The Liberhan Commission was a long-running inquiry commissioned by the Indian government to investigate the destruction of the disputed structure Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992. Led by retired Indian Supreme Court Judge M S Liberhan, it was formed on 16 December 1992 by an order of the Indian Home Union Ministry after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December and the riots in Ayodhya. The Commission was originally mandated to submit its report within three months. Extensions were given 48 times, and after a delay of 17 years, the one-man commission submitted the report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on 30 June 2009. In November 2009, a day after a newspaper published the allegedly leaked contents of the report, the report was tabled in the Indian parliament by the Home Minister, P. Chidambaram.
The Babri Mosque (Hindi: बाबरी मस्जिद, Urdu: بابری مسجد), Babri Masjid or Mosque of Babur was a mosque in Ayodhya, on Ramkot Hill ("Rama's fort"). It was destroyed in 1992 when a political rally developed into a riot involving 150,000 people, despite a commitment to the Indian Supreme Court by the rally organisers that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2000 people were killed in ensuing riots in many major Indian cities including Mumbai, and Delhi. The mosque was constructed in 1527 by order of Babur, the first Mughal emperor of India. Before the 1940s, the mosque was called Masjid-i Janmasthan("mosque of the birthplace").. It is alleged Babur's commander-in-chief, Mir Baqi, destroyed an existing temple at the site which commemorated thebirthplace of Rama, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu and ruler of Ayodhya. The Babri Mosque was one of the largest mosques in Uttar Pradesh, a state in India with some 31 million Muslims. Although there were several older mosques in the city of Ayodhya, an area with a substantial Muslim population, including the Hazrat Bal Mosque constructed by the Shariqi kings, the Babri Mosque became the largest, because of the importance of the disputed site. The political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history and location of the Babri Mosque and whether a previous temple was demolished or modified to create it, is known as the Ayodhya Debate.
To make an inquiry with respect to the following matters:
The one-man panel, one of the country's longest running inquiry commissions, cost the government Rs.8 crore (80 million rupees), and wrote the report on the sequence of events leading to the destruction of the Babri mosque by Hindu mobs on December 6, 1992 and the other issues mentioned in the terms of reference.
Appointed by former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao two weeks after the demolition on December 6, 1992, to ward off criticism against his government for having failed to protect the mosque, the commission in August 2005 finished hearing its last witness Kalyan Singh – who was Uttar Pradesh chief minister at the time of the demolition and was dismissed soon after.
In 16 years of its proceedings, the commission recorded statements of several politicians, bureaucrats and police officials including Kalyan Singh, late Narasimha Rao, former deputy prime minister L.K. Advani and his colleagues Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati as well as Mulayam Singh Yadav.
Top bureaucrats and police officials of Uttar Pradesh, the then district magistrate R.N. Srivastava and Senior Superintendent of Police D.B. Roy of Ayodhya also recorded their statements on the demolition. In all, the Commission examined one hundred witnesses including
Four years ago, the hearings of the Commission concluded but not before a controversy broke out with the sole Commission's Counsel Anupam Gupta dissociating himself from it owing to personal differences with Justice Liberhan. The Commission then appointed a new sole Commission's Counsel, Harpreet Singh Giani in 2008.
Advani, Joshi, Bharti and Kalyan Singh, who was the BJP Chief Minister at the time of demolition, appeared before the Commission as witnesses. Kalyan Singh apppeared only after the Delhi High Court lifted a stay order on his deposition.
Others against whom criminal cases are pending in the demolition of the disputed structure in Ayodhya included VHP leader Ashok Singhal and Bajrang Dal's Vinay Katiyar.
Even before the findings of the Commission were out, Congress and BJP leaders clashed over the issue.
|2005 Ram Janmabhoomi attack|
|People and organizations|
|Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh|
|L. K. Advani|
|Atal Bihari Vajpayee|
|Murli Manohar Joshi|
|All India Babri Masjid Action Committee|
|Bharatiya Janata Party|
On 23 November 2009, the media began reporting on the contents of the report, which had been leaked before being made available to the legislature. It indicted top Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders as being actively involved in the meticulous planning of the demolition of the mosque. It was a day of angry exchanges in parliament, and cries of "Shame, shame!" in the Lok Sabha as the opposition accused the Home Ministry of deliberately leaking the report. The Parliament session had to be adjourned for the day. Parliament delayed discussion of the report and the accompanying Action Taken Report (ATR), which contained mostly recommendations, until 22 December 2009.
