Indian Press on Acquittals in Babri Demolition Case and Biden-Trump Election: New Age Islam's Selection, 1 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
1 October
2020
• Justice in Ruins: On Babri Masjid Demolition
Case Verdict
The Hindu Editorial
• Acquittals in Babri Demolition Case Are a
Blot on CBI, It Must Be Liberated From Political Influence
By Faizan Mustafa, Aymen Mohammed
• Imran’s Blunders Continue
By G Parthasarathy
• Who’s better for India? If Biden Beats Trump,
New Delhi Can Look Forward To Rejuvenated and More Cordial Ties
By Sumit Ganguly
-----
Justice in Ruins: On Babri Masjid Demolition
Case Verdict
The Hindu Editorial
October 01,
2020
The
Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.
----
The ruins
of the Babri Masjid were cleared in record time by the hordes of vandals
mobilised for demolishing it. Some detritus was still left, though: a belief
among many that justice would be done and the Constitution and the rule of law
would be upheld if the criminal court punishes those who plotted the events of
December 6, 1992. Even when the Supreme Court handed over the empty site to
those who wanted the mosque brought down to build a Ram temple, its recognition
of the demolition as an “egregious violation of the rule of law” gave rise to
hope that the ends of justice would be served by the punishment of those who
mobilised the vandals. A Special CBI Court in Lucknow has now cleared the
remaining debris with an unconscionable judgment. Throwing to the winds the
Supreme Court’s observations on the demolition, the trial court has in effect
given judicial legitimation to the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi movement’ by acquitting all
those indicted for conspiracy to bring down the structure. Its conclusions are
drastic and defy logic and fact. The court’s finding that the demolition was
not planned in advance flies in the face of the entry of more than a hundred
thousand volunteers into Ayodhya that day, armed with crowbars, spades, hoes
and ropes and every implement needed to bring down a sturdy structure and clear
the site. The proponents of the movement, headed by L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar
Joshi and Uma Bharti among others, had positioned themselves in vantage points
to witness the occasion and celebrate with pride what ought to have caused
shame and disgust.
It is
indeed true that it is not easy to prove a conspiracy, as it essentially takes
place in secret. This is where courts must draw reasonable inferences from the
circumstances. But in a conspiracy of this nature, it is easy to see that those
involved were “marching under a banner”, an image the Supreme Court had once
referred to while explaining the ingredients of a conspiracy. In this case,
apart from the political mobilisation and the purported intent to assemble on a
particular day, the court had with it sufficient evidence that there was
studied inaction on the part of the State, whose Chief Minister was one of the
accused, and the unambiguous and open threats to the structure voiced by many
of the movement’s protagonists. The dissembling Kalyan Singh, as Chief Minister
then, had given what, in hindsight, was an obviously false assurance to the
highest court and the National Integration Council that nothing but a symbolic
‘kar seva’ would take place. Specific instructions appeared to have been given
to the security forces not to stop the ‘kar sevaks’ or hinder their plans. How
else would one explain the events? When the crowd went into a frenzy, goaded on
by provocative speeches by the dignitaries, and vandals went up the dome, the
accused would have the court believe that they were actually trying to restrain
the mob and prevent the demolition! The possibility of tampered audio and video
evidence or even disavowals on record would not undo the cumulative effect of
the logistical and financial preparation, besides the communal mobilisation.
Mr. Advani, who had then claimed it was the saddest day of his life, now says
the en masse acquittal is a vindication of the movement. This indicates that
the objective of the mobilisation, exemplified by his rath yatra, was always to
alter the status quo with violence.
