Of Hindu Masked men and the Masquerade
Sid Harth
THE UNMASKING OF VAJPAYEE
In seeking to force-fit judicial findings on the Babri Masjid question
to the sectarian politics of the Hindutva brigade, Prime Minister
Vajpayee lets his mask of moderation slip - to reveal the visage of an
unrepentant kar sevak and the outline of an underlying agenda.
SUKUMAR MURALIDHARAN
in New Delhi
STATEMENTS of serious strategic import are not made in offhand
conversations between governmental figures and the media, least of all
when Parliament is in session. And the judiciary is seldom if ever
invoked as a magic talisman that will banish all disc ord when the
political consequences of such verbal indiscretions become serious.
S. ARNEJA
Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee at an iftar party in New Delhi last
fortnight.
There is an unmistakable air of make-believe about the compromise
arrived at after Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's mask of
moderation slipped to reveal the visage of an unrepentant kar sevak. S.
Jaipal Reddy of the Congress(I) had just exercised hi s right to have
the last word in the Lok Sabha on a motion demanding the resignation of
three Ministers indicted for their role in the destruction of the Babri
Masjid in Ayodhya, when members belonging to two parties allied with
the BJP rose to demand ex plicit assurances from the Prime Minister.
Shedding all equivocation, he was asked to commit himself to full
compliance with the verdict of the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya matter.
As if speaking on cue, Vajpayee asserted that the government would
indeed abide by the verdict that the highest court may hand down.
Curiously, there is no litigation pertaining to Ayodhya pending before
the Supreme Court. Rather, the crucial hearings on the title deed to
the site of the Babri Masjid have been proceeding before the Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Suprem e Court only stepped into
the picture a few days before the demolition of December 1992. Pressed
by a group of concerned citizens for an injunction against the assembly
of an unruly mob in the vicinity of the Babri Masjid, it only sought -
and obtained - an assurance from the Uttar Pradesh State government
that no damage would be caused to the structure. Of course, that
undertaking proved absolutely worthless on that fateful day. The
subsequent action of establishing a makeshift temple at the site could
also be construed as a gross violation of the pledge entered before the
country's highest court. And the Allahabad High Court's later order
sanctioning the visit of devotees to the site - the so-called "darshan"
order - was, by any interpretation, a fur ther repudiation of the rule
of law.
V. SUDERSHAN R.V. MOORTHY M. MOORTHY
Union Ministers L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, charge-
sheeted in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
Clearly, the Prime Minister's assurances in Parliament have not even
remotely approached the question of how far this legacy of lawlessness
can be reversed. For the record, Vajpayee's statement does what is
minimally expected of a party that has been ele cted to government,
even if in uneasy cohabitation with potential ideological adversaries.
It also seemingly represents a retreat from the Bharatiya Janata
Party's often repeated position that no court could sit in judgment
over a matter of faith.
The Prime Minister's earlier statement, in seeking to force-fit
judicial findings to the sectarian politics of the Hindutva fraternity,
was a clear breach of propriety. Faced with angry disruptions in
Parliament over the presence of three indicted Minist ers in his
government, Vajpayee refused for days to accept the demand for a debate
on the subject. Four days into the impasse, he issued the extra-mural
clarification that only aggravated the crisis. Though rendered in
Hindi, there was little ambiguity a bout the purport of his statement.
The construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya, he claimed, was the
expression of a deep nationalist urge. It was a task that yet remained
unfinished.
Under pressure, the facade of moderation had cracked. The Congress(I)
was exultant and many of the BJP's own allies were aghast. The day
after his first indiscretion, Vajpayee had to deploy all his verbal
dexterity to extricate himself from the mess. The "unfinished task" he
had referred to was not the construction of a temple over the ruins of
the Babri Masjid, he pleaded, but the resolution of the dispute over
the site at Ayodhya. But then, in explaining himself further, he only
plunged deeper into th e quagmire. There were two possible avenues of
resolution to the dispute, he argued. The first would be for the courts
to render a verdict favourable to the proponents of the Ram temple. The
second would be for the "leadership" of the two communities to
negotiate an amicable compromise which would allow the Hindutva
fraternity to have its way and provide for the reconstruction of the
Babri Masjid at an alternative site.
