New Delhi: Muslims rarely participated in the proceedings of the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry according to the report submitted after 17 long years of inquiry.
Initially lawyers representing Babri Masjid Action Committee, Wakf Board, and other Muslim organizations and individuals appeared before the commission but may be due to various extensions to this commission, they lost hope and appeared rarely later on.
Justice Liberhan said in the report that those who did appear, provided no help to the commission and their cross examination or submissions were ineffective.
Advocate Mushtaq Ahmed started appearing five years after the Commission was set up. Counsel for All Indian Muslims Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) joined a decade later. Lawyer representing Syed Shahabuddin, one of the prominent leaders of the Babri Masjid movement appeared only once and twice and according to the report “made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry.”
Mushtaq Ahmed cross examined some witnesses while Yusuf Mucchala representing AIMPLB cross examined some key witnesses including LK Advani.
Liberhan Commission which was set up to investigate the conspiracy angle of the demolition of the historic Babri Masjid in Ayodhya got no evidence or information in the conspiratorial nature of the demolition.
Report also has strong words for Advocate OP Sharma who represents Mohammad Aslam Bhure, the petitioner in the Babri Masjid case, was “equally ineffective,” according to Justice Liberhan.
Other than cross-examining some witnesses, Just Liberhan observed that “there was no effective participation on behalf of Muslims as a community or otherwise.” They give no evidence to suggest alternative theories or their own version of the events that led to the demolition. The report further indicts Muslim leaders by saying: “Responsible educated literate citizens claiming to be the leaders of a particular community, or the ones who participated in negotiations preceding the demolition etc. never came forward to disclose any material, or facts in any form. With one or two exception, no substantial help was rendered by them. They did not help the commission in collecting of evidence or by participating in the commission’s proceedings or by leading any evidence.”