The
Manmohan Singh Liberhan Commission had laid bare the entire conspiracy in its
damning report, but unfortunately, a probe under the Commission of Inquiry Act has
no binding value, whereas the evidence adduced at the trial alone matters. It
is, of course, the responsibility of the CBI to prove the element of
conspiracy, the details of the advance mobilisation, the “meeting of minds”
that is required to prove a plot and its broad contours. That the agency failed
is no surprise. From the beginning, the police investigation has been marked by
bungling. When the main events were covered by two FIRs, the U.P. government
initially failed to notify both of them while designating courts for trial. The
Allahabad High Court quashed the flawed notification, and the State
government’s failure to rectify the irregularity resulted in separate
proceedings in Lucknow and Rae Bareilly. The CBI, instead of challenging the
State’s rejection of its request for curing a technical defect, filed a
supplementary charge sheet after omitting the ‘conspiracy’ charge. The Supreme
Court later said this derailed the joint trial and resulted in separate
proceedings in two places. In 2017, the Supreme Court revived the conspiracy
charge, directed the trial court to resume day-to-day trial and sternly
reminded the agency that it was because of its failure and that of the State
government that a crime that shook the secular fabric of the Constitution had
not seen justice for 25 years. Whether a politically hamstrung agency could
have successfully prosecuted such a sensitive case is a moot question. But the
results are there for all to see.img
Even
allowing for the possibility that the judiciary is in close alignment with the
executive, it is unacceptable to see a court going so far as to parrot the
specious theory advanced by the demolition squad from the BJP-VHP-RSS family
for years that the destruction was a “spontaneous act”. All those who went through
that disgraceful phase in India’s political history know that the demolition
was only the culmination of a revanchist movement. The period was marked by
communal mobilisation, holding of processions to gather ‘bricks’ meant for
constructing a temple, and an attempt to storm the site in 1990, which ended in
bloodshed. Given this grisly background, and the grave implications that the
exoneration of those who demolished a religious structure would have on public
trust in the judicial system, it is imperative that the CBI goes on appeal. The
cause of communal amity cannot afford successive judicial setbacks to both
secular values and the rule of law.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/justice-in-ruins-the-hindu-editorial-on-babri-masjid-demolition-case-verdict/article32735773.ece?
-----
Acquittals in Babri Demolition Case Are A Blot
On CBI, It Must Be Liberated From Political Influence
By Faizan Mustafa,
Aymen Mohammed
October 1,
2020
One is yet
again reminded of the Hindi movie, No One Killed Jessica. Ordering the quick
completion of the criminal trial in the demolition of Babri Masjid and curing
the technical defect of “consultation” with the high court, invoking its
extraordinary powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court had said in 2017 that
“let justice be done though heavens fall”. It went on to observe that “in the
present case, crimes which shake the secular fabric of the Constitution of
India have allegedly been committed almost 25 years ago”. In the historic Babri
judgment last year, the Supreme Court had held the demolition as an “egregious
wrong”. On Wednesday, none of the 32 surviving accused out of 49 was found
guilty of such a serious crime.
The accused
were charged with various sections of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to
incitement to violence (Sections 153A and 153B), conspiracy to commit a crime
(Section 120B), and unlawful assembly (Section 149). The overarching import of
these charges was that there was a joint agreement on the part of the accused
to demolish the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. For criminal conspiracy, mere
agreement is punishable and for unlawful assembly, mere presence is enough to
make one liable. There can be no two opinions on whether L K Advani and others
were members of an unlawful assembly.
The CBI was
required to demonstrate that the accused had acted together in furtherance of a
common intention and a common object. For an assembly to be treated as unlawful
under the IPC, the court infers whether there was a “common object” that was
guiding the actions of the crowd. This inference is drawn using information
such as the use of tools or weapons (in this case, the use of demolition tools,
shovel, ropes was a well-recorded fact) and the behaviour of the accused prior
to, during and after the incident (it was recorded that some of the accused
were distributing sweets after the demolition while others were encouraging the
kar sevaks). Similarly, statements by Murli Manohar Joshi and Advani in the
run-up to the demolition were key pieces of evidence.
The chargesheet
had also recorded a meeting on December 5, 1992, at Vinay Katiyar’s house where
Advani was also present and the decision to allegedly demolish the mosque was
taken. Kalyan Singh is alleged to have told a witness “rok construction par
lagi hai, destruction par nahi”. For a conspiracy to be proven, all one
requires to prove is that there was an agreement between two or more persons to
commit a crime. There is no need to separately prove that the accused committed
an overt act in furtherance of it. Conspiracies are always proved by
circumstantial evidence.
True, one
has to have faith in the judicial system of the country, yet at times, courts
themselves are on trial when the stakes are high, as was noted by the apex
court. True, the principle that the accused must be presumed to be innocent is
the golden thread which runs through the fabric of the criminal justice system.
