POLITICS OVER SUSHANT SINGH'S DEATH

On June 14, the death of a promising actor sent shock­waves throughout India, especially in tinsel town. The media splashed headlines which depicted a life cut short prematurely of a star who blazed in the firmament briefly.

Sushant Singh Rajput, or SSR as he was popularly called, was found dead at his plush Bandra residence on that day. The mysterious circumstances in which his body was found gave rise to a host of uncomfortable questions and spawned many conspiracy theories. More than two and a half months after his death, the mystery has only got deeper and murkier. The crucial question is: Was Rajput’s death a murder or suicide?

Rajput’s life was a dream come true. A small town boy from Patna, he dreamed big and made it big. His fairy tale life followed a rainbow trajectory till it got mired in rumours of depression and drugs and led to his untimely death. Like many middle class boys, Rajput initially chose the tried-and-tested path to a better life and studied engineering in the prestigious Delhi College of Engineering. However, his dreams of stardom tugged at him and he left his studies midway to go to Mumbai.

Here he struggled and toiled. He did bit roles in TV till he made it big in Kis Desh Mein Hai Meraa Dil (2008), followed by soap opera Pavitra Rishta (2009-2011). He endeared himself to the masses with his screen persona and made a place in their hearts with his boyish charm and winning smile.

From television, Rajput moved on to films. Here also, he encountered success and became an upcoming star. He earned in crores and lived life king-size. If Rajput lived royally, he loved regally too. His first lady love was Ankita Lokhande, his co-star in Pavitra Rishta. Later, he moved on and started living with Rhea Chakraborty, another starlet, till they apparently fell out a few days before his death.

Rajput’s death is now inextricably meshed with Chakraborty, who has been accused of abetment to suicide, drug administering and money laundering. Following his death, national hysteria gripped the nation and accusations and counter-accusations flew fast.

Immediately after his death, charges of nepotism against a faceless, heartless Bollywood cabal emerged. Conspiracy theories gained currency. It was insinuated that, stung by Rajput’s success, a group of well-entrenched Bollywood big­wigs closed in and refused to give him work, which led to his death.

Meanwhile, Rajput’s family suspected Chakraborty of having a hand in his death. His father, KK Singh, asked for transfer of the case from Mumbai to Bihar (he resides in Patna) and demanded a CBI inquiry. With the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) now investigating the death, there is a parallel media trial going on as well. The story was too salacious to miss.

TV channels got leaks from the investigating agencies and every day kangaroo courts were set up to declare Chakraborty and other accused guilty. In the midst of this spectacle, Rajput’s family too found itself in the eye of the storm. As the family demanded justice for itself, it was at the receiving end of a probable legal action by Chakraborty herself.

The most tragic part of the whole story is how vested interests took over the case and how different narratives were spun to serve individual parties. These narratives are as follows:

KANGANA RANAUT

The actress is the enfant terrible of Bollywood. Her vitriolic outbursts in the past have often seen her being isolated. In the Rajput case too, her statements have led to the muddying of waters. Years back, Ranaut as a 16-year-old girl with no financial or emotional support, left her small, sleepy town in Mandi in Himachal Pradesh to make her way to the “big bad world” of Bollywood.

Her debut film was Mahesh Bhatt’s Gangster (2006). From here on, she proved her mettle in films and bagged three National Awards. She even co-directed a movie (Manikarnika) and set up her own production house. She has often made controversial statements about her colleagues and the alleged manipulation and exploitation she suffered at the hands of some big star or the other whom she dated and then broke up with.

She had also alleged how she was drugged and exploited by a self-appointed mentor (a character artiste) with whom she was forced to share part of her initial life in Mumbai. This lent credence to her tirade against the drug culture of B-town.

After the death of Rajput, as reports of alleged nepotism started gaining currency, Ranaut jumped on the bandwagon and started a veritable crusade against the so-called Nepotism Gang. She zealously pushed the insider-outsider theory and linked it with Rajput’s death.

The conversation around nepotism was first started by Ranaut on Karan Johar’s chat show Koffee with Karan in 2017, where she called the filmmaker the “flag-bearer” of nepotism. Apparently, Johar had been promoting young faces from filmi families in his movies and thus had displeased many outsiders, including Ranaut.

She was openly snubbed by Johar at a public function where he asked her to leave Bollywood if she didn’t like its personalities. This flashpoint led to more bile from Ranaut and she has ever since been attacking entrenched film moghuls.

Today, she stands alienated from mainstream Bollywood. Big producers are averse to signing her and big stars steer clear of her. Bollywood is divided into camps and Ranaut has attacked one and all. Her only hope of surviving and shining again is to make films and star in them herself, or work with indie producers. She has launched her own film production company.

With the Rajput case being the talk of the town, Ranaut has hitched herself to this issue. As people bay for the blood of the so-called manipulative gang of B-town bigwigs and drug-taking stars, Ranaut, by supporting Rajput, has gained sympathy, support and good­will. Naturally, her image has improved. This will go a long way in cornering brand endorsements and film projects. Her personal attacks have also found a platform. Coincidentally, Ranaut has a pro-BJP leaning and found the setting perfect to unleash a tirade against actresses Deepika Padukone, Swara Bhaskar and Tapsee Pannu who had supported the anti-CAA protests.