The strategy of pre-empting every outcome that was of inconvenience to
the Hindutva fraternity reassured none but those who constitute the
BJP's own hard core, who have with some reluctance fallen in line
behind Vajpayee's leadership since 1998. Two of t he party's saffron-
robed MPs, Chinmayananda and Aditya Nath, lost little time in proposing
that all the niceties of the legal process be eliminated through
legislation that would clear the way for the construction of the Ram
temple at Ayodhya.
However, the foremost priority of the BJP after the sequence of miscued
prime ministerial interventions was to calm the spasms of anxiety among
its allies. The Congress(I) was pressing for a debate in Parliament
under item 184 of the Rules of Procedure, which provided for the House
to censure the government through a vote. The slightest sign of
wavering on the part of the allies could have led to an embarrassing
outcome. In hastily summoned conclaves with the allies, the BJP
provided the requisite clari fications. It was clarified that no
further modification of the status quo at Ayodhya would be permitted
without the explicit clearance of the judiciary. The BJP, as part of a
coalitional arrangement, remained committed to the programme mutually a
greed between the partners.
With the allies falling in line, the BJP could turn its attention to
confronting the challenge of the Congress(I). A debate under Rule 184
was agreed and though there was some initial tactical confusion the
wording of the motion was quickly determined th rough consultations
between the Congress(I) and the Left. Deprecating the presence within
the government of three individuals who had been indicted for their
culpability in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the motion demanded
their removal.
SUBIR ROY
Pillars for a grand temple fabricated in a workshop at Karsevakpuram,
near Ayodhya.
The Congress(I) fielded three of its most effective speakers in the two-
day debate that followed. Jaipal Reddy, a relative newcomer to the
party, bears none of the baggage of the Congress(I)'s many years of
equivocation on Ayodhya. Mani Shankar Aiyar and Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi,
though tainted to some extent by association with the Rajiv Gandhi and
Narasimha Rao dispensations, have always been vocal in their insistence
that the rule of law be respected in the matter of Ayodhya.
YET for all the dramatic prelude, the debate in Parliament itself
proved anti-climactic. The inability of the Congress(I) to force the
issue was best symbolised by its leader Sonia Gandhi, who maintained a
stony silence through the debate. And every time Congress(I) speakers
threatened the BJP on its sensitive flanks, they were outmanoeuvred by
a sequence of inconvenient questions. Who, for instance, had opened the
locks on the Babri Masjid in 1986, allowing access to the Ram idols
that had been surrept itiously placed there in 1948? Who had presided
over the shilanyas pooja within the disputed perimeter in 1989? Who was
the Prime Minister who began his election campaign at Ayodhya in 1989
with the ringing declaration that he would usher in a Ram Rajya if
reelected?
ANU PUSHKARNA
On December 6, members of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee
demonstrate in front of Parliament House demanding the rebuilding of
the mosque at Ayodhya.
Always seeking to make a conspicuous display of his loyalty to the
memory of Rajiv Gandhi, Mani Shankar Aiyar walked out in noisy
resentment at one stage. But after days of disruptive behaviour, the
Congress proved, at the crucial stage, to lack the init iative to press
home the political advantage it had.
Allies of the BJP, such as Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamul Congress and
Ram Vilas Paswan of the recently constituted Jan Shakti, sought the
path of extreme circumspection. They endorsed the presence of the three
indicted Ministers in the government, prov ided there was no departure
from the ruling coalition's agreed position that any alteration to the
Ayodhya status quo would not be permitted. Unfortunately, the sub-text
of their interventions was the conspicuously cynical message, that no
politic al party could afford to make too fine a point of principle,
since everybody was in some measure tainted.
P.V. SIVAKUMAR
A strident message at a Black Day rally in Hyderabad.
After the vote was won 291 to 184, Home Minister L.K. Advani - one of
the accused Ministers - confessed himself to be rather bemused by the
Congress(I)'s tactics. The pogrom against the Sikhs in 1984, he said,
was a matter that his party was greatly conc erned about. But that did
not mean that he would raise the issue every year on the anniversary of
that dark event. Another of the accused, Uma Bharti, was more explicit.
