Temple politics: Adityanath visit to disputed site in Ayodhya sends out communal signals (The Times of India - 01 June 2017)

Yesterday in a highly choreographed move full of political symbolism, Yogi Adityanath became the first Uttar Pradesh chief minister in 15 years to visit the disputed Ram janmabhoomi/ Babri mosque site in Ayodhya. This is just a day after a special CBI court in Lucknow framed charges of criminal conspiracy in the 1992 Babri demolition case against top BJP leaders including LK Advani, MM Joshi and Union minister Uma Bharti. Adityanath met these three senior leaders before they appeared in court and in Ayodhya he was accompanied by Dharam Das, against whom also conspiracy charges have been framed. This sends a disturbing signal, with UP’s ruling party appearing to take sides when it should be conveying neutrality.
Adityanath offered prayers at the banks of Saryu river in Ayodhya. He should have gone a step ahead and also met leaders of the Muslim community who are party to the dispute. This would have been in line with the top court’s assessment that it would be best to settle the dispute amicably. Extending the olive branch could go a long way in disentangling an issue that appears intractable to most outsiders. It would also put pressure on the warring parties to make a reasoned argument, if they resist efforts to bring them to terms.
The CM’s Ayodhya visit is part of a larger pattern. Since BJP came to power in March, four UP cabinet ministers have already visited the makeshift temple at the disputed site. Rather than upping the ante on such an emotive and explosive dispute, Adityanath must focus on bread and butter issues such as providing employment to local youth, reviving industrial and agricultural growth in the state or providing it 24×7 power supply as promised in the BJP election manifesto.

Read More »

Politics and propriety: on Uma Bharti's continuance as Minister (The Hindu - 01 June 2017)

The framing of charges against Uma Bharti makes her continuance as Minister untenable

With the Supreme Court invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution — to pass decrees and orders to ensure complete justice — in the case relating to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and reviving the criminal conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar, the CBI Special Court in Lucknow could not but have framed charges against them. Over the last 24 years, poor investigation and weak prosecution combined with inordinate judicial delays ensured they did not have to stand trial for making provocative speeches that allegedly incited kar sevaks to demolish the masjid. With the Supreme Court ordering this case to be clubbed with the one involving the actual demolition by unnamed kar sevaks, and directing day-to-day trials, there is hope that the years of delay are over. India has a poor record in finding speedy judicial resolution in instances of mob violence and communal riots; in that sense, the Babri Masjid cases are perhaps unexceptional. But given the historical importance of the case, and the impact of the demolition on communal harmony, it is vital to see them through to the end.

Both Mr. Advani and Mr. Joshi are in the twilight of their political careers, wielding little power or influence in the BJP. Ms. Bharti is, however, a Union Minister, and the Narendra Modi government cannot pretend that the development has no bearing on her continuance in the Council of Ministers. The BJP has tended to underplay the significance of the case on the ground that it is ‘political’ in nature. But this simply does not wash as the revival of criminal conspiracy charges against them was done at the instance of the Supreme Court. In opposition, the BJP had been quick to demand the resignation of ministers for much less than being chargesheeted. The argument that the standards of propriety that apply in corruption cases are different from those that apply in a criminal case of this nature is absurd. Even by the lax standards of today’s political morality, it is important to draw the line somewhere — and framing of charges is a good stage given that it is a formal document drawn up by a court of law. Rather than defend Ms. Uma Bharti, the Modi government would do well to consider the example set by none other than Mr. Advani himself, who resigned as a Member of Parliament in 1996 after he was implicated in the Jain hawala case, in which the court later held that there was no material to frame charges against him. For a government that makes much of standing for probity in public life, the application of different standards to one of its own is bound to damage its image. Ms. Bharti’s guilt or innocence is for the courts to establish. Political propriety demands that she be shown the door.

Read More »