POLITICAL PLAY

The tragic death of Rajput is also being exploited to the hilt by political parties and has created a standoff between Bihar and Maharashtra. The demand for a CBI inquiry has created a fissure. The demand was spearheaded by BJP leaders like actor-turned-BJP MP Rupa Ganguly and Rajput’s cousin, Neeraj Singh, an MLA in Bihar. Subramanian Swamy had also written letters to Prime Minister Narendra Modi demanding a CBI probe. BSP supremo Mayawati too jumped onto the bandwagon. Disillusioned with the Congress over developments in Rajasthan, she too urged a CBI probe.

The controversy has also given a handle to the BJP to attack the Shiv Sena, part of the ruling coalition in Maha­rashtra. The state has a Shiv Sena Congress-NCP government which was formed after worsting the BJP in a power struggle. The BJP has not forgotten or forgiven this and political slander is one way to get even and also gain eventually from it.

The politics of death has become a full-blown issue, with the name of Aditya Thackeray, Maharashtra’s environment minister and Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s son, being dragged into the whole affair.

Meanwhile, former Maharashtra CM Narayan Rane linked Rajput’s death with that of Disha Salian, his former manager. “Both Sushant and Disha were murdered…the post-mortem reveals that Disha was raped and murdered,” Rane thundered. He alleged that a “Maharashtra minister” was present at the site of the crime. Rane’s son Nilesh insinuated Aditya Thackeray’s involvement.

In the face of these direct attacks, Aditya was forced to respond. He said:

“I have relations with many people in Bollywood, but that is not a crime. The Thackeray family, and I personally am being targeted with slander by disgruntled political elements. This is low-level dirty politics.”

Another storyline is that the BJP is trying to soil the clean image of Aditya. Of late, he has emerged as a sane and sanguine figure in the Shiv Sena. A leader of the youth and a moderate, it is alleged that the BJP wants to sully this image and is using Rajput’s death as a handy tool.

Bihar elections are another reason for politicians from this state to wade into these waters. As the polls will be held by the year-end, politicians have found ammunition to lead the charge for the hustings. Emotions are high in Bihar over the death of Rajput. Politicians know this well. Hence, it was no surprise when Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar personally intervened and asked the centre for a CBI inquiry.

Parties, cutting across the political divide in Bihar, have demanded a CBI probe in this case. RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav held a press conference with another actor-politician from Bihar, Shekhar Suman, over Rajput’s death.

NDA constituent Lok Janshakti Party president Chirag Paswan and Jan Adhikar Party president Pappu Yadav also asked for a CBI probe. Clearly, the son-of-the-soil issue is going to be encashed by political parties in the Bihar hustings.

CASTE FACTOR

Caste politics has also fired the sympathies of politicians over Rajput’s death. He belongs to the Rajput caste. However, he dropped Rajput from his name in 2017 to protest against the Karni Sena’s attack on Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film Padmavat. But the caste label has not been forgotten by state politicians.

Rajputs form about four percent of Bihar’s population, but they are one of the dominant communities there. In the last assembly election in 2015, the grand alliance of the JD(U)-RJD-Congress had fielded 39 upper caste candidates, of whom 12 were Rajputs. The BJP had given tickets to 65 upper caste candidates, 30 of them Rajputs. There are 19 Rajput MLAs in the current Bihar assembly. As a community, the Rajputs can influence results in 40 of the 243 constituencies in the state. No wonder politicians are leaving no stone unturned to cash in on Rajput’s name.

POLICE FORCES

Rajput’s death and the resultant controversy have cast a shadow over the Mumbai and Bihar police too. There have been accusations that both the police forces were serving their political masters.

The Mumbai police began investigations on June 14 when the actor was found dead. At the very outset, without any solid evidence, it proclaimed that it was a case of suicide. In fact, right after Rajput’s death, charges of manipulative film producers crafting biased film contracts and snatching away deals from him emerged on social media. Twitterati and many celebrities concluded that his death was in some way connected to nepotism in Bollywood.

It speaks volumes about the gullibility of the Mumbai police that it followed the social media trails in its probe and completely lost itself. As days went by, it became clear that it was totally at sea and not following investigative norms.

The police began its inquest by registering a case under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under it, a case of suicide is not subject to investigation. Rather, the police is supposed to ascertain the cause of death, and the process is called an inquest, not an investigation.

However, despite registering a case under Section 174, it proceeded to question bigwigs of the film industry on charges of alleged nepotism. Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Mahesh Bhatt, Apoorva Mehta (CEO of Dharma Productions) and several others were grilled by the police.

Meanwhile, a parallel media trial was going on with TV journalists ferreting out evidence and a guest panel dissecting the case every night. Clearly, pressure was building up on the Mumbai police to stick to its basic premise of suicide, which it had so confidently proclaimed. The way it botched up the case led to charges of it being biased.

