Liberhan doesn’t even notice that underneath Babri structure were temples.
Here is a precise report (not from Liberhan!):
Open source literature indicates that from 1975 through 1980, the Archaeological Survey of India under the Directorship of Professor B.B. Lal, a former Director General of the Survey, undertook an extensive programme of excavation at Ayodhya, including the very mound of the Ramajanmabhumi on which the so-called “Janmasthan Masjid” or Babri Mosque once stood and was later demolished on 6th December 1992. He discovered a Hindu temple built on archaeological levels formed prior to 13th century AD. Supporting Prof. Lal’s discovery was Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArcha eologist ( Madras Circle ), who was a trainee at that juncture. He had written : ” I can reiterate this (ie. The existence of the Hindu Temple before it was displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof. Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSING THE OTHER.”
Then came the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court mandated ASI excavations at the site in the summer of 2001, using ‘ground penetrating radar’. Here again the ASI team discovered the ruins of a demolished 16th Century A.D. Hindu Temple.
The fact of the matter is that the archaeological evidence is irrefutable and has already shown the existence of two Hindu Temples at the site – one belonging to the Delhi Sultanate Period and the second during Babur’s reign. That these never appeared in the media is an altogether different story.
H. Balakrishnan
Liberties Liberhan took
Chandan Mitra
Remember Gulzari Lal Nanda? Although he was Prime Minister twice, I can bet only the 60-plus generation of informed citizens and quiz show participants will recall the name, fame or lack of it. GL Nanda last hit the news pages about 20 years ago when he was unceremoniously thrown out bag and baggage from a flat in Delhi’s Defence Colony for non-payment of rent. The elderly Gandhian leader died shortly thereafter in near-penury after leading a long ascetic life. The ramrod straight Congress leader of yesteryear used to wash his own clothes and cook his own meals till he was too old, infirm and bed-ridden. Upon the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1963 and Lal Bahadur Shastri in early 1966, Nanda was sworn in as Prime Minister for brief periods by virtue of being the senior-most member of the Cabinet. Although described as Acting PM by the media, his name adorns the record books because the Constitution does not recognise any category as ‘Acting’. He dutifully resigned on both occasions after the party chose Shastri and Indira Gandhi respectively to head the Government and was re-inducted into the Cabinet by both his successors.
Poor Gulzari Lal Nanda has been resurrected once more, this time in rather unflattering light. On page 336 of the 1,000-page-plus Justice MS Liberhan Report, there is a stinging indictment of Nanda along with former RSS chief Prof Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiyya) and Dau Dayal Khanna (a respected advocate of post-Partition refugee rehabilitation) . They have been blamed for being “ardent Hindus” who created an atmosphere in which radical Hindu sentiment could grow. Nanda’s ashes must be churning in their urn at the bracketing. But more sinisterly, Liberhan insinuates that the efforts by leaders like GL Nanda eventually culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid!
If anyone has the patience or masochistic passion to labour through Liberhan’s voluminous essay on the state of the Indian polity since Independence, he will discover many prize gems of this nature. Still one thing must be said in Liberhan’s favour: Loyalist ho toh aisa! The man who appointed him to the job to which Liberhan clung on for 17 long years emerges as the silent hero of the so-called inquiry report. And why not, for thanks to PV Narasimha Rao, the retired Supreme Court judge was able to secure a bungalow in Central Delhi, a posse of staff, vehicles and other facilities at his disposal. As a result of Rao’s largesse and the indecision of subsequent United Front, NDA and UPA Governments, Liberhan’s Commission cost the exchequer a whopping Rs 8 crore in salaries alone! We don’t as yet know what the total extent of us taxpayers’ money that was squandered on producing the costliest essay in history!
Having plodded through much of this alleged report, I was left wondering who actually wrote the document. Almost every page reeks with JNU’s left-secularist ardour, barring the occasional bad grammar. It seems so pre-determined that the entire purpose of undertaking what was meant to be an “impartial inquiry” becomes a breathless blitz against Hindu sentiment. Terms like pseudo-moderate, used particularly to lampoon Atal Bihari Vajpayee give the game away. It’s typically JNU intelligentsia’s too-clever-by- half retort to LK Advani’s famous coinage — pseudo-secularist. There are long passages of pedestrian political philosophy lamenting how some politicians prioritise pursuit of power, as if politicians are supposed to renounce politics, abjure power, migrate to the jungles and meditate over their destiny!
