"L.K. Advani is Justice Liberhan's Achilles' heel. This I would vouch for, whatever the report may actually say about him."

"The justice underestimated the role of ideology. For him, Ayodhya was pure politics. For me, it was inseparable from ideology."

"My relentless questioning created the illusion that the justice and I thought alike. But each passing day, I was acting independent of him."

"Advani was the movement's main protagonist. To him goes the credit for nationalising the cause, politically & ideologically."

"Advani and Joshi's roles are inseparable as both were there throughout the demolition and professed to be equally helpless."

"I got the distinct feeling that Liberhan saw M.M. Joshi more as Advani's political rival and that determined his evaluation."

"A rough draft Liberhan showed me virtually complimented Advani in many places. It confirmed my worst fears."

"I met Liberhan in March. At that time, I felt the report was ready. I believe he deferred its submission till after the elections."

***

Justice delayed: M.S. Liberhan presenting his report to the PM in the presence of home minister Chidambaram on June 30

Justice Liberhan has submitted his report to the government. As the counsel for the commission, you have been intimately involved with its working. What is your first reaction? The real test of Justice Liberhan's report will be his analysis of L.K. Advani's role and responsibility in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. I have not seen the report and have no idea what it contains. However, initial media reports and other inputs suggest that while other leading lights of the Sangh parivar have been individually indicted, Advani does not seem to be among them. Based upon my decade-long association with Justice Liberhan, I am convinced that Advani is his Achilles' heel. This I would vouch for, regardless of what the report might actually say about Advani.

You distanced yourself from the commission in September 2007. In retrospect, do you think you did the right thing?

Definitely. The more I look at the developments of the last two years, the more I am convinced that my interview to Outlook (September 17, 2007), in which I had publicly dissociated myself from the commission, was necessary and timely. It was the first indication to the outside world about the vulnerability of Justice Liberhan. Before that, my wide-ranging examination of the top brass of the Sangh parivar had given the impression that Justice Liberhan and I thought alike on the fundamental issues before the commission.My relentless questioning had perhaps created an illusion that Justice Liberhan approved of the direction which the inquiry was taking. The reality was not that simple. With every passing day, I was acting increasingly independent of Justice Liberhan. The nature and range of my questions reflected my own understanding of the issues before the commission. The public impression that we were a team was not so accurate. My interview to Outlook was aimed at dispelling that view.

Give us an insight into the differences between you and Justice Liberhan.

In a sense, he was always uncomfortable with my emphasis on ideology and history as a means of understanding why the Babri Masjid was demolished. Like many others, Justice Liberhan gravely underestimated the role of ideological inspiration in propelling men to action. For him, the Ayodhya movement was pure politics. For me, the politics of Ayodhya was inseparable from its ideology.

When did you realise that Justice Liberhan was going soft on Advani?

To begin with, Justice Liberhan was reluctant to even summon Advani. It took some effort on my part to get him to sign the order. Then, throughout his examination, which stretched over 10 months, the judge betrayed an uneasiness whenever he saw me trying to corner Advani. The flashpoint came on June 13, 2001, when an otherwise controlled Advani lost his temper on being questioned about Nehru's attitude towards the renovation of the Somnath temple. Late that night, an agitated Justice Liberhan called me and asked me to apologise to Advani the next day in court. Appalled at the idea, I refused and told him that I would rather resign.

Indelible scar: The Babri Masjid being demolished on December 6, 1992

Many months later, towards the close of his deposition, Advani again protested strongly on being confronted with a state intelligence report regarding the events of December 6, 1992, itself. Buckling under pressure, the judge overruled me. It was, I thought, a unique indulgence granted to Advani, because I had questioned others too on the basis of the same report without attracting the judge's ire.

Even after Advani's deposition, his role remained a vital issue in my discussions with the judge through the proceedings of the commission up to 2005 and beyond. For all his disclaimers and denials, it was apparent to me that he wanted to extricate Advani from the imbroglio of the demolition and all that it entailed. In fact, a rough draft of the report that he once showed to me on my insistence virtually complimented Advani at several places. This confirmed my worst apprehensions.

Above all??: L.K. Advani arriving at one of the commission's hearings at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi

While being mild on Advani, Justice Liberhan has reportedly held Murli Manohar Joshi and others responsible for the demolition....

Murli Manohar Joshi figured in my out-of-court discussions with the judge as frequently as Advani. The paradox of his wanting to indict Joshi while letting off Advani dominated our interaction all along. Even from the narrowest perspective limited to the events of December 6, 1992, the roles of Advani and Joshi are inseparable since both were present at the Ram Katha Kunj (facing the Babri Masjid) throughout the demolition and professed to be equally helpless. Taking a larger view, Advani was the principal protagonist of the Ayodhya movement and the credit for nationalising the cause, politically and ideologically, goes to him. The inspirational impact of his leadership and his capacity for mass mobilisation was far more than any other leader, including Joshi.His responsibility for the demolition can therefore be only more and not less than Joshi's. Justice Liberhan always shied away from responding to this. In fact, I got the distinct impression that he viewed Joshi more as a political rival of Advani than anything else and that determined his evaluation of Joshi's role. Our discussions on Vajpayee also confirmed this impression.

There is some speculation about the timing of the release of the report, with some suggesting that the judge held it back for three months at the instance of the Congress to deny the bjp an opportunity to play martyr to the Hindutva cause in the Lok Sabha elections. Do you think it's true?