As Aditya Thackeray’s involvement in the death of Disha Salian is being insinuated, each effort of the Mumbai police to handle this complex case is being seen as a way to “manage” the probe and protect those in power. With overtones of drug peddling and the complicity of top politicians and Bollywood honchos in this case, the Mumbai police is finding it hard to earn back its credibility.

Matters became worse when Bihar IPS officer Vinay Tiwari, who came to Mumbai for the probe, was quarantined by the BMC. As leaders of all political parties condemned this act, the Mumbai police and the administration were in a quandary. As the police squirmed under the spotlight, the Sheena Bora case was recalled.

When that case made headlines, Mumbai’s then police commissioner Rakesh Maria was promoted and transferred as director general of the Home Guards. It was speculated then that Maria was transferred as the Maharashtra government led by Devendra Fadnavis was unhappy with his role in the Sheena Bora murder case. This was yet another case which showed how strongly the Mumbai police’s reins were in the hands of the political establishment. Interestingly, Fadnavis has now cast aspersions on the role of the Mumbai police.

Meanwhile, the Bihar police was up in arms against the treatment meted out to its police personnel who had gone to Mumbai for the probe. DGP Gupteshwar Pandey slammed the Mumbai police on TV and even condemned Rhea Chakraborty for her alleged complicity in the case. Pandey was seen asking for justice for Rajput. He also became the talking point on social media with questions being asked about the propriety of a uniformed police officer indulging in televised wrangling.

Pandey, apparently, has strong political ambitions. In 2009, when the Lok Sabha elections were to be held, he positioned himself to contest them from Buxar on a BJP ticket. To do this, he took VRS on March 14, 2009, as no serving officer can contest elections. However, things couldn’t materialise accordingly.  Now with the Bihar assembly elections approaching, it is rumoured that Pandey may enter the polls once again. His tenure as DGP ends in February 2021, but the grapevine says that he may resign before that and contest on either a JD(U) or a BJP ticket.

MULTIPLE investigating AGENCIES

Rajput’s death has now become a very high-profile case. After the Supreme Court’s verdict ordering the CBI to investigate this case, the FIR filed in Patna was transferred to it. Also, the ED has suo motu initiated a probe into alleged suspicious transfers of funds from Rajput’s accounts. The NCB is also probing the drug angle.

The only federal investigative agency that has not launched an investigation is the National Investigation Agency, which inquires into terrorism cases.

As powerful investigative agencies probe the case, each is zealously protecting its turf. Snippets of investigation are religiously fed to the media. Clearly, each one is looking at its own gains and breakthroughs.

SOCIAL MEDIA & FRINGE PERSONALITIES

Not surprisingly, absolute strangers hogged the limelight in this ensuing media circus. Sample this: Claiming foul play, Karni Sena member Surjeet Singh Rathore claimed to know that Rajput’s friend Sandip Singh was in touch with someone from Dubai. He was called as a prime time guest on major TV channels. It is altogether a different matter that as a producer, he has a movie lined up for release and some publicity won’t harm the film’s prospects.

Social media, especially YouTube and Facebook, are also awash with perfect strangers coming up with salacious gossip. Many have turned into arm chair Sherlock Holmes and are spending hours dissecting crime scene photographs and analysing autopsy reports. Countless YouTube channels are garnering millions of “likes” and subscriptions and minting revenue. Fringe B-town actors, out of work models and social media geeks are making hay while the sun shines.

As charges fly thick and fast about Bollywood nepotism, suppression of outsiders, drug abuse by stars and the operation of a sinister cabal, hardly any representative voice is being heard to counter all these calumny. However, some old actors have voiced their concerns; Shatrughan Sinha, Shekhar Suman and Mukesh Khanna, to name a few.

One way to explain their vocal stand is that they have now nothing to lose or gain from filmdom. At the most, they stand to shine once again, maybe in the political firmament.

The Rajput death probe is at once an indictment of the media, the police, politicians and the film world. The web of events has brought to the fore the way our society operates. The stress and strain of such a death probe has laid bare a dysfunctional social structure and vested interests. It has also shown a society which resists change and strives to maintain status quo.

AYODHYA RAM MANDIR CASE

 The outcome of one of the thorniest and longest standing legal contest over a  place of worship, which occupies a special place in hearts of two religious communities of the country, climaxed on August 5.

Amidst sacred ceremonies, mantra chants and gala festivities,  the Ram Mandir shilanyas was finally soleminized in Ayodhya. Prime Minister Narender Modi sat in the pooja and performed the ground breaking ceremony.

The  1500 square yard plot of land, situated in the city of Ayodhya, had witnessed prolonged legal  tussle for over more than 125 years. Religious groups, devotees and even gods contested for ownership of the sacred spot. From lower court to the highest court of the land the case wound its way up. In the process many Hindu and Muslim petitioners rallied along and the ensuing legal wrangle made the case increasingly complicated.