The Central Bureau of Investigation's indictment, she said, led her to
suspect its c redentials as an impartial agency. Murli Manohar Joshi,
the Union Minister for Human Resource Development, blandly disavowed
any responsibility for Ayodhya. He was present at Ayodhya when the
mosque was brought down, but he was at a location rather remot e from
the structure. He had no idea who could have been behind the deed, he
pleaded.
Add to these Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chieftain K.S. Sudarshan's
bizarre theory that it was a bomb that brought down the mosque, and BJP
ideologue K.R. Malkani's conjecture that the central intelligence
agencies could have had a role in what had happe ned, and all the
ingredients of a tragedy turning rapidly to farce would seem to be
present. But the plain facts are that on any reasonable reading of the
law, the 49 luminaries of the Hindutva fraternity who have been
indicted, seem eminently culpable u nder a broad range of counts. Their
evasion of the due process of law is a continuing affront to political
propriety. And their allies' comfortable coexistence in the company of
the authors of the greatest political outrage of independent India, a
testim ony to the power of the expediency.
There is reason to believe, though, that the space for complacence is
being rapidly constricted. Vajpayee's statement itself was
transparently a response to the relentless pressure he has been under
in recent times from the more extreme elements within t he Hindutva
fraternity. They are unlikely to be very impressed by his deft footwork
and by his effort to humour all parties to an irreconcilable
ideological conflict. After their mid-year meeting in Goa, the Dharma
Sansad - the VHP's captive religious co nclave - is scheduled to
assemble again in Allahabad in January. A firm schedule for starting
the temple project at Ayodhya is expected to be announced on the
occasion.
L.K. Advani makes an offering at the mazar of Khwaja Garib Nawaz in
Ajmer.
Shiv Sena chieftain Bal Thackeray has, meanwhile, served notice that he
regards the recent exertions of Vajpayee and his ministerial colleagues
with great disfavour. He has added his voice to a congregation of
religious extremists in condemning the cease fire in Kashmir. Thackeray
clearly thinks that his senior partner in the political fold of
Hindutva is succumbing to the temptations of minority appeasement. And
his recommended antidote is characteristically simple and brutal:
disenfranchise the religio us minorities. Once embraced as a political
creed, intolerance is not very easily subdued. That discovery is just
beginning to dawn on those who had assumed that it could be turned on
or off at will, in accordance with the compulsions of political pragma
tism.
http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1726/17260090.htm
Contradictions and pressures
The deadlock and the debate in Parliament have shown up the divisions
within the NDA.
V. VENKATESAN
in New Delhi
THE Atal Behari Vajpayee-led coalition government has won the latest
game of parliamentary numbers. The Congress(I)-sponsored motion seeking
the removal of Ministers L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma
Bharti was rejected 291 to 179 in the Lok Sabha on December 14. Yet, at
the end of it all there are signs of a serious crisis of credibility
and an erosion of Vajpayee's moral authority within the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA).
V. SUDERSHAN
At a meeting of the constituent parties of the National Democratic
Alliance in New Delhi on December 10.
For the first time since he returned to power in 1999, Vajpayee's aura
as the leader of the coalition came under test. And he stood exposed,
with some of the allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party, namely the
Trinamul Congress and the Telugu Desam Party, v oicing their
disagreement over the Prime Minister's stand on an issue that sets
communal parties like the BJP and the Shiv Sena apart from the rest of
the coalition.
Had the Prime Minister confined himself to a simple rejection of the
demand for the resignation of the three Ministers, the allies would
have had no complaints. Indeed, the political discourse around the
anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition on Dece mber 6 had appeared
to be going on the same lines as in previous years. Last year too the
Opposition parties had demanded the removal of the three Ministers.
Vajpayee had then assured the NDA constituents that the government
would not deviate from the Na tional Agenda for Governance (NAG). This
seemed to have pacified the allies, some of whom felt that the law
should take its own course in the demolition case and that nobody
should be deemed guilty unless proven so. The Prime Minister then
clarified that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Ram Prakash Gupta had been
clearly misquoted when he was reported to have emphasised that the BJP
remained committed to the temple construction campaign. The allies were
also satisfied with the Prime Minister's explanation t hat he did not
intend to interfere with the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI)
proceedings against the three Ministers and that the trial court was
free to reach its own conclusion irrespective of what he felt about
their culpability.