Copious tears are shed over the presumed attempt by some people to perpetuate casteism (what’s that got to with Babri?) and damage India’s secular fabric although that is a basic feature of the Constitution. (The word ‘secular’, incidentally, was introduced in the Preamble of the Constitution along with ‘socialist’ only by an amendment passed during the Emergency years by Indira Gandhi). Also ironic is the fact that Justice Liberhan took nearly 182 months to compile his report when the same thing was completed by the CBI in 9! Cases are going on in various courts on the basis of CBI charge-sheets since then. In other words, the Liberhan report is of mere academic interest today although the use of ‘academic’ in the context of this boring essay is rather misplaced.
It is not my intention to compete with Justice Liberhan to produce an antidote for insomnia. I shall, therefore, refer only to something that concerns me personally. Having just come across LK Advani’s testimony before the Commission spanning from April 2001 to January 2002, I was surprised by the number of references to my reports regarding the fateful events of December 6, 1992, that appeared in Hindustan Times (of which I was then Executive Editor). On several occasions, the Commission’s counsel Anupam Gupta, whose ideological affinities are well known, attempted to trip up Advani by referring to passages in two reports I filed from Ayodhya (“All domes collapse under kar sewaks’ onslaught” published December 7 and “Control room that had no control”, December 8, 1992). In his reply to one of Gupta’s queries, Advani said: “I would think that as Chandan Mitra has said this, Chandan Mitra would be a very valuable witness before the Commission because I can affirm that he was present on the terrace (Ram Katha Kunj, makeshift dais where BJP/VHP leaders had assembled) for most of the time. And, therefore, if the Commission were to hear from him what precisely he saw and heard, that would be a very valuable testimony.”
Interestingly, I never got any summons from the Commission although it questioned 1,500 witnesses and virtually every journalist who was present in the Ram Mandir/Babri Masjid complex that day. In its report, the Commission narrates at length the alleged manhandling of Ruchira Gupta who was reporting for Business India those days. It reproduces without verification her (patently false) claim that she was manhandled by kar sewaks and her clothes torn. Had the Commission summoned me I would have testified under oath that nothing of the kind happened. She accompanied me, despite my pleas to the contrary, when I decided to visit the structure under destruction. In fact, she was saved by an assistant to Pramod Mahajan who pushed her out of the way because some kar sewaks got agitated by her remarks and demanded to know who she was, doubting her claim to be a kar sewak despite the saffron bandana she wore to pretend being a member of the demolition squad.
I was not remotely associated with the BJP those days and my reports in HT were factual and non-commentative, unlike those of my Leftist compatriots. Those two reports are still widely referred to by Western researchers into the demolition and its aftermath. Yet, the Commission never thought it fit to call me for evidence. But then, I am in august company. Justice Liberhan who liberally savages Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his report, never called him to testify either. After the leak of the document, Liberhan even denied on camera that Vajpayee had been pilloried. I can excuse the retired judge. If anybody takes 17 years to compile a litany of half-truths and untruths, memory can well play truant. Unless, of course, the report’s authorship itself is in some doubt!
http://dailypioneer .com/219008/ Liberties- Liberhan- took.html
VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD
Sankat Mochan Ashram, Sector-6, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022
Tel. 011-26178992, 26103495 Fax : 26195527
Dec. 1, 2009
ANALYSIS OF THE LIBERHAN AYODHYA COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT
COMMISSION EXPOSED MORE THAN THE FACTS
The Commission was constituted with the following terms of reference to enquire into the following issues:-
1. Sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the occurrence in the RJBM complex at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 involving the destruction of the RJBM structure.
2. The role played by the Chief Minister, Members of the Council of Ministers, Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by the individuals, concerned organizations and agencies in or in connection with the destruction of the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid structure.
3. The deficiencies in the security measures and other arrangements as prescribed or operated in practice by the Government of Uttar Pradesh which might have contributed to the events that took place in the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid complex, Ayodhya town and Faizabad on 6th December, 1992.
4. The sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assault on media persons at Ayodhya on 6th of December, 1992 and
5. Any other matter related to the subject of enquiry.
Preliminary observations:
The Commission took seventeen long years to present its final report. The Commission has cost the nation tens of crores of rupees. It has failed to come up to the expectations of the people. It has failed to dig out facts and serve the purpose for which it was constituted. The report appears to be the handiwork of a prejudiced mind that had made up his mind to give the report on a particular persons &/or institutions. The Commission seems to have decided beforehand to give a report of guilty to some individuals and organizations and to give a clean chit to others. In the process, the Commission has ended in exposing itself more than exposing the truth behind the episode. The report stands punctured with numerous contradictions and anomalies.
