Ayodhya dispute

The Edit page article ‘Old Shadow’ (The Telegraph, Kolkata, May 24, 2025) by Asim Ali contains a small, but a very significant error. The locks of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya were not opened on February 1, 1985 as mentioned, but exactly a year later in 1986. As those tumultuous years of Indian politics deserve a very careful and dispassionate study one cannot wash off the hand by conceding that it was just a printing mistake when the fact is that the whole article is premised on this issue. At the same time there is absolutely no scope to say that the Faizabad district court ruling earlier on the same day was in fact a ‘balancing act’ of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who wanted to upturn the Shah Bano verdict by enacting Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986. Historically speaking, it is wrong to say that Rajiv got the locks of the Babri Masjid opened as he wanted to appease the Hindus as he had already appeased the Muslims on the Shah Bano case. The truth is that not only Asim Ali, but many journalists and academics carelessly commit mistakes while chronologically discussing this issue. Actually, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was passed in Parliament on May 19, 1986, that is, three and half months after the opening of the locks in Ayodhya on February 1. So, where is the question of appeasing Hindus after first appeasing Muslims when the two developments took place totally otherwise? Thus, there is absolutely no scope to draw a parallel between what Rajiv Gandhi did or did not do, and the present move of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Caste Census as peculiarly done by Asim Ali in his article. Distortion of history It has become a habit of sorts to distort the history—maybe because of lack of knowledge or maybe there is a definite design in it. Contrary to what Asim Ali writes, the truth is that from his victory in December 1984 Lok Sabha election till the resignation of his defence minister V P Singh on April 12, 1987 over the purchase of Bofors Howitzers and HDW deal Rajiv Gandhi’s political position was unchallenged. As the Bharatiya Janata Party with just two seats in Parliament, was down in the dumps, there was absolutely no need for him to appease one community or the other. Usually, balancing acts are undertaken by rulers when they feel insecure and not when the party in power (Congress in this case) had won 414 seats--highest in Parliament till now--just a few months earlier in December 1984. This narrative of appeasement was propagated more forcefully in the 1980s by the Leftist and secularist opponents of Congress in politics and media than the supporters of BJP who were relatively weak at that point of time. Different ground situation Unlike today, the Communist parties were quite powerful in 1980s and were the main opposition in Parliament. Leftist intellectuals were setting most of the agenda. They used to call the shots in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala. The Soviet Union was a global Superpower and Communism had control over a large part of the world. So, one needs to understand that situation keeping the existing reality in mind. What often happens is that our public opinion-makers start interpreting things in the present frame of mind when the ground situation was totally different then. Take the example of the present Bihar governor Arif Mohammad Khan. When he resigned from the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet in protest against the passage of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 he emerged as the hero of secularists. Mind it, he, along with Arun Nehru, the powerful minister of state for Internal Security and the man accused of being responsible for the opening of the locks in Ayodhya jumped on the bandwagon of V P Singh and became ministers in his cabinet in 1989. They both crossed over to the saffron camp much later. Like all politicians Rajiv Gandhi, a man with little experience, had committed some mistakes. But to accuse him of consciously indulging in appeasement politics in 1986 when he was at the peak of his power, would amount to sheer distortion of history, in fact an intellectual crime. True, a weak Rajiv made some compromises ahead of November 1989 parliamentary election but not three years earlier when hewas really powerful. The fact is that he tried to start his innings in a different way. He departed from some of the policies of his mother Indira Gandhi and signed an agreement with Shiromani Akali Dal in terrorist-hit Punjab, with agitating students of Assam and separatist leader of Mizoram, Laldenga. In the same spirit he decided to address the demand of Muslims following the Supreme Court ruling on payment of alimony to Shah Bano. The other major decision which his government took in the initial years was to send Indian Peace Keeping Forces to Sri Lanka. Apparently, these steps were taken with good intention and had