So, what prompted the Prime Minister this year to go beyond this
position and refer to the building of a Ram temple at Ayodhya as
an "expression of national sentiments" and say that the "task had
remained unfinished"? Certainly, the Opposition's demand f or the
resignation of the Ministers had not become any more shrill than it was
last year. Although the Prime Minister clarified that he had not
defended the demolition of the Babri Masjid and that what was
significant was how the temple should be constru cted, the ruling
coalition had suffered a serious strain.
Leaders of the Trinamul Congress and the TDP soon told the media that
the Prime Minister should not have made such remarks. Telegu Desam
leader K. Yerran Naidu, who termed the Prime Minister's remarks
unwarranted, believed that they were bound to cause c onfusion.
Even as the Trinamul Congress and the TDP sought an explanation from
the Prime Minister, Vajpayee went a step further and indicated on
December 7 that he preferred the building of a temple at the disputed
Ayodhya site. He talked about abiding by the cour ts' verdict on the
issue, but explained that the courts could resolve the issue by
permitting the building of the proposed temple at the disputed site.
The Trinamul Congress, the TDP and the Indian National Lok Dal, all
allies of the BJP, expressed their disapproval of the remarks, saying
that they had sent a "wrong message" and that something needed to be
done to correct the situation. They feared that such remarks would abet
the growing communalisation in the country. But Yerran Naidu and Mamata
Baner jee were hurt that Vajpayee, instead of distancing himself from
his December 6 remarks, sought to amplify them. Agitated alliance
partners like Mamata Banerjee demanded an urgent meeting of the NDA
Coordination Committee to discuss the issue.
Embarrassed by the protests, Vajpayee realised that he ought not to
have made the remarks outside Parliament when it was in session. He
refused to be drawn into further discussion on the matter during
interactions with the media, and reserved his clarifi cation to be
expressed in Parliament. This helped Vajpayee to avoid the storm that
had been expected at the NDA meeting held in New Delhi on December 10.
Leaders like Mamata Banerjee were satisfied with the wording of the
resolution passed at the meeting , even though it was factually
incorrect. The resolution committed the NDA government to maintaining
the rule of law and, in the matter of the litigation over the title of
the disputed land in Ayodhya, to accepting and implementing the
decision of the Su preme Court, "which is presently seized of this
matter".
"The status quo must be maintained until the Supreme Court delivers its
verdict," the resolution said. But there is no such title case pending
in the Supreme Court. The title case is now before the Allahabad High
Court. The BJP thus got away with a factually incorrect statement that
does not really bind it to any commitment.
The resolution was also conspicuously silent on the controversial
remarks made by Vajpayee on Ayodhya. Ironically, the resolution
rejected the demands for the removal of the three Ministers, saying
that the issue had no bearing on their constitutional du ties. Again,
the resolution was silent on the Prime Minister having given a clean
chit to the Ministers.
There is a feeling that the Prime Minister's remarks were perhaps
intended to test the NDA allies' response to a bid by the BJP to pursue
its own agenda. The aftermath of the Lok Sabha vote clearly brought
this out, with BJP leaders vying with one anothe r to justify the
party's position on the temple question, as if a ban on discussing
openly controversial issues such as Ayodhya, the abrogation of Article
370 and the enactment of a uniform civil code was no longer relevant.
(The NAG, a set of guidelines for political conduct and a mutually
agreed framework for policy action agreed upon by NDA partners ahead of
the formation of the present government, is silent on Ayodhya per se.
But the document committed the BJP and its al lies to national
reconciliation and an end to divisions by declaring a moratorium on
contentious issues. Through his remarks on the Ayodhya dispute, the
Prime Minister violated that commitment. The NAG also promises genuine
secularism and equality of all religions, besides efforts to create a
riot-free order and an attempt at a consensual mode of governance.)
Home Minister L.K. Advani, meanwhile, suggested that ideology and
governance had no relationship whatsoever and that one need not be
apologetic about one's ideology. Put simply, it meant that the BJP,
even while agreeing to keep certain controversial iss ues out of the
NAG, had not abandoned its right to express its views on these issues.