It is important to note that the Commission has rarely visited the spot where the alleged incident took place. Its report is paralyzed with the absence of detailed visit of Ayodhya and the fact that it has been written only in office. Further, the office of the Commission was declared by the Government of India to be in Lucknow, but he never functioned from there but from Delhi.
Went beyond the terms of reference:
1. The Commission in its report in Chapter No. 14 (Conclusions) on Page 942, Paragraph No. 166.8 says… .”The much repeated and much denied remarks attributed to Govindacharya ———— ——— -
Comments: It is absolutely misplaced and irrelevant to the terms of reference. The alleged comments are also reported to have been made (and also denied) much after December, 1992.
2. At Page No. 958, Para No. 171, the Commission has listed, among others, the some persons as culpable, viz., Deoraha Baba, A.B. Vajpayee, Badri Prasad Toshniwal, Moropant Pingle, Onkar Bhave, Prof. Rajendra Singh, Gurjan Singh, G.M. Lodha, Champat Rai and so many others.
Comments: But all these persons were never called to defend themselves by the Commission. If there was any evidence or proof against any individual, then it was a legal and moral binding on the Commission to have called them to present their case and defend themselves. As a judge of High Court he should have known that this was a primary requirement for justice under the law of jurisprudence and nobody could be held guilty unless he was called to defend himself.
3. In this list, Commission has mentioned the name of Shri Pravin Togadiya also. On or before December 06, 1992, the sphere of activities of Shri Togadiya was limited to Gujarat only. And so, he was neither on the dais nor amongst the speakers of the day.
4. At Page 931, Para 162.2 Commission says: “There is no requirement that the media must be unbiased or independent or that it must not take sides”
Comment: Everywhere in the world in any form of govt. has anybody so far said that the media should not be free, fair, impartial and objective. The above comment of the commission ventures to promote a fourth estate that is unethical, irresponsible and not honest to itself.
5. At Page No. 935, Para No. 163.2 the commission 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’s observer and the shortsightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb.”
Comment: This is a highly irresponsible comment by the Chairman of the Commission who himself was a judge of the High Court. This unbecoming comment amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Commission did not call the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh to appear before him. Yet, he made these disparaging remarks against the Governor. The Commission also failed to understand that he was only a judge of the High Court and a judge of the High Court has no right to comment on the Apex court, that is the Supreme Court.
Conspiracy
6. At Page 917, Para 158.9 the commission says
“………Prognosis of evidence 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, the same report states:-
At Chapter No. 1, Page No. 15, Para No. 7.4, the Commission states
…”…no evidence was lead or information 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) .
Of the above same chapter in Para 7.5, ”……there was no effective participation on behalf of Muslims as a community or otherwise. No alternative theory or any version was put forth on behalf of the Muslims before the Commission.. .”
In the same paragraph 7.5, it states ”…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 fact in any form…..”
At Chapter 10, page 775, para 130.5
“No documentary or direct evidence is possible in a conspiracy of this nature, nor unimpeachable and firm evidence of some action of planning of demolition was obtainable”
At page 782 para 130.24 commission says:
“….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 & BJP for demolition,. ..”
Comment: Then, on what grounds, evidence and justification has the Commission come to the conclusion that it “was well-orchestrated and planned”.
At the same time it needs to be taken note of the fact that after demolition of the alleged structure on December 06, 1992 three organizations namely RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal were banned through Government notifications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 10th December, 1992. As per the requirement of this Act, a Tribunal headed by Justice P.K. Bahri, the sitting Judge of Delhi High Court was constituted on 30th December, 1992. Being a constitutional body, after due trial, the tribunal delivered its verdict on 18th June, 1993 which has been published by the Government in official gazette (The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section- II).
At Page 71 of this gazette, the tribunal holds “…It is pertinent to mention that PW-7 has categorically admitted that there was no material evidence to show that these associations had pre-planned the destruction of the disputed structure. It is admitted by PW-7 again that a video recording of the events which took place on the fateful day on December 06, 1992 at Ayodhya was prepared by the IB…”
On page No. 72 in the same verdict Justice Bahri states “…even the white paper prepared by the Central Government does not support this theory of pre-planning for destruction of the disputed structure by these associations or their workers…”
It is worth mentioning that PW-7 Mr. Padhi was a very senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau and authorised by the Government of India to present the case before the Bahri Tribunal.