Successive courts  pronounced divergent verdicts on the Ram JanamBhoomi-Babri Masjid case.  Finally on 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court announced its verdict and awarded the disputed place to Hindus to build the Ram Janambhoomi Temple. Muslims were given a piece of land away from the site to build a mosque. The judgement led to an uneasy situation. Jubliation in one quarter, resignation in another.

At the centre of the row was the 16th-Century mosque , apparently built during the reign of Babar.  The disputed site was revered by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Muslims held that they worshipped in the mosque for generations, and hence it rightfully belonged to them. They also held that there was no transfer of land ownership right.

ROOTS OF THE LEGAL TUSSLE

The roots of the legal battle can be traced back to 1958. Herein we find the first legal record of the case registered in Faizabad . On November 30, 1858, an FIR was filed against a group of Nihang Sikhs who had apparently installed their nishan and written “Ram” inside the Babri mosque. Police had recoreded that on  December 1, 1858, a chabutra (platform) has been constructed by the Sikhs. This became the first documentary evidence that Hindus were present not only in the outer courtyard but also inside the inner courtyard.

The case initially had three main contending parties - two Hindu groups and the Muslim Waqf Board. The Hindu litigants were Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara.

In January 1885, Raghubar Das, the mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara,  instituted a suit against the administration of Faizabad. The suit,  sought to restrain the administration from interfering in the construction of a temple over a platform or chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid

For several decades  the dispute was in limbo , till a group of Hindu activists illegally placed the idol of Ram in the disputed area in 1949.

An FIR was filed in the case and the gates were locked the same day.

Meanwhile, more parties joined the proceedings in the 1950s, including the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

Time passed, in 1984, Vishva Hindu Parishad adopted a resolution demanding the `liberation' of the site of the Babri Masjid.

In January 2, 1986, Faizabad district judge passed an order to open the locks of the main gate of the Babri Masjid.

That was a turning point in Ayodhya dispute .After the locks were opened, the Muslim leaders met in Lucknow and  Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed to spearhead fight for ownership of mosque. 

 

DEITY BECOMES PARTY

How a diety became a legal party is also interesting.

After the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ movement, spearheaded by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad gathered momentum in the late 1980s, a fifth suit was filed by the ‘deity’ itself.

Both the deity and the birthplace are represented by a “friend” in the title suits. Since the 1980s, there have been three such “friends” or ‘’sakha’’ of Ram.

Two years later, in July 1989, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, filed a petition seeking to become the “sakha” or friend of the deity and its birthplace in the title suits.

The legal position is quite complicated. The deity is the owner of the land only in an ideal sense. The deity is considered a perpetual minor under the law, which is why it requires a friend to run the case on its behalf.

When the Allahabad High Court delivered its judgement in September 2010, it divided the disputed site three ways, with one-third going to the deity and Ram Janmasthan.

FROM ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TO SUPREME COURT

On July 12, 1989, the Allahabad High Court passed an order transferring all the suits to a three-judge bench of the high court.

On September 25, 1990, BJP leader  L.K. Advani started a Rath Yatra across several States. This led to communal violence and bloodshed. Finally , the aggressive mobilisation resulted in the destruction of the masjid on December 6, 1992.

Thirteen years after the Allahabad High Court took the case in March 2002, hearing began for the title suit of the Ayodhya dispute. In July 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered excavation at the disputed site. Archaeological Survey of India  (ASI) led excavation concluded that “recoveries were suggestive of a structure of Hindu religion origin”.

The ASI report though important was not the sole deciding factor in the judgement. The Supreme Court in its final judgement said “a finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI.Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial,”

Taking the story further, on September 30, 2010, the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court gave its judgment in the title suit. It divided the disputed land into three parts, giving one each to Ram Lala, Nirmohi Akhada and Sunni Waqf Board. All the parties appealed in the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment.

On 8 January, 2019, the apex court set up a five-judge bench to hear the title suit in Ayodhya.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi formed a constitution bench . The then CJI Gogoi headed the bench, other members were Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

ADVERSE POSSESSION LOGIC

One question that the bench had to answer was whether the board had gained title to the Ayodhya land by adverse possession. The Muslim side argued that even if the mosque was built on temple ruins, as stated by the Hindu parties, they had adverse possession as the Babri Masjid had existed on the plot since the 16th century. 

However, court rejected the claim and concurred with the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 ruling, which stated that there was no adverse possession as it was an open space where “anybody could have built anything” for prayers.

n  The court assessed the disputed site from the perspective of the outer courtyard, where sites related to Ram is situated, and the inner courtyard, where the Babri Masjid stood. 

n  In its verdict, the bench noted that the evidence of Muslim side did not establish that the entire plot was used by Muslims for worship purposes.

n  The court cited ASI  report that states that the structure underneath was “not an Islamic structure”, and the artefacts excavated from the site suggested the presence of a Hindu structure.

n  One of the primary characteristics of a mosque is that it hosts prayers. the court noted that the Muslim side had presented “no account” to show possession, “use or offer of namaz in the mosque between the date of construction and 1856-7”.