True, no rule of criminal law is more important than that which requires the
prosecution to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. True, the
benefit of even a little doubt accrues to the accused in a criminal trial. Yet,
the CBI could not present credible evidence in the case, particularly on the
charges of criminal conspiracy. The judgment is controversial as the court has
acquitted all the accused and held the demolition as spontaneous, for which no
one except unknown anti-social elements must have been responsible. The court
did not accept the over 100 videotapes of the incident as the audio was not
clear, but then most criminal trial convictions are made on the basis of oral
and documentary evidence. As many as 351 witnesses had testified and more than
800 documents were produced. Yet, the CBI failed to convince the judge.
The Babri
litigation has been unique and unprecedented both in civil suits as well as
criminal trials. The civil suit was strange in the sense that the high court
acted as the court of first instance and the Supreme Court acted as court of
first and last appeal, differing status quo orders, addition of parties,
demands of differential burden of proof, ASI excavation etc. Just like the
civil dispute, the criminal case is also mired in procedural lapses, patent
illegalities and political interference by different governments. In no other
criminal case, were two FIRs filed, probably within 10 minutes, about the same
incident with different offences — the second FIR did not mention the crime of
conspiracy and the trial bifurcated to two courts, one at Rai Bareilly and
another at Lucknow after the joint trial had originally started at Lucknow.
Admittedly,
criminal law is an island of technicality in a sea of discretion and the
accused got the benefit of its technicalities. The police have discretion in
arrest and investigation, the government in giving sanctions of prosecution,
the prosecution as to whether to prosecute and if so, for what crimes, the
judge has discretion, discharge, conviction and sentence.
The
acquittal of all the accused is a setback to the CBI’s reputation. The Supreme
Court itself has called it a “caged parrot”. It is high time that it is
liberated from political influence. India’s criminal justice system cannot
improve if prosecution and investigation functions are not bifurcated. The
Criminal Law Reforms Committee must make a strong recommendation on this.
----
Faizan Mustafa
is an expert on constitutional law and Aymen Mohammed is a doctoral
student at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/babri-masjid-demolition-ayodhya-court-6654380/
----
Imran’s Blunders Continue
By G Parthasarathy
Oct 01,
2020
Chancellor,
Jammu Central University & former High Commissioner to Pakistan
Imran
Khan’s exaggerated belief in the importance of Pakistan’s role in the Islamic
world and its relations with world powers like the US and Russia have led his
debt-ridden country into trouble. He is widely described as his country’s
‘selected’ and not ‘elected’ PM. It is no secret that it was the Pakistan
army’s manoeuvrings that led to his assuming office. His revulsion for India
and Indians has always run deep. His regard for radical Islamic groups remains
unchanged, earning him the name of ‘Taliban Khan’. He was tutored in politics
by a former ISI chief, Lt Gen Hamid Gul, who fostered several Afghan Mujahideen
groups, apart from financing, arming and training terrorist groups in J&K
and Punjab.
Imran, more
than any other Pakistan leader, except perhaps Gen Zia-ul-Haq, is a radical
Islamist. He recently described Osama bin Laden as a ‘martyr’. The American
Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, deals primarily with the army
chief, Gen Qamar Jawed Bajwa. Imran Khan is merely a bystander. As a hardcore
Islamist, he believed that he could turn the Islamic world led by Saudi Arabia,
against India. He forgot that it was his rival Nawaz Sharif, who enjoyed the
highest respect of the Saudi royalty. Left to himself, General Musharraf would
have hanged Sharif at the earliest opportunity. He, however, exiled him to
Saudi Arabia. He was all too aware that offending the Saudis would open the
door to economic bankruptcy for Pakistan.
Disregarding
such personal equations, Imran went on the warpath against Saudi Arabia for not
backing him adequately against India on J&K. His motor mouth foreign
minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, warned that Pakistan would bypass Saudi Arabia
and convene a meeting of 57 members of the OIC countries if Saudi Arabia sought
to prevent India from being condemned. Imran also offended the Saudis by
backing a proposed partnership of Malaysia, Turkey and other Islamic countries
— a move which would have undermined Saudi Arabia’s role in the Islamic world.
The Saudi reaction was immediate. Pakistan’s de facto ruler, General Bajwa, was
cold-shouldered and denied a meeting with Crown Prince Salman when he visited
Saudi Arabia. Pakistan was told to repay its dues to Saudi Arabia immediately.
