november 28, 2009
17 Years since 6 December 1992
There will never be a closure to the black event that was the Babri Masjid demolition.
I
t has taken 17 years for the Justice M S Liberhan Commission
set up to investigate the demolition of the Babri Masjid in
Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, to arrive at what has been
known from the time the mosque was brought down.
The Liberhan Commission has delivered a searing indictment
of the Sangh parivar as the primary culprit for the demolition. It
also names (in the commission’s words) the “pseudo-moderate”
leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the secondary
culprit and officials of the state machinery and administration as
tertiary participants in the horrendous act that stripped the
­Indian state’s claim to be secular.
The Liberhan Commission’s report focuses on the ideology,
world view and organising power of the Sangh parivar, and the
manner in which it single-mindedly attempted to create a frenzy
among the masses for the demolition. It details how “the
inner core of the Parivar” – the leadership of the Rashtriya Swaya­
msevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the B­ajrang Dal,
the BJP and the Shiv Sena – bears “primary responsibility” for the
crime. It also points out how the BJP leadership, comprising Atal
Behari Vajpayee, L K Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, was privy
to the decisions of the Sangh parivar on the demolition, but pro-
tested innocence in order to project a “moderate” image because it
had been tasked to shed the “best possible light” on the plan of the
RSS. And last but not least the commission indicts officials of the
Kalyan Singh government in Uttar Pradesh for deliberately collud-
ing with the parivar in razing the Babri Masjid.
The one-man commission has no doubt done a painstaking
and thorough examination of the events that led up to the demo-
lition – the intrigue, the subterfuge, the sabotage of law and ­order
and even the inter-mixing of religion and politics. But did it have
to take close to two decades to present its findings? Justice
­Liberhan’s original brief was to conclude its investigations in
three months, but he took 40 extensions to finalise his report.
The commission certainly faced many obstacles in its work. The
culprits did everything possible to delay and stretch out the pro-
ceedings. But the commission has taken an inexcusably long time
since 16 December 1992, when Justice Liberhan was appointed
head of the judicial commission, to i­nvestigate the events that led
up to the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya.
Justice Liberhan points to the failure of many an institution
of the Indian state – including the media and bureaucracy along
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   november 28, 2009  vol xliv no 48
with the polity – but he reserves his indictment for the Sangh
parivar and is silent on the Congress Party.  Indeed, even as
the commission has revealed the conspiracy underlying the
demolition, what is intriguing is the clean chit it has given to
the then Narasimha Rao government in New Delhi and the
s­ilence it has maintained about the role of previous Congress
governments in fuelling the “Ram Janmabhoomi” claim. If
there is a contemporary marker in the events leading to the
demolition it is surely the decision taken by the local adminis-
tration in January 1986 to remove the “judicial” locks that had
been placed on the mosque for nearly four decades. This too is
common knowledge, that it was done at the instance of the then
Rajiv Gandhi government, which was anxious to “win” Hindu
support to compensate for its decision to placate the Muslim
clergy after the Shah Bano judgment. The report is also silent
about the poor mobilisation of central paramilitary forces at the
Ayodhya site even after the demolition, where kar sevaks
c­ontinued to run riot following the dismissal of the Kalyan
Singh government.
The aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition is well known.
As much as this incident legitimised communal rhetoric in Indian
politics, leading of course to the BJP heading a government at the
centre for six years, it also hugely damaged public administra-
tion, the results of which were immediately evident in the han-
dling of the Bombay riots of January 1993.
Despite indicting 68 individuals as being directly responsible
for the demolition and pointing fingers at the Sangh parivar and
the BJP leadership, the commission is quiet about pressing
c­harges against those individuals and organisations who have
hitherto escaped arraignment. Instead the report waxes elo-
quently on the reforms needed in the functioning of the bureauc-
racy, on regulations for the media and on upholding secularism.
The Action Taken Report also does not suggest that the central
government is thinking of initiating proceedings against those
identified as responsible for the demolition. Therefore, all the
effort taken to lay out the details of the conspiracy and the failure
of the state government of Uttar Pradesh, and the recommenda-
tions and the responses listed in the Action Taken Report end up
as a futile exercise. 
Justice Liberhan has described how the Sangh parivar
corroded and shamed the secular image of the Indian state and
5
editorials
how officials sworn to the Indian Constitution were brazenly
complicit in this crime that changed Indian politics and public
administration for the worse. But given how every single institu-
tion of the Indian state and polity has pussy-footed around the
Babri Masjid demolition and continues to do so, there will never
The Right to Know
The proposed amendments to the RTI Act will reduce and not expand its scope and power.