Party spokesperson V.K. Malhotra added a caveat by warning NDA allies
that they should respect the BJP's sentiments the same way they
expected it to honour theirs.
Mamata Banerjee and Yerran Naidu extracted a promise from the Prime
Minister on the eve of the voting on the motion in the Lok Sabha that
the government was committed to the NAG and that it would abide by the
court's verdict on the Ayodhya case, but the Prime Minister stuck to
his formulation that the construction of a Ram temple was an expression
of national sentiments; he even compared it to the reconstruction of
the Somnath temple immediately after Independence. The allies did not
realise that there was no dispute about the Somnath temple and that the
comparison was not apt. While Mamata Banerjee later said in Calcutta
that the rebuilding of the Babri Masjid was equally an expression of
national sentiment, it was clear that the Prime Minister had ta ken the
allies for granted, and that he did not expect them to disagree with
him beyond a point.
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.
Karunanidhi also warned that the party would quit the NDA should the
NAG commitments be violated. While the timing of Karunanidhi's
statement was significant, the BJP was not incline d to take it
seriously. "The allies have to say something," quipped an aide to the
Prime Minister.
Indeed, there was nothing new in what the Prime Minister assured Mamata
Banerjee and Yerran Naidu. The Prime Minister and the BJP have at least
for the record been saying that they would abide by the NAG and the
courts' decision on Ayodhya. The question, however, is whether the
Prime Minister and the NDA government would connive at the violation of
the NAG by the militant outfits of the Sangh Parivar. As the courts'
decision on Ayodhya is not expected in the immediate future, the BJP
does not stand to l ose anything by seeming to give up its professed
stand that in matters of belief, the courts have no role.
What perhaps explains the Prime Minister's newly aggressive stand on
Ayodhya is the changing internal dynamics of the BJP. The relationship
between Vajpayee and Advani, which has been the subject of speculation
in the media for some time now, seems to ha ve finally stabilised. Not
only Vajpayee rose to Advani's defence in the matter of the demolition
case, but Advani showed the courage to criticise even the CBI, which is
under Vajpayee's charge, and which had filed the charge-sheet against
him.
Also, a year after assuming power again, Vajpayee perhaps felt the need
to consolidate his position within the Sangh Parivar, in order to
prevent any possible challenge to his leadership from within the BJP
and also the coalition. While the likelihood of Assembly elections
being held in Uttar Pradesh in 2001 might have been a factor behind
Vajpayee's temptation to use the December 6 opportunity to make such
statements, so that the Sangh activists are fully motivated to face the
electoral challenge ahead , the Advani camp is equally happy that
Vajpayee was compelled to defend Advani during the debate on the motion
in Parliament.
K.G. SANTHOSH
A display board put up by the Hindu Aikyavedi in Thiruvananthapuram
reads: "December 6, Hindu Self-Respect Day. The eighth anniversary of
the destruction of a memorial of foreign domination. A moment of pride
for Hindus."
In March 2000, the BJP's allies scored a victory over the BJP when they
forced the BJP government in Gujarat to withdraw its order lifting the
ban on participation by State government employees in the activities of
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Did the allies adopt a softer
stand this time on a similar issue involving the question of
secularism? It appears so. The reason may be the pressures the allies
are facing in different States. The DMK, for instance, would not like
to risk losing its pre sence at the Centre at this point, for Assembly
elections are due early next year in Tamil Nadu. The Trinamul Congress,
which is weighing the pros and cons of continuing in the Vajpayee
Ministry at the Centre on the eve of the Assembly elections in West
Bengal, perhaps has not found a big enough issue on the basis of which
it could part ways with the BJP. The TDP, which supports the NDA
government from the outside, does not face the prospect of an election
in Andhra Pradesh in the near future, and ther efore has no compulsion
to take a firm stand vis-a-vis the Vajpayee government.
