Kalyan Singh was understood to be the “real culprit” for the demolition of Babri Masjid, but his officer in the information department, Anil Swarup, had first-hand knowledge of what had happened on the day of the demolition. Swarup later retired as secretary for school education and literacy in the Ministry of Education. Excerpts from her book ‘Ethical Dilemmas of a Public Official’:
Ironically, what emerged in the 2019 Supreme Court ruling was the solution that Kalyan Singh had been working on and trying to convince various parties to join.
While writing the chapter on Babri Masjid titled “When It All Collapsed” in my book Not Just an Official, I was faced with a dilemma.
Kalyan Singh was understood to be the “real culprit” of this demolition, but I had first-hand knowledge of what had happened on the day of the demolition. I was wondering if that should be shared with readers. There was nothing illegal in what I wrote, but the dilemma was being aware of some private conversations and whether to release those private conversations into the public domain in order to put certain facts before the public.
Babri Masjid it was a bone of contention between the Hindu and Muslim communities since the 19th century. Although the disputed structure was apparently built during 1520-29 CE by Mir Baqi on the order of the Mughal Emperor, Babar.
The mosque was located on a hill known as ‘Ramkot’.
Hindus believed that Baqi had destroyed a pre-existing temple of Branch in the place. They also believed that Rama was born here. This belief emanates from the Sawai Jai Singh documents. In fact, in the Kapad-Dwar collection in the Jaipur City Palace Museum, there is a sketch of the Babri Masjid site. The map shows an open courtyard and a built structure that resembles Babri. Masjid with three domes. The courtyard is mentioned as’Janmsthan‘and shows a’Chabutara Branch‘.
In 1853, a group of Hindu ascetics occupied the site and claimed ownership of the structure. In 1855, after a confrontation between Hindus and Muslims, a border wall was built to prevent further disputes. Consequently, Muslims offered prayers in the inner courtyard and Hindus on the raised platform.
The dispute took on a legal dimension when in 1877, Syed Mohammad Asghar, the guardian of the structure, presented a petition to the Faizabad Commissioner requesting restraint from the Hindus who had erected a Chabutara at the place considered to be Ram’s birthplace.
In December 1949, Akhil Bhartiya Ramayan Mahasabha organized a 9-day recital of the ‘Ramcharitmanas‘outside the mosque. On the morning of December 23, 1949, the event organizers announced that the idols of Branch Y Sita had miraculously appeared and exhorted the Hindus to come for ‘darshan‘.
Given the sensitivity of the issue, the government declared the mosque a disputed area and closed the doors. The unlocking of the doors took place in 1986 when all Hindus had access to the site.
A massive campaign was subsequently launched to build a Branch temple on site. It was in this context that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Kalyan Singh, came to power in Uttar Pradesh and I was appointed Director of Information and Public Relations.
Kalyan Singh had taken his job seriously. He was certainly worried about the Branch Mandir, but upon taking office, he made clear his intentions to provide an honest and determined government. He was interested in getting a message across that he was serious. His vision went far beyond the Mandir.
Their goal was to build a new and vibrant Uttar Pradesh.
A list of those officers who had honest credentials to fill critical positions such as district magistrates and department secretaries was compiled at his request. It sought to control certain social ills, such as mass copying in school exams. Cabinet meetings dragged on for hours, discussing politics on various issues before taking one last call.
He got a group of extremely brilliant officers like Sanjay Aggarwal and Anant Kumar Singh (both became Secretaries of the Government of India later) in his Secretariat.
He left no stone unturned to achieve his goal. The improvements were clearly evidenced in the way services were delivered in the field and in the positions of competent officials. These officers were provided security of tenure (the state was known for its burgeoning “transfer industry”) and the necessary backing to carry out the task of implementing policies.
He wanted a great temple in Ayodhya and was working diligently to achieve a peaceful and friendly consensus. In fact, some options arose. One of those options was the construction of a new masjid near the site. He even gave an example of the change of mosques when the Aswan Dam in Egypt was being built. This idea was gradually gaining popularity. He was interacting intensely with all the stakeholders. However, he was totally against the aggressive stance that was the hallmark of right-wing religious organizations.
Ironically, what emerged in the Supreme Court ruling in 2019 was the solution that Kalyan Singh had been working on and trying to convince various parties to join.
However, what happened on December 6, 1992, also surprised him. Those who believe that Kalyan Singh was the man behind this demolition overlook the fact that he had an absolute majority in the assembly. Why would he want to overthrow his own government in case the Masjid is demolished? Surely he would have known the consequences of the demolition. In his repeated interactions with the central leadership, he was arguing against the congregation of karsevaks in the place.
This became apparent on December 6 in his telephone conversation with Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the then chief minister of Rajasthan. I was present when this conversation took place. Kalyan Singh was livid. He reiterated that he was against such a congregation, but he was dominated and no one listened to him. His reservation about such a congregation was not based on apprehension of a mishap (he was somehow convinced that the structure will never collapse the way it ultimately did), but on the unnecessary distractions such events created. He also opposed the congregation in July but, fortunately, no adverse incidents occurred then.
The other argument that is often raised is, why didn’t he allow the central forces that were stationed nearby to handle the situation? It is a fact that Kalyan Singh did not allow the central forces to take over or seek his help, but it does not automatically imply that he did not allow the central forces to enter because he wanted the demolition to take place.
Kalyan Singh believed that, as in July, the karsevaks I would return after acting Pooja and that no harm would come to the Masjid. However, this time he was wrong. The structure collapsed and, with it, he toppled his government.
.