The report was finally discussed and debated in the Parliament after a delay caused by demands from some members of the Parliament for the Hindi translated version of the report. The Lok Sabha debated the report on 8 November 2009 and the Rajya Sabha followed on the 10 and 11 November   .
The report holds 68 people culpable, including L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and more critically, Kalyan Singh, the then-Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The report accused the RSS of being the chief architect of the demolition and names it as the core of the Sangh Parivar.
The Commission has identified the Kalyan Singh-led BJP government in Uttar Pradesh as the key to the execution of the conspiracy to demolish Babri Masjid. Justice M S Liberhan termed Atal Behari Vajpayee, L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi as pseudo-moderates, pretending to keep a distance from the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign when they were actually aware of the whole conspiracy.[18 ][19 ] The report said, "They have violated the trust of the people.... There can be no greater betrayal or crime in a democracy and this Commission has no hesitation in condemning these pseudo-moderates for their sins of omission".[22 ]
Kalyan Singh, who was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh during the mosque’s demolition, has come in for harsh criticism in the report. He is accused of posting bureaucrats and police officers who would stay silent during the mosque’s demolition in Ayodhya. Indicting the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, the one-man commission said in its report: "Kalyan Singh's government was the essential component needed by the Sangh Parivar for its purposes. Kalyan Singh lived up to the expectations of the Parivar" .
The commission’s report in effect says Singh and his Cabinet allowed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to directly run his government. It states that the government had "systematically and in a pre-planned manner removed inconvenient bureaucrats from positions of power, dismantled and diluted the security apparatus and infrastructure, lied consistently to the high court and the Supreme Court of India and to the people of India to evade constitutional governance and thus betrayed the confidence of the electorate".
The Liberhan Commission satated about the demolition:
To the commission’s observation that the demolition was pre-planned, Chapter 1: page no 15, para 7.4 of the report wherein it admits: “No evidence, lead or information was provided to the commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise by any of these counsels... (of the Muslim organisations)”.
Moreover, the commission noted (at page 782, para 130.24) that, “...Home Secretary Godbole stated that there was no information of planning and as such it could not be inferred that there was a conspiracy of the Congress and BJP for demolition.” 
"The chief minister and his cabinet were the proverbial insiders who caused the collapse of the entire system."
Singh allegedly maintained a "studied silence" even at the height of the crisis in December 1992 and "refused to allow even a single measure which might impede the Ayodhya campaign or prevent the assault on the disputed structures, the journalists or the innocent people." He allegedly did not direct the police "to use force or resort to firing to chase away the miscreants or to save the lives of those wretched innocents..." even though he was alerted that the mosque had been demolished and rioters were attacking Muslims in Ayodhya.
"The wanton violence against human life and property continued unabated and even at that late stage, the chief minister did not use the central forces which could have been swiftly deployed", the report further states.
Uma Bharti, Govindacharya, Kalyan Singh and Shanker Singh Vaghela, all of whom were members of the BJP then, are held primarily responsible for the destruction of the mosque and the report says that they could have prevented the assault.Senior BJP leaders Atal Behari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi are called “pseudo-moderates”. The report holds them intellectually and ideologically responsible for the mosque’s destruction. The report says that they gave false assurances to court, people and the nation.Vajpayee, Prime Minister in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, was not present on December 6, 1992 when the mosque was brought down, but the report says it cannot be assumed that Vajpayee, Advani and others did not know of the designs of the Sangh Parivar.
The Report, headed by Justice Liberhan, contained no criticism of the 1992 Indian government and then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao. and supports Rao's stand that legally and constitutionally, the central government could not impose President's Rule in the state of Uttar Pradesh in December 1992.
The report submitted by Justice Liberhan has come under severe criticism for being biased and rhetorical in nature. It has been pointed out that, The report also noted (in para 18.3 on page 63) that “although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from going to the disputed structure or from offering namaz therein either by the judiciary or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since 1934. No processions were taken out inside the disputed structure nor any grave dug there about.”