 

ARGUMENTS BY CONTENDING PARTIES

 

Supreme Court Bench was often witness to  emotionally charged argument between Hindu and Muslim parties' counsel.

Sharp words were exchanged and the bench had to often intervene to bring discipline in court room.

From ancient religious texts to ASI reports , piles of documentary evidence were used to bolster  the rival claims to the disputed site.

The Hindu parties strategy was to establish two vital points  before the Supreme Court to claim possession on the disputed land.

The first being Ram Janmabhoomi -- the land below the central dome of the disputed structure as the birthplace of Lord Ram as a juristic entity, which is subject to law.

Second, the credibility accorded to the ASI report by the Allahabad High Court in its judgement in 2010 to support their arguments.

Hindu parties  thus backed their arguments from the High Court judgement, and raised points related to faith and divinity from a legal perspective before the Supreme Court.

The deity, or Ram Lalla, was represented by veteran lawyers K Parasaran and CS Vaidyanathan.

K Parasaran made submissions on treating land as a juristic entity, which is subject to law. “Everything belongs to the deity,” Parasaran declared in the Supreme Court.

The Akhara’s case rested on adverse possession.

Parasaran and Vaidyanathan used  historical records and ASI report  to argue that there had been a temple under the mosque since the second century.

Muslims contested this argument and claimed that the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid was not the birthplace of Lord Ram

Muslims contented that report by ASI concluding that there was a temple at the site is inconclusive and riddled with inconsistencies.

Travelogues by Western gazetteers made over years are mere stories.

Possession of Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi by the Hindu site only gives them right to pray and not possession, said Muslim party lawyers.

Hindus have only exercised prescriptive right (by offering prayers), but never the title. The Muslim side has not lost the title, they contended.

Represented by Rajeev Dhawan, the Sunni Waqf  Board and the other Muslim parties, argued that the entire disputed land belonged to them as per the law, judgement of courts and records recognised by the British-era administration. They stated that they had possession of the area since 1528 when the mosque was built and the land was never claimed by Hindus till 1989.

“If they had possession, why was one dome of the Babri Masjid knocked down in the 1934 riots and trespassers installed the idols in 1949 if they already had the title,” senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan asked.

The Muslim side said they have only sought title over the disputed area and not the land acquired by the government, and that it would allow Hindus to worship in the outer courtyard.

 

MEDIATION EFFORTS UNSUCCESSFUL

On March 8, 2019 Supreme Court refered the Ayodhya dispute for mediation. The mediators  were former Supreme Court judge FMI Kalifulla, religious leader Sri Sri Ravishankar, and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.

On  August 2, 2019  the mediation panel admited failure in resolving differences between the contending parties.

The court then decided to conduct daily hearings from August 6..

High drama was witnessed on the last day of hearing when senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Sunni Waqf Board, tore papers and maps handed over to him by the counsel of All India Hindu Mahasabha in the Supreme Court. On October 16, 2019 after  40-day marathon hearing the Supreme Court reserved Ayodhya verdict .

 

MOULDING OF RELIEF

On October 19, both sides jointly submitted their note of ‘moulding of relief’ to the Supreme Court. The note addressed alternate relief that the Supreme Court may provide in case the title or ownership is not given.

The Muslim side said in the note that since the judgment would have “far-reaching implications it is for the court to consider the consequences of its historic judgment by moulding the relief in a fashion that will reflect the constitutional values that this great nation espouses".

Akhil Bharatiya Sriram Janam Bhoomi Punruddhar Samiti, in its moulding-the-relief statement suggested a decree in favour of Ram Lalla after taking into consideration the mediation report.

THE HISTORIC JUDGEMENT BROKE TRADITION

The unanimous Ayodhya judgment, broke three long held traditions of the Supreme Court: the verdict always bears the name of the author, author reads it in open court and the main judgment isn’t accompanied by an “addenda”.

Though CJI Ranjan Gogoi read out the judgment, it did not carry the author’s name. Same was for the addenda. However the judgment’s printed version bore the unmistakable imprint of Justice D Y Chandrachud. This surmise was based on styles and use distinct fonts peculiar to Justice Chandrachud.

ROLE PLAYING BY JUDGES

The five judges of the bench played distinct roles during the hearing of Ayodhya dispute.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi gave free-hand to counsels to argue their case and setup a time frame wherein counsels  of various parties were assigned time limits to complete their arguments

Justice S.A. Bobde  asked probing questions on the belief and faith as related to both parties. He handled high pitched arguments with a stoic calmness .

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud assessed the faith aspect from a legal perspective, and often tested both parties arguments on the touchstone of jurisprudence. He asked the most questions. He plainly told the Muslim parties that the ASI report has been prepared by "studied minds, and can’t be summarily dismissed.

Justice Ashok Bhushan seemed well versed with the High Court judgement, and asked pointed queries. He meticulously tracked the  cross-examination of the witnesses.