DURING the week-long political drama, most of the NDA's allies, barring
the Trinamul Congress, the TDP and the DMK, preferred to remain silent
and refrained from articulating a stand with regard to the Prime
Minister's remarks. Marumalarchi Dravida Munne tra Kazhagam leader
Vaiko defended the three charge-sheeted Ministers in the Lok Sabha but
chose to keep quiet on the Prime Minister's remarks. Samata Party
leader and Defence Minister George Fernandes not only rose to the
defence of the three Ministers in Parliament but refrained from
questioning the Prime Minister for his remarks. So were other allies
such as the National Conference, the Pattali Makkal Katchi, the Akali
Dal, the Biju Janata Dal, the Janata Dal (United) and the Jan Shakthi.
Some of the allies showed the eagerness to coordinate their strategy in
Parliament with the Trinamul Congress, the TDP and the DMK, by taking
part in impromptu meetings convened by Mamata Banerjee, but unlike the
Trinamul Congress and the TDP they did not hesitate to vote with the
government. Although the professedly secular parties in the NDA as a
ritual distance themselves from the BJP's stand on Ayodhya, it is a
moot question whether they would function as a pressure group within
the coalition to restrain the B JP.
With the various allies watching the BJP's next step, can Vajpayee
continue to take them for granted? For how long the allies will bear
with the situation for the sake of local compulsions is the big
question.
http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1726/17260100.htm
'The three Ministers are not guilty'
Bharatiya Janata Party president Bangaru Laxman was caught in a
controversy when he was quoted in the media as saying that the party
would consider the question of the resignation of Union Ministers L.K.
Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti if charges were framed
against them in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Despite his
clarifications with regard to the remark, it set off a chain of events
which culminated in Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee's eulogisation of the
Ram Janmabhoomi movement. I n an interview to V. Venketasan, Laxman
explains his initial remark, and the issues arising out of the debate
in Parliament. Excerpts:
ANU PUSHKARNA
How do you react to the demand that the three Ministers should resign?
Let me make it clear that even in my first statement, I said the whole
world knows that these three Ministers are innocent and they had not
abetted any crime, therefore, charges will not be framed against them.
And I also said the media were present, and political and non-political
observers had witnessed that event. In spite of the fact that they had
not committed the crime, if they are charge-sheeted then, the party
will have to consider it seriously. This is what I said: the party will
consider it. C onsider the issue of politically motivated charges being
framed against them. When the media reported only part of what I said,
again I reiterated that the three Ministers are not guilty, and
therefore, charges cannot be framed against them. In spite of this if
charges are framed then the party thinks it is a serious matter, where
we will have to take cognisance of it with a political reaction. Our
political reaction would be in the form of protest.
Protest against the trial court's action?
That would be construed as a politically motivated act, despite the
fact that the Ministers were not guilty.
How can the charges be said to be politically motivated if the court
directs the framing of charges?
After all, nothing is there before us. It is the most hypothetical
situation we are discussing. In that hypothetical situation, I said, if
these things are done, then it will be construed as a politically
motivated act. Naturally, the party will have to take cognisance of it
and it has to react.
So, in effect, you will be protesting against the court's action?
In what shape these things are going to develop, we have to wait and
see.
Both at the NDA meeting and during the debate in Parliament, NDA
leaders and the Prime Minister made repeated references to their
commitment to abide by the Supreme Court's verdict in the Ayodhya case.
What is this verdict?
The case pending is whose land it is, who is the owner. The title case
is certainly pending in the High Court. The Supreme Court came into the
picture when it punished Kalyan Singh (former Utter Pradesh Chief
Minister).
That was when Kalyan Singh failed to honour the guarantee given to the
Supreme Court that the status quo would be maintained at the disputed
site. With the demolition of Babri Masjid that order of the apex court
stood breached. By reaffirming your co mmitment to stand by the Supreme
Court's verdict, do you mean to say that status quo ante would be
restored by rebuilding the mosque at the site?
I am not sure. To my knowledge, some more issues are pending before the
court. Whatever it is, even NDA leaders have stated that and the Prime
Minister has also repeated it. If it is not the Supreme Court, it must
be the High Court. Most probably they re ferred to the case pending in
the High Court.
Is there a contradiction in terms? On the one hand you say that you
will protest against any move to frame charges against the three
Ministers by the trial court. On the other, the Prime Minister has
reaffirmed his commitment to stand by the court's verdict in the
Ayodhya case.