Justice Liberhan has agreed that “Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of Lord Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city” and “ancient Ayodhya was traditionally the epitome of Hindu life, culture and a paradigm of coexistence of a multi-religious society. It was a peaceful place with a regular influx of visitors, pilgrims, sadhus and sants, monks, travellers, tourists.”
BJP president Rajnath Singh will open the debate on the Liberhan Commission report in the Lok Sabha while Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley is expected to lead the party charge in the Rajya Sabha. The Lok Sabha debated the report on December 1,2009 and the Rajya Sabha on December 7, 2009. The BJP had initially decided to field Sushma Swaraj as the lead speaker in the Lower House, but she will now be the second speaker on the issue. The performance of its star speakers in both Houses will be keenly watched by the RSS, say party sources.While the initial plan would have seen the quartet of Delhi BJP leaders — Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, in addition to Venkaiah Naidu, and Ananth Kumar — holding forth on the Ayodhya debate, sources say that Rajnath, whose term as party president technically ends on November 26,2009, “didn't want to be left out of the debate”.
Speaking in the Parliament, Jaitley led the charge against the report and against Justice Liberhan personally. Jaitley suggested that Justice Liberhan may not have actually authored the report and reiterating what Sushma Swaraj had read out in the Lok Sabha, citing from page 999 of the report, commented that Justice Liberhan had credited Commission's Counsel Harpreet Singh Giani with helping with the analysis, conclusions, editing and language and therefore called it the "Liberhan-Giani" report. He charged the report with "factual hallucinations". He cited the incorrect date of Mahatma Gandhi's assassination as well as the inclusion of the names of some historians in the report as evidence. RSS.
Possibly,the most surprising individual name mentioned in the report is that of former Indian Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee.
The BJP's iconography usually presents L.K. Advani as the hardliner and A.B. Vajpayee as the liberal consensus- builder. He is packaged as the poet-politician, a man often out of sync with the inner core of his party, a man who never connected with the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation, who tried to clip the wings of Narendra Modi, who actually made a bid for Muslim votes.
Vajpayee is considered the ultimate pundit, one who had mastered the art of moral [ambiguities and dualism inherent in the great Indian traditions. Justice Liberhan gave it another name when he called him a “pseudo-moderate”. It is a intresting phrase to use for a leader of a party that had coined the term "pseudo-secularist". The immediate joke in political circles is that Justice Liberhan took a very long time to discover what RSS/BJP ideologue K.N. Govindacharya apparently said years ago—that Vajpayee was a “mukhauta” or a mask.
In 1992 little over 12 hours before the Babri Masjid (on 5 December,1992) was demolished,Vajpayee gives a speech,there is no reference to the Babri Masjid in his speech as such.Yet, there are some curious words that are open to interpretation. "The Supreme Court has allowed bhajan-kirtan. One man cannot perform bhajan alone. And many people need to gather for kirtan. And kirtan cannot be performed standing up. How long can we stand?" Now comes the extraordinary punchline: "Sharp stones are emerging from the ground. No one can sit on them. The ground has to be levelled (Zameen ko samtal karna padega)." Vajpayee goes along with the mood of the crowd. "I have heard that because of the excitement of the karsevaks and because of the large crowds already at Ayodhya, it has been difficult for many to even walk in Ayodhya." Then he adds: "I have been instructed not to visit Ayodhya and I shall abide by this. I have no wish to visit the court and get tried in any case. The court has also decided to give their verdict on December 11 (1992). I shall not criticise the court."
Yet, Vajpayee goes on to make his own interpretation of the court's instructions. "I will tell you the arth (meaning) of the Supreme Court verdict. It does not mean we have to stop kar seva. Actually, the Supreme Court has given us the right to continue kar seva. Rokne ka to sawal hi nahin hai (There is no question of stopping us). Tomorrow we will not be violating any court order if we perform kar seva. It is however true that the Supreme Court has ruled that till the Lucknow bench announces its decision, you people cannot do mandir nirman (construction of temple)."
The Liberhan Report, which assigns responsibility for the demolition includes Vajpayee on a list of 68 people responsible for "leading the country to the brink of communal discord. The Congress says there's little doubt that Vajpayee knew what was about to unfold when he gave that speech. "We cannot forget the day before the demolition... of Vajpayee's statement of sharp stones," says Congress spokesperson Jayanti Natarajan.It is fairly biting about Vajpayee. Noting that he was not in Ayodhya during the demolition of the mosque, it says there were obvious attempts that some leaders were "kept out to preserve secular credentials." Suggesting that Vajpayee cannot be excused, the report says, "The Babri demolition cartel was supported by icons of movement like Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Vajpayee."