China had to yet again bail out Pakistan to repay its debts.
Pakistan,
thereafter, landed itself in deeper trouble with influential Arab countries,
like the Gulf monarchies, Egypt and Jordan. Imran echoed their rivals, Turkey
and Iran, with his virulent condemnation of Israel, immediately after the UAE
and Bahrain recognised and established diplomatic relations with Israel. This amounted
to condemnation of actions taken by the UAE and Bahrain, evidently with Saudi
support. India, on the other hand, has avoided getting drawn into rivalries
between Arab and Islamic countries, while maintaining good relations with
Israel. Trade and investment cooperation between India and the Gulf states,
notably Saudi Arabia, is set to grow substantially, with major investments
proposed by these countries in the energy sector. Moreover, the Gulf states
depend on the Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet to guarantee their maritime
security. There are now close links between the US fleet and India’s Western
Fleet.
While
Imran’s bungling in foreign policy was inevitable, he is now also facing
internal criticism and pressures that have weakened him and his government.
Pakistan’s economic woes, particularly its growing foreign debt and its low
rates of savings and growth, continue. Imran, however, remains vicious and
vindictive, trying to get political opponents harassed and jailed by the state
machinery. Sharif has lashed out at Imran and the army, from his home in
London. The army is itself under pressure, because of highly damaging charges
of corruption against one of its most prominent officers, Lt Gen Asim Saleem
Bajwa, who heads the multi-billion-dollar CPEC. Bajwa has also been appointed
media adviser to the PM, who has vigorously defended him.
Sharif was
unsparing in his criticism of Imran. He also held the army directly responsible
for the country’s woes. He said after having been a ‘state within a state’, the
army was now a ‘state above a state’. This, he added, is ‘the root cause of all
our problems’. Sharif added that while political leaders are constantly
victimised in the name of ‘accountability’, army dictators got away, despite
subverting the constitution and committing any number of crimes. Pakistan’s
army has never been lashed out at in such a manner. Never before has the army
resorted to such a crude and unconstitutional exercise of power, as in recent
years.
Imran’s
subservience to the army was recently exposed when reports emerged about the
financial assets of Asim Bajwa. A devastating report on Bajwa’s family (wife,
two younger brothers and two sons), based on documents, including from the
Pakistan Securities and Exchange Commission, was published recently. It notes
that Bajwa family owns a business empire comprising 99 companies in four
countries, named the ‘BAJCO Group’, valued at $52.7 million. Imran promptly
declared the charges as baseless.
Asim
Bajwa’s quest for wealth evidently commenced after he joined Musharraf’s staff
in 2002. Musharraf himself owns properties in London and Dubai. His successor,
Ashfaq Kayani, mysteriously took off, soon after his retirement, to spend a few
years in Australia. Kayani’s successor, Raheel Sharif, lives cosily in Saudi
Arabia. All these worthies, while still in service, got themselves allotted
plush ‘residential plots’ in elite localities in Karachi, Lahore and elsewhere,
at little or no cost! Pakistan’s Generals know very well how to drive fast on
the road to living luxuriously.
Imran has,
meanwhile, excelled himself with his crude and repeated condemnation of India
in the UN General Assembly. PM Modi ignored his raving and ranting as being
unworthy of a high-level response from India.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/imrans-blunders-continue-149162
----
Who’s better for India? If Biden Beats Trump,
New Delhi Can Look Forward To Rejuvenated and More Cordial Ties
By Sumit Ganguly
October 1,
2020
Some within
India’s chattering classes seem convinced that a Biden presidency bodes ill for
India. Their misgivings, it appears, stem from some adverse comments that both
former vice-president Joseph Biden and his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris,
have made about the state of human rights in Jammu & Kashmir. They also
stem from his criticism of NRC and CAA.
Obviously,
these criticisms may well pique segments of India’s attentive public. That
said, it would be a critical error to assume that a handful of statements made
on the campaign trail are somehow indicative of the overall orientation of
Biden’s likely foreign policy towards India. Instead, it is worth examining his
prior record as well as his general foreign policy stance to glean some
meaningful clues about his possible India policy. More to the point, it is
vital to contrast his foreign policy outlook with incumbent President Donald
Trump’s record.
