A rehearsal was carried out for the demolition of Babri Masjid on 5th December, 1992, just a day before the destruction, half a kilometre away from the mosque. It was documented by journalist Praveen Jain, who disguised himself as a photographer for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), as no journalists were allowed there. While pictures of this rehearsal, as well as Jain’s account of it, are available on the internet, the matter has not received the attention it warrants. A violent act of this magnitude should have made headlines, but was brushed under the carpet by the media, as were all the facts that poked holes in the narrative Hindutva forces were building. It was mostly the alternative media and international media that covered this, while the popular Indian news agencies were busy shoving the VHP narrative down our throats.
It presented the demolition as a result of spontaneous mob violence. While the Supreme Court in its 2019 verdict condemned the planting of Ram idols in the mosque as well as its subsequent demolition as illegal, the special CBI court rendering the demolition as nothing but a spontaneous, unplanned accident in its 2020 verdict, shows the hold this narrative has had not just on public opinion but on the judiciary too. Testimonies of Praveen Jain and other eyewitnesses, the presence of more than a hundred thousand volunteers armed with the tools required for the demolition and the previous attempts that had been made to get hold of the mosque, could not suffice in proving the demolition to be a pre-planned act. It was declared to be an innocuous religious gathering gone awry.
This façade is not even well maintained and has survived on fear, instilled through the penalisation of those who dared to expose the truth. As the demolition began, the karsevaks promptly got to work destroying every camera and thrashing every journalist in sight. Praveen Jain has faced threats and humiliation in the courtroom, in the presence of a judge, and deliberate extensions of his cross-examination by defense lawyers who persistently pressurised him to deny his presence at the rehearsal. Ruchira Gupta, another journalist who documented the demolition, was sexually assaulted and almost killed by the karsevaks who mistook her for a Muslim. L.K. Advani, who was watching the demolition from a distance, told her to forget what had happened to her and have some sweets to celebrate the historic day. She has faced slut-shaming, stalking, vandalising of her car, and a smear campaign by the lawyers of the Bajrang Dal, the VHP and the BJP. Atal Bihari Vajpayee told her in person not to testify, being a girl from a good family. These are just two examples of how all possible attempts were made to control the narrative.
This narrative has also led to the acquittal of the very people who had been at the forefront of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, and who had watched the demolition from a perfect vantage point. In fact, the CBI court declared them to have played a preventive and pacifying role. Praveen Jain too, like Ruchira Gupta, had approached L.K. Advani and M.M. Joshi as the photographers were being attacked, only to be ignored. Anju Gupta, Advani’s personal security officer on the day of the demolition, testified that intelligence inputs had indicated the possibility of a demolition attempt the day before. She also revealed that the leaders present there, including Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambhara, L.K. Advani and M.M. Joshi, among others, delivered provocative speeches, raised anti-Muslim slogans, hugged each other and distributed sweets as the domes collapsed, that VHP leader S.C. Dixit praised the state administration for their support and the police for their inaction, and that karsevaks entered the disputed area in police vehicles in which the personnel would respond with ‘Jai Shri Ram’. The acquittal was done on grounds of insufficient evidence. The court did not accept photos (including those of the rehearsal), videos, newspaper clippings or printouts of the speeches by the accused as evidence, citing technicalities of how these either failed to prove the allegations or were not produced in accordance with the mandated procedure. The court also questioned the government for not looking out for the interference of Pakistani agencies, and pinned the blame on nameless anti-social elements who were supposedly disguised as karsevaks. The verdict is an insult to the victims of the demolition and the subsequent communal riots, and to the witnesses and the litigants who risked their own safety in this long-drawn legal battle. It has set a precedent for just what the Hindu right can get away with.
The due process was duly exploited and weaponised. The demolition itself was a disrespect to the judiciary, as the gathering was allowed by the Supreme Court on the condition that the mosque would not be harmed, and the Allahabad High Court had ordered maintenance of the status quo. The final verdict has proven the futility of legal safeguards in the face of organised majoritarian violence mobilised over decades.
The entire timeline of Babri masjid demolition, what led up to it and what followed, will always be relevant in seeing our ‘democracy’ for what it is, a totalitarian regime with unchecked power shaping public opinion through relentless control of the media, going great lengths to distort reality and rewrite history. How many more such facts have been buried? How many victims could never even approach the judiciary? And what do we do about the questions that remain unanswered about the rehearsal, such as the identity of the masked man who was supervising it, the successful coordination and execution of such a large-scale illegal project, and the probable involvement of trained professionals, given the expert precision with which the rehearsal and the demolition were carried out?