In an interview with Outlook magazine, Vajpayee had the transcript and VCD of his own speech placed on a table by his side. He had watched the recording earlier that afternoon. He often picked up the transcript to stress that there was nothing he had said in his speech that could be questioned in a court of law. He pointed out that the speech was made in a certain context. "There was no plan to demolish the Babri structure. Yes, everyone felt a temple should be built. Kaise banega, is par behas thi (there were arguments about how this would be achieved). "Vajpayee was also clear that "mera Ayodhya andolan mein zyada role nahin tha (I did not have much of a role in the Ayodhya debate)". Questions about his so-called "differences" with Advani over Ayodhya, and Narendra Modi over the Gujarat riots, were brushed away with a smile. "But Atalji didn't you always keep an exit route for yourself when you were put under pressure by the Parivar(Sangh Parivar)? He did not respond.
But the references to Vajpayee have given the BJP some much-needed ammunition to challenge the report. After all, the same Justice Liberhan who finds Vajpayee culpable didn't ever summon him during the 17-year inquiry. Constitutional experts say if anyone's looking for a weakness in the report this could be it.
If findings have to be given against a person, he has to be heard. That's law, and the law says such persons should be heard. So if remarks are made against Vajpayee, any adverse remarks will not be legal. Vajpayee can challenge the finding... in court," explains P.P. Rao, Constitutional Expert.
Former Additional Solicitor General R K Trivedi on Tuesday said the indictment of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee by the Liberhan Commission was "legally wrong".Talking to reporters here, Trivedi expressed surprise over the figuring of Vajpayee's name in the list of those indicted by the Commission.It was "legally wrong" to include the name of a person without hearing his viewpoint, the former law officer said.Trivedi, who was the Additional Solicitor General during the NDA government, said the Commission had rejected the plea for summoning Vajpayee for questioning.
Under these circumstances, the figuring of Vajpayee's name had come as a surprise, he said.
In 2004, Mohammad Aslam, alias Bhure, one of the petitioners, moved an application in the Liberhan Commission (now in the final stages of preparing its much-awaited report on the Babri demolition) that Vajpayee should also be questioned for his knowledge of the larger conspiracy. The commission has yet to take a decision on Bhure's plea.Lending more ammunition to the BJP is IB Singh, who represented officials charged in court with the demolition of the mosque. He says, "I made a request to the commission of Inquiry- so did Mohd Aslam Bhure, who represented the minority members- to summon Mr. Vajpayee... but no orders were passed. Our petitions were not even heard" The BJP also points out that the Liberhan Report indicts other party leaders it never summoned, including Pramod Mahajan, Lalji Tandon and Govindacharya.
Though Vajpayee was a known RSS member,he was apparently a out of place moderate in[BJP. Perhaps the BJP wished Hindu awakening from this incident,but they also assumed it could mean legal trouble.The party needed a moderate face if they wished to come to power. One leader, a fine parliamentarian with cross-party ties, would be spared the mud that would rise at Ayodhya. In the event of assuming high office, he would be the chosen one as it happened in 1999.It is known that Advani is the man behind the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. On the other side Vajpayee achieved the trust of the people and became one of India's most liked Prime Minister. He is credited with making India a nuclear power and many such popularly and critically acclaimed decisions. (Pokhran-II, Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana)
Vajpayee's name in this shameful incident not only surprised his followers,but also his opponents who disagreed with his policies but thought of him as a man of high morals.It is a compulsive conspiracy theory. But there is not enough hard evidence to prove it conclusively. On the other hand, the evidence so far does not disprove it either. The Ayodhya debate remains as open-ended and oblique as many of Vajpayee's statements.
BJP claimed "selective leaks" of the Liberhan Commission report to the media were planned and motivated, saying they had come at a time when the whole opposition was united against the government.