At the
outset, it needs to be underscored that Biden would bring a wealth of knowledge
of and experience with foreign policy. For decades he had not only served on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee but had, on more than one occasion,
served as its chair. Consequently, he is no stranger to vital issues in
contemporary international politics.
His
background and experience stand out in marked contrast to those of Trump.
Unlike Biden, who has a sophisticated understanding of world politics, Trump
entered the presidency with a set of simplistic views about the world. Once in
office he used his vast prerogatives to upend a range of commitments and policies
which had, for the most part, enjoyed support across American ideological
divides. To that end he withdrew from Nafta, from the Paris climate change
accords and even questioned the utility of Nato, a virtual cornerstone of
American security policy since the early days of the Cold War.
Nor for
that matter, despite his seeming bonhomie with Prime Minister Narendra Modi,
has he displayed much sensitivity and finesse in dealing with India. His
maladroit dealings with India are especially shocking given the attention that
Modi had lavished on him at events in Ahmedabad and in Houston, Texas.
He has
placed tariffs on a range of Indian goods, through an executive order he has
frozen H-1B and H-4 (spousal visas) until the end of the year, and he has
harangued India to reduce tariffs on trivial American exports such as
Harley-Davidson motorcycles. He seems unaware that a mere 4,000 or so are sold
in India annually and that the firm employs no more than 5,000 workers in the
US.
Nor, for
that matter have his statements on critical, sensitive issues of Indian foreign
and security policy displayed any adroitness. In the wake of the Pulwama
terrorist attack and its aftermath he offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute.
Worse still, he stated, without a shred of evidence, that Modi had asked him to
offer his good offices. Not content with this contretemps, in the wake of the
Galwan valley PLA incursions and the ensuing standoff, he again offered to help
settle the dispute.
His
willingness to start a trade war with India and his ham-handed attempts to
burnish his credentials as a negotiator aside, Trump has also shrunk the scope
of the US-India partnership. Under both Democratic and Republican predecessors,
the relationship had been multi-dimensional ranging from cooperation in
counterterrorism to jointly combating child trafficking. Under Trump’s watch
the focus has been primarily on the security arena with two issues being
accorded foremost importance – weapons sales to New Delhi, and prodding it to
serve as a counterweight to the PRC. In effect, his view of the relationship is
almost wholly transactional. India is of no intrinsic value to the United
States.
A Biden
foreign policy, in marked contrast to Trump’s parochial approach, would restore
a multi-faceted relationship with India. For example, instead of merely
informing India about the US withdrawal efforts from Afghanistan, it could well
reach out to India to help stabilise the country even as the US seeks to reduce
its military footprint in the country.
It is
presently unclear what stance it would adopt towards the now-abandoned Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. However, it appears reasonable
to surmise that a Biden presidency would attempt to resuscitate the
now-moribund agreement. In this context, it is also unlikely to keep exerting
concerted pressure on India to all but sever its long-standing ties with Iran.
Nor is a
Biden presidency likely to try and insert itself into areas which are laden
with political minefields such as India’s on-going disputes with Pakistan and
the PRC. Years of experience in dealing with delicate foreign policy issues as
well as a willingness to heed the advice of foreign policy professionals, who
are knowledgeable about the intricacies of South Asian politics, are likely to
guide his decisions.
On a more
practical note, as someone who has long valued the contributions of generations
of immigrants to the US, it can well be expected that he will dispense with
Trump’s crude and disingenuous attempts to curb immigration through limiting
visas. Nor, for that matter, will he sustain the pointless trade spat that
Trump has initiated with India.
It is true
Biden and Harris have expressed concerns about the state of human rights in
Kashmir. Yet to pin their likely foreign policy posture towards India on their
views about a single, albeit fraught, issue overlooks much evidence that offers
hope for a rejuvenated and more cordial partnership.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/whos-better-for-india-if-biden-beats-trump-new-delhi-can-look-forward-to-rejuvenated-and-more-cordial-ties/
-----
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African
Muslim News, Arab
World News, South
Asia News, Indian
Muslim News, World
Muslim News, Women
in Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab
Women, Women
In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim
Women in West, Islam
Women and Feminism