony to his ability to shake off the RSS shadow in decision-making.

Mr Vajpayee, during the peak of his political career, enjoyed immense popularity. There was no one who could match his stature and standing. Even though he has retired from public life on account of his ill-health, he still commands a lot of respect among the people. The attempt to besmirch his reputation at this stage, when he’s not in a position to defend himself, political observers agree, is not likely to succeed.

CPI general secretary A B Bardhan, while speaking to newspersons in Bhubaneswar on Tuesday, said that he found it hard to believe that Mr Vajpayee was in any way responsible for the demolition. And the author of the controversial report, Justice (Retd.) Liberhan himself has gone on record saying that Mr Vajpayee had not been indicted.

Asked how he could have indicted the former prime minister, who was never summoned to appear before the commission, in breach of Section 8B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, Justice Liberhan told a daily from Chandigarh on Tuesday that he had never indicted Mr Vajpayee.

``Please read the report in its context and show me a single reference to Vajpayee which can be construed as an indictment,’’ Justice Liberhan said, pleading that no irresponsible reference be manufactured from his report.
When it was pointed out that Section 8B prohibited indictment in absentia, Justice Liberhan said, ``Those who read a portion of my report as an indictment of Vajpayee are definitely misconstruing the report and not reading it in context. I am well aware of the requirements of Section 8B of the Act.”

Equally mystifying, according to parties such as the Left, SP, BSP and TDP, was the panel’s decision to exonerate the then prime minister, the late P V Narasimha Rao. Going by the account of officials who held important positions during the time, the government just to refused to act on reports warning of dangerous consequences of the kar sewak mobilisation in Ayodhya before December 6, 1992.

Mr Madhav Godbole, Union home secretary when the Babri Masjid was demolished, claimed that all preparations for President’s Rule in UP had been made, but the clearance never came from the higher-ups.

``It was felt that the only way the structure could be saved, was to take it over and to impose President’s Rule. In fact, the home ministry had made all preparations for the purpose. For example, the law ministry was consulted and they had concurred with our proposal, and the cabinet note was ready on November 20.

The question was of getting clearance from the top, but unfortunately, it never came,’’ he said. His observations fly against the commission’s inference that Narasimha Rao could not have done nothing, because the UP governor had advised against President’s Rule.

``If you look at the constitutional position, the governor’s report was neither required nor was it binding on the government. The government of India could have taken its own decisions in the matter,’’ Mr Godbole responded.
The report, again, blames the intelligence agencies for failing to anticipate the events that led to the demolition, but refuses to peg the blame on those who were supervising these bodies.