The above facts clearly shows the prejudiced mind of the Commission which has written its report in a pre-meditated manner. Justice Bahri was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal he was heading, was a judicial body whose verdict was binding on the Government. On \the other hand, the report of the Liberhan Commission has no legal binding on the Government and is just recommendatory in nature which the Government may or may not accept.
The Commission seems to have been suffering from the same ailments which he mentions in Page No. 1, Chapter No. 1 (Introduction) , Para No. 1.1 ”…For some, the temptation of power is supreme. The usual means for acquiring power is through politics. There is always an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one’s own purpose — nothing matters beyond political desirable results, however achieved. In the process of acquisition of power the consequence of the process on the institution, the nation, individuals and society as a whole does not matter. Life itself becomes politicised. Objectivity or intellectual honesty or logic is lost in the process…”
Comment: His words apply more aptly to the Commission itself. Despite government orders and wish, he never functioned from Lucknow. He stuck to Delhi with “an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one’s own purpose”.
Supports Ramjanambhoomi
By accident or design, the Commission seems to have made some inadvertent observations which cannot be contradicted or controverted. He has ended up supporting the Ramjanambhoomi case:
In Chapter No. 2 (Ayodhya & its Geography)
page No. 23 the Report says:
Para 9.1: ”Ayodhya is accepted in popular Hindu tradition as the birth place of the Hindu God Rama and is therefore regarded as a holy and historical city.”
Para 9.2: ”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.”
Para 9.3 : ”Ayodhya was also known variously as Vishala, khosla(sic) or Maha Khosla, Ikshvaku, Ram Puri, Ra Janam Bhoomi”
Para 9.4: ”Ayodhya is of special and specific importance for the sect of Ram believers or those loosely term as the Ramanandis in Hindu Religion. The place was the place of unequaled pilgrimage for Hindus, Monks, travelers, pilgrims,sadhus & sants irrespective of their region & faith.”
Para 9.5 : …”This Place had become emotive issue owing to its position as the birth place of Ram, a theme present in every facet of the culture, connecting the past with the present & the future. this religious fervour had kept the town for centuries alive after success ruler had gone by.
Page 25, Para-10.3 :
“On the East of Ayodhya is Faizabad town with a population of about 2,10,000. It has a large number of temples mostly dedicated to the Hindu God Vishnu.”
Page-26, Para-10.10
“The town is currently inhibited (sic) (inhabited!) With a multi-religious population consisting of Muslims, Buddhist, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc., but the majority of the population is Hindu. The temples were open to public of all denominations.”
Page 29, Para 12.1
“There are large numbers of temples, mosques, shrines, tombs, gardens and other religious monuments spread over a large area; rather, metaphorically it is said that in Ayodhya every house is a temple.”
Page 29, Para 12.2
“Prominent temples were Sankat Mochan Mandir, Shakti Gopal Mandir, Shesh Avatar temple, Ved Mandir, Maniram Ki Chawni, Hanuman Garhi, Preethi Ke Thakur, Kanak Bhawan, Rang Mahal, Anand Bhawan, and Kasushalya Bhawan…… ..”
Page 32, Para 12.12
“The topography and facts about Ram Katha Kunj, Ayodhya town or the Ram Janambhoomi complex or Ram Katha Kunj or the disputed structure are however not disputed. The facts are corroborated by NC Padhi in his statement with no contradiction.”
Chapter-4 (Sequence of Events)
Page 61, Para 18.6
“In the year 1528, the Mughal Emperor Babar ordered his commander Mir Baqi to erect a mosque at Ayodhya. Protagonists of the present movement claimed that after demolishing the temple at the birth place of Ram, Mir Baqi constructed the mosque i.e. the “disputed structure.”
Page 61, Para 18.8
“Worship of idols installed on the Ram Chabutra by Hindu devotees in general was performed for a considerable period. There was no objection from the Muslims staking the counter claim prior to the shifting of idols into the disputed structure in 1949.”
Page 62, Para 18.9
“It is, however, not the Commission’s mandate to record a finding with respect to the exact question of history and a discourse on whether a mosque was constructed at the place of temple is outside the Commission’s purview. Suffice to say, the construction of the mosque by Mir Baqi in 1528 is now an admitted fact.”
Page 63, Para 18.13
“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.”
Comment: This clearly shows that the Commission indirectly confirms that a mosque was constructed at the site of the temple. Ayodhya is in existence from times immemorial while Babur came much afterwards and the mosque was constructed in 1528 CE.