Justice S.A. Nazeer  patiently heard the counsels in the case. He reprimanded the Muslim parties'' counsel on their comments on ASI report.

 

UNDERPINNINGS OF THE JUDGEMENT

The 1,045 pages judgement was a legal treatise of sorts. It held that there was a non – Islamic structure underlying the Babri Masjid. Babri Masjid demolition a violation of the rule of law, and this wrong must be remedied. Title to the land should be decided based on settled legal principles, and not on faith or ASI findings.

Muslims have no evidence to show possessory title. There is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by Hindus prior to 1857, no such evidence is in favour of Muslims.

That is, the Hindu litigants were able to establish their case that they were in possession of the outer courtyard. It added that the Muslim side was unable to prove their exclusive possession of the inner courtyard

The disputed site spreads over 1500 sq yards. Dividing the land will not secure a lasting peace. Trifurcation of the disputed land by the High Court was legally unsustainable.

The mere presence of pujaris does not vest in them any right to be shebaits ( thus nullifying Akhara’s claim)

Supreme Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied..

After establishing the underpinnings of the judgement thus the Bench proceeded to deliver its judgement.

 

THE AYODHYA VERDICT

The Supreme Court Bench upheld the title rights of Ram Lalla Virajman over the disputed property, ordering the Centre to develop a trust to oversee the construction of a Ram temple within three months from its ruling.

The court held that the Nirmohi Akhara is not a shebait(manager of the temple)  or devotee of the deity Ram Lalla and the Akhara's suit was barred by limitation.

The court ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land in another place to the Sunni Waqf Board for building of a mosque.

CONCLUSION

The Ayodhya verdict broke new grounds in Indian jurisprudence.

After more than a century of legal tussle the Supreme Court cleared the nebulous fog over the Ayodhya dispute by its verdict.

The courtroom fight which led to the verdict was  fierce and dramatic. No quarter was given without forceful legal combat.

The arguments were intense, emotional and loaded with reference from diverse sources.  History, spirituality, faith, Hinduism, Islam, Sharia, law and constitution were invoked by contesting parties to put across their point .

The Ayodhya issue was legally complicated. Probably for the the first time Faith was pitted against Law. Historical facts contended with mythological beliefs. It was a fight between religious convictions and rationality.

Though the Apex court initially approached the matter as a land dispute as time went on its social underpinnings were realized and ultimately to do complete justice the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.

All said, the decision proves to be a milestone for Indian jurisprudence law. It gave primacy to ‘’wisdom over cold legal logic’’ ( Justice Venkatachaliah ) . The verdict  embraced an Utilitarian philosophy which proclaims “the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” as the summon bonum of social existence.

+++++++++++++++++

 

 

_________________

RSS THINK TANK MEETS IN VARANASI

A three day meeting of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) is being held in Varanasi from February the 15^th. Top RSS functionaries are expected to be present in the meeting. The agenda is to steamline the coordination between the state BJP and the RSS. BJP party president Amit Shah, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath, and his two deputy chief ministers are expected to be present in the meeting.

The meet will also give thought to the 2019 election strategy and on ways to bolster the image of Modi government.

The RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat will also address 21 thousand swamsevaks.

Mohan Bhagwat is being housed in Deen Dayal Upadhaya Trade Facilitation Centre, a building officialy being used for the promotion of interests of artisans.

This is being objected by the state Congress. The party is opposing the use of state institution building for political ends.

Clearly, RSS is putting its might behind the BJP to give it a push before the 2019 hustings.

With a  strong think tank and an army of dedicated workers RSS will give the necessary political push, and this is creating jitters in the opposition.

THEATRICS OF NARESH AGARWAL

The Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha MP Naresh Aggarwal has stirred a hornet's nest by targetting prime minister Narender Modi by a casteist comment. In a function organized by The Vaishya Samaj in Lucknow the Samajwadi Party leader called Modi by his Teli caste. 

The mention of Modi by his caste name created a furore in the congregation. People hooted Aggarwal and asked to tender apology. However, Naresh Aggarwal was adamant, and held that caste is a reality in India and one can't avoid it.

Obviously, Aggarwal's comment is going to provide grist to the political wheel, and BJP is not going to waste any time in cashing in on the comment to rake up caste sentiments and make Modi a scapegoat.

Earlier during the Gujarat elections  Mani Shankar Aiyyer's comment on Modi had changed the discourse of the election campaigning. Aiyyer had referred to Modi as 'neech jati ka aadmi' and 'neech aadmi'. 

BJP then had gone full throttle to get as much miieage from the comment. It had put Congress in the dock, so much so, that Congress had to suspend Aiyyer from the party. 

It is strange that politicians are wont to issue such comments, knowing fully that it is going to be reaped politically by the other party. It is such apprehensions that is putting a question mark on the theatrics of such politicians.