The court's verdict is on the question of title. It is too early to
discuss even the crime (of demolition). The CBI has certainly filed
charge-sheets. But some of the people who have been charge-sheeted went
to the Allahabad High Court and obtained a sta y order. The court is
yet to give a verdict whether the charges are correct or not, and what
is to be done about that. Second, the Liberhan Commission is going into
the entire case. So, to discuss whether charges would be framed and
what would happen is too hypothetical. The CBI was not prevented from
filing charge-sheets. Let the High Court clear the stay, and let the
trial court take cognisance of the charges... if charges are framed
against them, we will fight legally and also raise this as a politic al
issue.
Some of your allies are unhappy about the stand taken by the Prime
Minister in the Lok Sabha on the issue.
How many? Let us not give them a plural number. Even the Trinamul
Congress was unhappy at the first instance. Their MPs went out before
the vote. Some Ministers approached them and brought them back. The
Prime Minister reiterated his commitment. Then the y were satisfied and
voted. You cannot expect 100 per cent satisfaction among coalition
partners. Each party will have its own programme, its own agenda; one
has to sacrifice something for the coalition. BJP has done that; every
party has done that. And there is no reason why they should be unhappy.
The Prime Minister compared the Ram temple movement to the
reconstruction of the Somnath temple. Nobody said, remove the temple
and build the mosque. The Prime Minister's remarks (that the temple
movement wa s an expression of national sentiments) were intended to
make the ground reality clear. It neither contradicts the NDA's stand,
nor does it go against the existing reality. It has not harmed
anybody's electoral chances. The whole debate in Parliament has , in a
way, vindicated what the Prime Minister said.
What is the NDA's stand on the issue?
The stand is to abide by the court's decision. Our alliance partners
are aware that at this juncture, after the passing of eight years, it
is all right to observe December 6 as a ritual. But what was the
provocation to raise the issue on December 4 onwar ds and force
Parliament to adjourn repeatedly for several days? This strategy of the
Opposition has been taken note of by our alliance partners.
The Prime Minister's stature seems to have suffered within the
coalition.
The way the Prime Minister replied to the debate in the Lok Sabha with
full confidence goes to show that he still enjoys the full support of
the alliance partners.
How do you describe the outcome of the debate?
We are happy that the whole nation is slowly reconciling itself to the
ground realitiy that exists vis-a-vis the Ayodhya issue. Three things
have emerged: one, there exists a temple. Second, the dispute is lying
in the court, and everyone should abide by it. Third, if there is an
out-of-court settlement, it would be most welcome. The Prime Minister
spoke on this (out-of-court settlement), because he had certain
information, certain people had approached him. And therefore, he was
hopeful.
http://www.the-hindu.com/fline/fl1726/17260140.htm
Fuel to the fire
The Hindu right wing seizes the opportunity offered by Prime Minister
Vajpayee's assertions to try and shore up its morale and to review its
temple adventure.
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
IF considerations of popular appeal are what determine the
organisational frames of reference of the Sangh Parivar, December 2000
proved to be an inopportune time to revive the Hindutva agenda. On
December 6, the day Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee held for th on a Ram
temple at Ayodhya, describing it as a reflection of the national will,
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the sword arm of the Sangh Parivar,
put up one of its worst shows in Ayodhya.
VISHNU NARAIN GUPTA
A view of Ram ki Pauri in Ayodhya on December 6, 2000. The Sangh
Parivar's expectations of a massive congregation were dashed and normal
life remained unaffected in the town that day.
The VHP had convened a meeting of 20,000 kar sevaks to mark the eighth
anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid: the Parivar
celebrates the anniversary as Vijay Divas (Victory Day) and Shaurya
Divas (Day of Valour). Acharya Giriraj Kishore, the VHP's senior vice-
president, had announced that the celebrations at Karsevakpuram, the
organisation's headquarters in Ayodhya, would signal the formal launch
of preparations to build the temple, and that the "kar sevaks would
renew the pledge". However, as it turned out, the Sangh Parivar's
expectations of a massive congregation of volunteers were dashed. The
VHP had planned to mobilise kar sevaks from the twin towns of Ayodhya
and Faizabad as well as from the neighbouring areas of Gonda, Sultanpur
and Akbarpur. The Bajrang Dal had wanted to hold in nearby villages and
towns cycle rallies, which would move to Karsevakpuram "accepting the
greetings of thousands of Hindus on the way".