W
hen the Right to Information (RTI) Act was enacted in
2005 it was hailed as an iconic people-empowering
legislation. In the four years since, the experience of
citizens has been mixed. While the United Progressive Alliance
government has basked in the approbation it has received for the
law, it has also made attempts to amend the Act. In 2006, the
union cabinet had cleared a set of amendments, which would
have, amongst other things, exempted from the purview of the
Act, notings in files by government officials (except those on
­social and development issues) and examination papers of the
Union Public Service Commission. The outcry and disagreement
within (and outside) the ruling coalition led to the proposals
­being dropped. Now, once again the Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT) at the Ministry of Personnel, Public Griev-
ance and Pensions has said that it is considering amendments to
the Act, but will invite public discussion in a transparent manner.
The amendments being contemplated are many and will, if ef-
fected, restrict the coverage of the Act. The proposal to exempt file
notings from disclosure is being revived. This time these notings
are being described as “official discussions and consultations be-
fore a decision is arrived at”. Another proposal is to prohibit what
are called frivolous and vexatious applications. Yet another is the
addition of a “citizens’ charter” to Section 4 of the RTI Act. The re-
sponse to these proposals has been swift. The National Campaign
for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has protested against
what it sees as a move to reduce the power of the Act.
The DoPT’s argument is that the law is being misused through
frivolous applications, which are overburdening the public infor-
mation officer (PIO). However, the RTI Act does have checks and
balances. Section 8 lists the kinds of information that cannot be
disclosed. These include information that might jeopardise the
nation’s sovereignty and security, lead to contempt of court,
breach of privilege of Parliament or state legislatures, informa-
tion which could affect the competitiveness of third parties, and
more. There is also Clause 9 of Section 7 which allows for not
providing information if it disproportionately diverts the public
authority’s resources or is detrimental to the safety of the record.
Incidentally, Section 7 is already being used by many PIOs who
cite a lack of resources, and staff to dismiss citizens’ applications.
It is also going to be difficult to define “frivolous and vexatious”
without giving arbitrary powers to the bureaucracy, which may
choose to decide against answering queries it is unlikely to be in
agreement with. In regard to the proposed exemption on dis­
closure of file notings, the official contention is that access to the
6 november 28, 2009  vol xliv no 48  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly
be any closure to this shameful event. The BJP may have been
electorally vanquished in two Lok Sabha elections but the
virus it nurtured in the course of its campaign to destroy the
mosque at Ayodhya remains implanted in India’s social and
­political fabric.
deliberative process poses a problem in the taking of decisions.
However, an amendment of this nature would defeat the purpose
of an RTI application where the intention is to elicit information
on why and how an official decision was arrived at. In fact, many
activists say that honest officials find this a reassuring aid whilst
taking decisions. It is interesting that the government says its
move to amend the law comes from the speech of the President in
Parliament where it was announced that the RTI law would be
amended to strengthen proactive disclosure. The government
says it wants to add other things like a citizens’ charter to the list
for proactive disclosure. Since Section 4, a very powerful part of
the RTI Act allows citizens to suo motu inspect government files
and documents, activists say there is no need for a citizens’ char-
ter, instead the current provisions of Section 4 need to be imple-
mented. In any case, Sub-section xvii of Section 4 (1) b allows the
government to add to the list of information to be disclosed “such
other information as may be prescribed”.
Activists hold that all the existing problems cited by the DoPT
can be remedied through better implementation and some
changes in the rules. Two recent national studies based on sur-
veys, one commissioned by the government of India (the Price
WaterhouseCoopers study) and the other by people’s organisa-
tions (Right to Information Assessment and Analysis Group and
NCPRI study) on the working and efficacy of this law have both
pointed to the gaps in awareness levels and the lack of training of
staff and poor record management as the main constraints in the
implementation of the RTI Act.
Section 4 of the RTI Act requires that public records be cata-
logued, indexed and computerised to ensure easy access and that
public authorities put as much information as possible in the pub-
lic domain and on web sites. If this is effectively implemented, this
could ensure reduction of so-called “frivolous and vexatious” ap-
plications. In Maharashtra, which leads in the number of applica-
tions filed, not only are over 15,000 appeals pending but just 1% of
the fine imposed on erring PIOs has been recovered in the past
year. According to the RTI Act, the penalty for not providing infor-
mation within the stipulated deadline must be deducted from the
monthly salary of the official by the concerned department.
It is ironical that while RTI activists are asking for a widening of
the coverage of the Act to include the private sector and even bank
transactions, the government is proposing these changes. Rather
than proposing amendments to the legislation, implementing the
recommendations made by the study that the dopt commissioned
would go a long way in making the RTI Act of 2005 more effective.