MODI ON MISSION TRIPURA

Prime Minister Modi is on an election campaigning tour of Tripura. The north east state is going to polls on 18 th of February, and BJP has sets its sight on capturing this one more citadel. Modi will be addressing two rallies over here. In the district adjoining the Dhanpur constituency of four time chief minister Manik Sarkar, Modi will raise the campaign decibel.

So far the Modi juggernaut has been going all well in the north eastern region. The party has taken control of three states; namely Assam, Meghalaya and Manipur. Now its sight are set on Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura.

Of the three,  the battle of Tripura has already begun. The state has been under the  Communist rule since the last 25 years, and the austere chief minister Manik Sarkar has been the favourite of masses for the last two decades. No doubt, dislodging such a well entrenched party will be some task. Anti incumbency doesn't seems to be a factor here.

Congress jitters has also come to the fore. Former Assam chief minister Tarun Gogoi has said that that the  Congress’ chances of winning Tripura polls are bleak. The Congress leader claimed that the BJP is using black money to fund the election campaign.

On the other hand, the Sangh Parivar has already begun on its job of mobilizing the masses. A door to door campaign has been initiated. The focus is more on educating people about issues, than insisting on voter turnout. The voter turnout percentage is well around 90 percent.

As compared to other north east states the population is predominantly Hindu. The tribal populace is also Hindu, and the reach and penetration of Sangh is fairly good. Around 200 shakhas operate in the state with an attendance of around 10 people in each shakha.

BJP is aiming not at Hindutva issues, but development concerns will be highlighted.

Since coming to power the Modi government has aggresively pushed and pursued a look 'north-east' policy, which included infrastructural development and fund allocation for overall growth.  

Few days back, inaugurating the two-day ‘Global Investors Summit’ hosted by Assam, Modi had asserted that  India’s growth story will further pick up speed when there is an all-round development of the north-east.

Clearly, BJP will be going at the hustings with development as a plank.

The opinion polls have also been merciful to the saffron party.

Recent polls indicate that BJP and its ally Indigenous People's Front of Tripura will corner 31 to 37 seats while CPI (M) will  win 23 to 29 seats.

In the coming days BJP is going to step up the campaigning. Fourty senior BJP leaders', including Home Minister Rajnath Singh,  Defense Minister Nirmala Sitaraman, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj and chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath will be pushed in action.

Clearly, BJP is going to strain its might to seize the Red Fort of Tripura.

MALDIVES MALADY

In crisis ridden Maldives the unfolding political drama took yet another twist late Wednesday night. The Maldives Supreme court revoked its own order to release nine high profile political prisoners . This came hours after the former president Md. Nasheed made a plea to India for  military intervention.

In a late night development three judges of the Supreme Court passed an order quashing the terrorism charges against the nine main opposition leaders.

Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and another judge, Ali Hameed, were arrested after President Yameen declared a state of emergency  on Monday.

“On behalf of Maldivian people we humbly request India to send envoy, backed by its military, to release judges and political  detainees. We request a physical presence,” Nasheed, who is currently in Colombo, said in a Twitter post. He also urged the US to block financial transactions of Yameen’s government.

Reacting to these developments, the United States said it was troubled and disappointed by the declaration of a state of emergency by Yameen and asked him to comply with the rule of law and implement the Supreme Court ruling.

The Ministry of External Affairs showed its concern . In a statement in New Delhi the Government said : "We are disturbed by the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Maldives following the refusal of the government to abide by the unanimous ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court on February 1, and also by the suspension of constitutional rights of the people of Maldives,"

However, Indian stand was non committal over the plea for military intervention in the trouble torn nation.

GAMEPLAN PAKISTAN

Intransigence from across the border has reached a new high. Pakistan is showing no signs of mending its ways. Attacks and cross border firing has been continuing unabated since the last one month.

On Monday an army camp in south Kashmir’s Kakapora area was attacked by militants. The militants lobbed grenades towards the army  camp. Though there has been no casualities the district administration has closed down all the 84 schools in the area. The army is on alert.

The attack on the army camp comes a day after four soldiers were killed in a cross-border firing by Pakistan along the Line of Control (LoC) in Tarkundi and Sunderbani areas of Rajouri district of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, Lieutenant-General Sarath Chand said that the Army will give a befitting reply to Pakistan’s actions.

Pakistan has seemed to stepped up its attack from across the border. In the past 35 days, there were 240 incidents on the LoC and the International Boundary together, higher than the 228 for the entire 2016.

Apparently there is a strategic shift in Pakistan’s strategy. Till some time back the cross border firing were resorted to in an  intermittent manner. More stress was on low-key attacks by terrorist outfits and stand alone desperadoes. In this low intensity warfare, guerrilla tactics were employed and damage to strategic areas and unto the armed personnel were aimed at.

A case in the point is the way in October 2016  militants had attacked an Indian army camp in Baramulla , Kashmir with gunfire and grenades, killing one border guard and wounding another.

Such attacks kept happening at regular intervals. This served the Pakistani strategy of low intensity warfare well. The cross border attacks made heavy force deployment by the Indian Army alongside  the border a necessity.

