Liberhan Report:
The commissions of inquiry appointed by various governments in the country have, in the past, only proved to be a wastage of time, money and energy. Their reports have hardly served any useful purpose, except that they gather dust in the offices. This has been proved once more - and more decisively - in the case of the latest report of Liberahan Commission whose report was laid on the table of Parliament last week. In 17 long years, the longest for any commission of inquiry, after spending tens of crores of the peoples' hard earned money, it is now clear the Commission was just trying to make mountain of a mole hill.
No commission report has derived that much derision and lack of respect as the Liberahan report has. Political analysts have gone to the extent of saying that it does not deserve to be wasted seventeen minutes for which the Commission took 17 years. It is full of contradictors and anomalies.
The Commission headed by a judge of the high court failed to observe the basic requirement of the law of criminal jurisprudence according to which no individual or organization can be held guilty unless they have been made aware of the allegations against them and given the opportunity to prove their innocence. There are numerous individuals who have been adversely commented upon and found guilty of misconduct although they were neither given notice by the Commission nor were called to depose before it.
It appears to have been working with a pre-meditated notion and prejudice to hold some individuals and organizations guilty and give a clean chit to others.
The Commission makes strange comments too. Whatever the form of government no people or leaders in any country want that the media in their country should not be free, fair, objective and impartial. But it goes to the credit of Justice Liberhan when he says: "There is no requirement that the media must be unbiased or independent or that it must not take sides". Nothing more needs to be said on this.
Justice Liberhan seems not to have known his own limits. He says: "For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the Governor, the inexplicable irresponsibility of the Supreme Court observer and the shortsightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb." Never have we heard of a judge of the high court commenting on the conduct of his superior court, the Supreme Court of India in this case.
"Prognosis of evidence", says the Commission, "leads to the conclusion that the mobilisation of the Karsevaks and their convergence to Ayodhya and Faizabad was neither spontaneous nor voluntary. It was well-orchestrated and planned......" But from where does he get the "evidence"? The Bahri Tribunal constituted by the Government of India following banning of the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal (whose recommendations are mandatory for the government and not recommendatory as in the case of Liberhan Commission), it says that the senior most officer of the Intelligence Bureau authorized by the Government of India to depose before it "categorically admitted that there was no material evidence to show that these associations had pre-planned the destruction of the disputed structure". The Tribunal set aside the ban on RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad. But Liberhan Commission finds "evidence" of their involvement and conspiracy.
At the same time in the Report the Commission regrets that the Muslim organizations "made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry". He goes on further to lament that "Responsible educated literate citizens claiming to be the leaders of a particular community, or the ones who participated in negotiating preceding the demolition, etc... never came forward to disclose any material or facts in any form". Yet he returns a verdict of "conspiracy".
Writing or commenting more will just be another waste of our time and the time of our readers.
| 
Ram Kumar Ohri
(0 vote)