Claiming that the UPA government did not intend to table the full report as it indicts the then Congress government of P V Narasimha Rao, Deputy Leader of BJP in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj said the Home Ministry leaked the report to divert attention from the issues being raised by a united opposition.Recently the BJP has been raising the issue of rising prices of essential commodities.
"This is a planned leak. It is a motivated leak. The first motivation for leaking the report is the unity in opposition on the sugarcane price issue which the government wanted to break. This unity would have continued on price rise and other issues," Swaraj said.
The senior BJP leader further alleged that the government wanted to divert attention from the opposition its plan of raising Madhu Koda and 2G Spectrum allocation scams in Parliament.
BJP President Rajnath Singh accused the government of "selectively leaking" the Liberhan Commission report on Babri Masjid demolition to the media with the aim of "polarising" voters ahead of the assembly elections in Jharkhand..
"The selective leakage was intentional. A report of any commission is traditionally placed on the first day of the Parliament session. The government could have placed it in the House in July as the Liberhan Commission report was given to the government on June 30," he told reporters.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) also stated that millions of Hindus in the country want Ram temple.
Addressing mediapersons at the party headquarter in New Delhi, BJP spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad said, "We want a Ram temple. There should be a constructive solution." Prasad also claimed that BJP leaders had tried to save the structure and that the party has evidence of that.
Earlier, reacting to the report, former BJP leader Uma Bharti, who was in Ayodhya on the day of the demolition, said that the party should come clean over the issue. "Babri report should be published and BJP should come clean over it. "I am not apologetic at all, I am willing to be hanged for my role. I want Ram Temple, but I didn't want the mosque to be destroyed that way". She also said that it was difficult to pinpoint people responsible for mosque demolition.
The BJP termed the Justice M S Liberhan Commission as politically motivated and charged the Congress with providing the "cushion" for demolition of the controversial structure at Ayodhya.
Continuing the tirade against Justice Liberhan Commission and the ATR tabled in Parliament recently, state BJP President and a member of parliament Radha Mohan Singh alleged that the findings of the Commission were "perverse and ill-founded".
In fact, the Congress should be blamed for the demolition as the Congress-led government had opened the locks of the Ram Mandir, organised the shilanayas of the temple at the controversial site thereby providing a "cushion to Ram sevaks" to demolish the controversial structure, Singh claimed.
The Liberhan report has been very critical of mass Hindu organizations,especially the RSS. It says that demolition of Babri in Ayodhya has been a longtime objective of the RSS. It accuses RSS of utilizing its large volunteer base to accomplish this task.The RSS has always maintained that the demolition was spontaneous. The report suggests otherwise.
The Sangh Parivar is a "highly successful and corporatised model of a political party" and as the Ayodhya campaign demonstrated, has developed a highly efficient organisational structure, the Liberhan Commission said in its report.
It said the BJP "was and remains an appendage of the RSS, which had the purpose only of providing an acceptable veneer to the less popular decisions and a facade for the brash members of the Sangh Parivar".
The Commission,observed, "The blame or the credit for the entire temple construction movement at Ayodhya must necessarily be attributed to the Sangh Parivar".
It noted that the Sangh Parivar is an "extensive and widespread organic body", which encompasses organisations, which address and assimilate just about every type of social, professional and other demographic grouping of individuals.
"Each time, a new demographic group has emerged, the Sangh Parivar has hived off some of its RSS inner-core leadership to harness that group and bring it within the fold, enhancing the voter base of the Parivar."
A book authored by a former senior Indian intelligence officer revealed that demolition of the historic Babri Mosque at Ayodhya was planned 10 months in advance by Hindu extremist leaders of Rashtriya Sevak Sang (RSS), Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The author, a former Intelligence Bureau Joint Director, Maloy Krishna Dhar in his book "Open Secrets-India's intelligence unveiled" pointed out that the blue print for demolition of the mosque was drawn in a meeting held in February 1992 attended by leaders of the extremist Hindu groups.
The leaders agreed to work together.They always maintained that demolition was unprecedented and top leaders had tried to hold back the Karsevaks. He goes on to say that in a meeting on the previous day,the RSS, VHP, BJP and Shiv Sena leaders there was "silent resoluteness and agreement that Ayodhya offered a unique opportunity to take the Hindutva wave to the peak for deriving political benefit. The iron was hot and this was the time to hit."