However, Pakistan could well spread its army thin across the border and use the additional manpower in troubled areas alongside the Afghan border and in interior hotspots.

However, with India resorting to surgical strikes into the Pakistani side the war strategy got changed. First it was denial of any such surgical attacks by Pakistan. But when confronted by regular surgical attacks by India which were then buttressed by video and other proofs, Pakistan had to change it’s strategy.

It  went into a more manifest attacking mode, and the frequency of attack has  kept on increasing.

Furthermore, in a deliberate attempt to malign India it has stepped up its anti –India propaganda.

Recently ,  Pakistan’s Interior Ministry has informed Gilgit-Baltistan  government in the disputed PoK territory that India has made a plan to attack the installations of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to sabotage the multi-billion project.

This  is an clear attempt to raise the India bogey in Pakistan.

The Pakistani establishment, especially the Army, is under pressure from the United States to mend its ways in its policy of nurturing terror groups. There has been a fund squeeze from the side of America. Trump had tweeted his displeasure against Pakistan providing safe haven to terrorists,and  of foolishly providing  $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years.

Trump didn’t stop here. On January 24, this year he ordered a drone attack on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and wiped out two Haqqani network commanders and two terrorists.

Clearly it was revist of the Osama Bin Laden type of attack where the territorial sovereignity of Pakistan was compromised, leaving it humiliated.

The surgical strikes by India and direct intervention by the United States had left Pakistan with no option but to go on an offensive against India. If for nothing else, then to salvage its pride.

Thus with building up of pressure from the United States on both the strategic and diplomatic level, it is wont that the Pakistani Army is going for diversionary tactics, and indulging in India baiting.

The time tested tactics of anti-India tirade will make the Pakistani Army and the Establishment buy time, before new game plans are devised.

MAYAN CITY DISCOVERED

It's a discovery on which science fiction  and Hollywood movies thrive. 

The dense jungles of Guatemala has finally revealed its innermost secrets to the nosy and arrogant mankind. 

Beneath the thick,impenetrable canopy of lush green trees ruins of an intricately build Mayan urban civilization has been revealed.

A cluster of cities, fortifications, farms and highways have been laid bare. The ruins clearly show that a highly developed society flourished some 1200 years ago. A mysterious Mayan dynasty named Snake Kings ruled the community.

Some 60,000 previously unknown structures, including a seven-story pyramid has been uncovered by the laser technology.

Using a technology called LiDAR, scientists were able to strip away the tree canopy from aerial images and reveal the ancient civilisation underneath.

The technique uses pulses of laser light to create 3D representations of targets.

Historically, archaeologists have assumed that Maya cities were isolated and self-sufficient, but this discovery provides evidence for a complex, interconnected society flourishing deep in the jungle.

The population estimate of the community have been upgraded from 2 million to 20 million.

The team mapped a 810sq-mile area around the ancient city of Tikal, a popular tourist destination located in the heart of the Guatemalan rainforest.

The civilization flourished in cities and was connected by a network of highways. The site was four times larger than previously assumed.

There was also irrigation and terracing systems suggesting farming and food production systems to feed its millions. 

So far, the scientists have only mapped a fraction of the archaeological area and they think there is a lot more to be discovered. 

Scientists had used a similar scans to unearth a network of ancient cities in Angkor, in Cambodia that includes the famed Angkor Wat.

DGP COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET

What colour is Khaki ? This question inadvertently got raised in Uttar Pradesh when an Indian Police Service officer of the rank of Director General of Police openly championed the cause of Ram Mandir construction in Ayodhya. Surya Kumar Shukla is posted as a DG , homeguard in the state. 

In a event organized on Ram Mandir at the Lucknow University the DG took a pledge to get the Ram Mandir constructed at the earliest. The video of this pledge has gone viral ever since.

Many people took the oath alongside him and riased the slogan of Jai Shri Ram . 

The viral video shows the 1982 batch IPS officer taking the pledge. 

Shukla, however, has stuck to his guns and has maintained that his comment were edited off and shown in bits that were out of context. 

The DG  held that his comment was more related to creating an conducive environment for the construction of Ram Temple, rather than building the temple itself.

He also hinted that he was being targetted and people were creating a controversy where there is non.

Espousal of a religious cause and display of partisan stand by a serving officer is a clear violation of service rules. It goes against the grain of impartiality and neutrality which is binded as a norm for a officer of the government. 

The DG's stand, his clarification, notwithstanding, has brought him in the direct line of fire of the opposition parties. 

Shukla is due to retire in August. Opposition is insinuating that he is working towards making his post-retirement period rosy by cosying up with the state's BJP government. 

This is not the first time in recent times that bureaucray has worn its leaning and political colours on its sleeve.

Recently, on the eve of violence in Kasgang, the district magistrate of Barielly  Raghvender Vikram Singh, had made headlines by posting religiously loaded comment on his facebook.

The Yogi government has now asked the DG to explain his stand. However, it remains to be seen what action will follow. If tackled leniently, this trend can make more bureaucrats come out the closet and show their political colours