nothing to do with appeasement of one group or the other. That is why in the initial years he earned the sobriquet of ‘Mr Clean’—which was later disputed by many independent political observers. Contrasting stand For obvious political objectives both the Left parties and the BJP took a similar line on the Shah Bano case. Later, the saffron party exploited the issue of Babri Masjid to stage a political comeback. On the other hand, the Leftists were keen on opposing Rajiv’s stand on Shah Bano issue as they were opposed to any concession in the name of religion in secular India. In the same way they were opposed to the Ram Janambhoomi movement. As the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had already taken up the campaign for Ram Mandir and had prepared the pitch for the BJP no issue was as favourable for its revival as this one. It is the lack of understanding of this complex development which drags not only Asim Ali, but many other scholars (some of them Western educated) to commit serious blunder. They should at least understand the delicacy and sanctity of the situation before putting pen to paper. Here it also needs to be remembered that it was the newly formed Janata Dal under Singh which got 143 seats in the November 1989 Lok Sabha election. In contrast notwithstanding massive communal polarization the BJP ended up way behind and could win only 86 seats. Thus, the voters in India still overwhelmingly preferred the non-BJP secular parties. Even the Bhagalpur Lok Sabha seat of Bihar was won by Janata Dal and not by the BJP, though the election was held just after one of the worst communal riots in Indian history. So, where was the scope for Rajiv to indulge in balancing act in early 1986, when the BJP was not as powerful in November 1989? Though the Congress won 197 seats and emerged as the largest single party yet it refused to indulge in horse-trading and let V P Singh form a coalition government. The Mandalisation of politics in post-1990 years and not in 1986, paved the way for the subsequent weakening of Congress. The infighting within the Third Front or United Front of Janata Dal, Socialists and Communists of various colours in later years facilitated the growth of the BJP. It fully exploited this political vacuum. Negligible presence of TV Asim Ali is right, a troupe of Doordarshan was present at the time of opening of the locks of Babri Masjid. But here it needs to be mentioned that unlike today television had very negligible presence in India then. Barring big cities, TV was virtually non-existent in the vast span of the country. As it is the wont of our intellectuals to blindly follow the Western academics and journalists, we often end up over-emphasizing on the Doordarshan factor. In 1986 Doordarshan used to telecast just one Hindi news bulletin at 8:40 PM to be followed by an English one. Yes, the unlocking of the gate of Babri Masjid was telecast on February 1, 1986 night news bulletin but its impact was not significant as is being made out by many part-time experts on the issue in the later years. The government owned Doordarshan gained popularity a couple of years later when it started telecasting serials like Ramayan and Mahabharat. It was in the early 1990s that private television channels were allowed entry into the telecast business. So, there was no information explosion in February 1986 Arun Nehru factor Strangely, Asim Ali made no mention of the alleged role of minister of state for Internal Security Arun Nehru, the man said to be responsible for the opening of gates in Ayodhya. By most objective accounts Nehru kept Rajiv Gandhi in the dark over this development. An upset and furious Prime Minister dropped Nehru, till then his most trusted lieutenant, from his cabinet. Nehru was expelled from Congress so he subsequently joined V P Singh’s Janata Dal and a few years later Lal Krishna Advani ushered him into the BJP. Nehru, a cousin of Rajiv, had his own communal agenda in opening the gates of Babri Masjid. Rajiv never forgave him for stabbing in the back. How can such a significant fact be overlooked by Asim Ali or anyone else while discussing the whole chain of events. Those who were part of the history in the making are well aware of them. The tragedy is that many of us indulge in arm-chair scholarship and rely more on some half-baked analyses, rather than trust on the material available within India. One should avoid confusing and misinforming the upcoming generation.

Ayodhya dispute

Distorting history: Babri Masjid and Shah Bano years

CJI Chandrachud part of landmark verdicts on Ayodhya dispute, right to privacy, adultery

UP police file case against imam for collecting donations for Palestine

Delhi University under fire for calling religion a language, dropping Urdu

Indian govt using 9 of 11 FBI-listed tactics of transnational repression: IAMC

Where to try best Mexican food in Hyderabad: Top 5 picks of 2025

Erdogan vows to boost Turkiye’s missile production as Israel-Iran war escalates