Dhar merged with the huge crowd as a journalist and found Shiv Sena activists engaged in vandalism and RSS members inflaming everyone." L.K. Advani had spat fire from the pulpit but he failed to control the flames. Taped videos substantiated that he was progenitor of the tsunami effect that he failed to control at the vital moment of destiny," says Dhar claiming to have made a videotape and 70 still photos.
Seeking to distance Hindu organisations from the Babri Mosque demolition, RSS chief K C Sudershan said that the Babri Mosque was demolished by government men and not by the Karsevaks. "The mosque was demolished by the government men and not by the Karsevaks," he said while addressing a gathering of RSS cadre and public at a meeting.Without mentioning whether he was referring to the Kalyan Singh-led-BJP government in power in Uttar Pradesh or the Congress regime at Centre then, he said he was present at Ayodhya and wanted to construct the Ram Temple at an undisputed place but they could not do so as the government men demolished Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992.Sudershan, who spoke in a three-day function of RSS Madhya Bharat Pranth, said that under a conspiracy, the names of the Hindu Organisations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal (BD) were dragged in bringing down the structure.
He contested Liberhan Commission's claim that demolition of the Babri Mosque was planned and charged "dilly-dally" by the then government of Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao was responsible for the incident.
"It was not a planned incident. Because of the dilly-dallying attitude by the then Prime Minister and delay in court judgements, things went out of control as lakhs of people gathered at Ayodhya for kar seva," Sudarshan told a press conference.
He claimed when the people, who had climbed the canopy of the disputed structure, were unable to break it with heavy hammers and 'saabal' (long iron rod), the armed forces personnel present there caused the damage to its walls by triggering an explosive.Once the walls collapsed, the entire canopy of the Babri mosque caved in, he said. He claimed a powerful Congress leader of Maharashtra, whose name he did not disclose, had told him at senior BJP leader late K R Malkani's house in Delhi that the party had a plan to dislodge the government headed by Narasimha Rao "in the name of temple movement so that he could replace him"
While K C Sudarshan said this, again after two days, RSS, the mother organization of Bharatiya Janata Party, on Tuesday owned the Ayodhya movement but refused to apologise about what happened in Ayodhya in 1992 which led to demolition of the Babri mosque. Ram Madhav,a RSS leader and former spokesperson of the Sangh said on a private channel,"We fully own up the movement. We mobilized people. People should respect the sentiment of crores of people.We are not going to apologise. Our agitation echoed the sentiment of the people at the time. It was a spontaneous act of anger by people," Madhav added.
Putting up a brave face in the wake of Liberhan Commission report, the VHP said the demolition of Babri mosque was the proudest moment for Hindus and asserted it was committed to building a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.
"Reports like that of the Liberhan Commission come and go. But, the Hindu culture, which takes pride in its heritage and protects its places of worship, has been in place for ages and will remain so for ever," VHP leader Praveen Togadia said."Any symbolic structure left by an invader in Akhand Bharat is a national shame. And the demolition of Babri mosque was the proudest moment for Hindus," he said in a statement.Togadia asserted the VHP was committed to building a great Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and was ready to make any sacrifice for achieving this. "A magnificent temple will be built at the site. It is a socio-religious, cultural and legal right of the Hindus," the VHP secretary general said.
The VHP pointed out that in para 158.3, the commission says it(Ayodhya debate) “...never became a movement...” whereas in para 158.9 & 159.10, it contradicted itself with the contention as to “entire process of the movement” and “...leaders of the movement”.
The VHP says the commission failed to make any adverse comment on certain individuals despite observing in para 26.2 on page 88 that “...It is noteworthy that no member of the Muslim community from Ayodhya was a member of the Babri Masjid Action Committee or other committee protesting the opening of locks at the disputed structure. Sultan Shahabuddin Owaisi, a Member of Parliament from Hyderabad, challenged the opening of locks along with some others became a forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation”
The VHP said that after more than 40 extensions “during seventeen long years and wasting taxpayers’ money the commission had prepared a useless report.” The commission declared many prominent personalities as culpable without giving them a chance of hearing.“It is shameful that in its long list of culprits one had already been died before the date of incident and seventeen thereafter before the submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards the apex court of the country, media, head of the State (Governor) and other respectable segments of the society are highly unacceptable,” it said.