Page 88, para 26.2 say:
“…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, aMember of Parliament from Hyderabad challenged the opening of locks alongwith some others became a forerunner for taking on the Hindu organisation”
Page 89 Para 26.4 says:
“Muslims variously protested between 1st of January to the 30th of March, 1987. Apart from giving calls for, boycotting Republic Day (which call was later withdrawn), Bandhs were observed and a public rally held at Boat Club in Delhi.Public threats of violence were made by personalities no less than the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, Shahabuddin and Suleiman Sait, etc.”
Comment: Yet the Commission fails to make any adverse comment on these individuals.
In Paragraph 158.3 the Commission says that it “…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”.
Chapter 1 (INTRODUCTION)
Page 15, Para 7.3
“Prominent members of the Muslim community claimed on behalf of their constituents, to be adversely affected by the demolition, in their sentiments and emotions. They claimed that their religious feelings were hurt. Initially various councils (sic) (counsels) representing the Babri Masjid Action Committee, Waqf Board, other Muslim organizations and individuals appeared and associated with the Commission before and during the framing of the Commission’s rules.”
Page 15, Para 7.4
“Thereafter, it was in the last stages, i.e., almost after a decade, that the counsel for the Muslim Law Board joined the proceedings. Mushtaq Ahmed started appearing before the Commission after half a decade of its existence; before the joining or associating of the Muslim Law Board before the Commission. Azad Makhmal representing Shahabuddin and another lawyer A. Haq showed up once or twice but made no worthwhile contribution to the inquiry. Mushtaq Ahmed did, however, cross-examined some witnesses intermittently. After a decade of the Commission’s inquiry, one Bahar-ul-Barki representing the AIMLB appeared along with senior Counsel, Yusuf Muchhala representing the Muslim Personal Law Board and cross-examined some key witnesses like L.K. Adjani in part. No evidence was led or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise, by any of these counsels. O.P. Sharma, advocate who also joined almost the fag end of the inquiry conducted himself equally ineffectually.”
At Page 17 Para 8.3 the Commission says:
“The dispute with respect to disputed structure is proclaimed to be as ancient as history. Innumerable writings in books and research papers, commission proceedings were placed on the record of the commission. The title of the property was never settled much less finally by any civil court which is still pending before the honourable high court till date. From time to time rulers of the time permitted the people of their faith the possession.”
Story of acquisition of 2.77 acres of land surrounding the structure:
The 2.77 acres land was acquired by the UP Govt. on Oct. 1991 for public purpose. This acquisition was challenged in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High court by a local Muslim. The case was heard by full bench comprising of Hon’ble justice H.C. Mathur, Hon. Justice Brijesh Kumar & Hon. Justice S.H.A. Raza. The arguments were over by Nov.04, 1992. The date fixed for the pronouncement of the judgement was 4th December 1992. Justice Mathur & Justice Brijesh Kumar had already written their openion regarding this acquisition order. But the justice Raza delayed the pronouncement of its Judgement to the 11th of December 1992 which was after the 6th December, date fixed for commencement of karsewa.
This deliberate delay in pronouncement of the order infused a sense of disappointment in the mind of the people to get justice and ultimately led to the incidents. The Kar sevaks broke loose and climbed up the disputed structure. The structure was made to collepse in five hours and a temporary canopy (makeshift structure) was errected on the debris of the disputed structure where the Pooja is going on.
A few words regarding the civil suites:
The first civil suit regarding the title of Ram Janambhoomi was filed in 1950 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 1/1989). The second suit was filed in 1959 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 3/1989). The third suit was filed in 1961 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 4/1989). The fourth suit was filed in 1989 (presently Numbered as O.O.S No. 5/1989). For 40 years the cases remained hanging fire in district court of Faizabad.
After 40 years, in 1989 these cases were transferred to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. Since then another twenty years have passed. Due to the retirement of one or the other judge, the bench had to be reconstituted eleven times and consequently the justice is not only been delayed but also derailed and denied.
Conclusion:
Even after 40+ extensions during seventeen long years of the country’s valuable time and wasting four years in marely preparing huge volume of 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 therafter before submission of its report. The adverse comments made towards the apex judiciary of the country, Media, head of the state(governor) and other respectable segments of the society are highly unacceptable.
Convened by Chamapat Rai, Joint General Secretary-VHP, and compiled by members of the team i.e. Amba Charan Vashisth, K.K. Sharma, Vinod Bansal, Rakesh Upadhyay.
Kindly Note & Circulate to all your contacts.
REGARDS
VINOD BANSAL
(MEDIA COORDINATOR)
VISHWA HINDU PARISHAD, Delhi
M – 98109 49109
ivhpmedia@gmail. com