The plans did not materialise. Kar sevaks arrived, but in small groups
of five or 10. Some Bajrang Dal workers did cycle down to
Karsevakpuram, but there was no warm reception along the roads. Sangh
Parivar insiders admit sotto voce that the celebrations were a VHP flop
show.
GOPAL SUNGER
At Pindwara in Rajasthan, artisans working on parts of the proposed
temple. A 1998 picture.
According to some residents of Ayodhya and Faizabad, the reasons for
the turn of events are not far to seek. The economic interests of the
twin towns had been steadily affected, and people attribute this to the
militant propagation of the Hindutva agenda . "The small markets that
sell traditional pottery, leather goods and agricultural produce no
longer get enough buyers. The politics of communalism has virtually
killed our markets. We are not going to support them (the Sangh
Parivar) to embark on the co urse of disaster," an upper-caste Hindu
businessman said.
These sentiments were amply manifested in the recent civic body
elections in the district. Both the Ayodhya and Faizabad municipalities
elected the candidates of a resurgent Congress(I).
Normal life in Ayodhya and Faizabad remained unaffected on December 6.
Businessmen and traders belonging to the minority community kept
shutters down and observed the day as 'black day'. Elaborate security
arrangements were made by the district administr ation. All vehicles
and people entering the town were subjected to scrutiny. However,
pilgrims were allowed to have 'darshan' of the idol of Ram Lalla placed
at the Ram Janmabhoomi complex.
N. SRINIVASAN
Acharya Giriraj Kishore, senior vice-president of the VHP.
Notwithstanding this change of mood, VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders
continued with their aggressive rhetoric. Addressing the Kar Sevak
Sammelan, the VHP's international president Ashok Singhal, often
referred to as Field Marshal in the Sangh Parivar, asked the Union
government to hand over the 70-acre (28 hectares) plot of land acquired
by it in Ayodhya to its "legitimate owner", the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas,
the trust formed to oversee the construction of the temple. The VHP had
opposed the acquisition of the land by the P.V. Narasimha Rao
government soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
Earlier, both Singhal and Giriraj Kishore told the media that
the 'Dharam Sansad', scheduled to meet in January during the Maha Kumbh
in Allahabad, would fix a deadline for handing over the land. The VHP
would constitute committees in all the six lakh vi llages to recruit
kar sevaks for the next phase of the programme, they stated.
Giriraj Kishore told Frontline that "the Dharam Sansad would also
announce the date of the kar seva. From then on the preparations would
begin in full swing." The fabrication work for the temple was
progressing at the mandir nirman karyashalas (temple construction
workshops) at Pindwara in Sirohi district and Makrana in Nagaur
district of Rajasthan and at Karsevakpuram. So the actual kar seva
would essentially involve transporting these pre-fabricated pillars and
other parts to the site of construction and assembling them. Giriraj
Kishore said that 5,000 cubic feet of completed stone work, to be used
in the garbha griha (sanctum sanctorum), had already reached Ayodhya
from Pindwara. The pillars and other parts would be kept at thre e
different places in Ayodhya, including Karsevakpuram. Up to 60 per cent
of the ongoing stone work in the workshops in Rajasthan would be
completed by March 2001. "We are prepared to build up to the first
floor of the grand temple," he asserted.
According to Giriraj Kishore, the VHP has been moving in that direction
since last April; meetings of the Prabandhak Samiti (programme
committee) were organised in July in Agra and that of the Marg Darshak
Mandal (the guidance committee comprising sanyas ins) in October in
Goa. Both meetings evolved concrete programmes. Around 200 saints,
mahants, acharyas and sanyasins attended the meeting in Goa, and
apparently, prepared the blueprint for the temple.
However, sections of the Sangh Parivar point out that the VHP and the
Bajrang Dal have not been able to make any systematic progress with
regard to the schedule prepared in April. A senior VHP leader from
Uttar Pradesh cited Giriraj Kishore's failure to carry out his
programme for July of taking out a yatra from Jaipur to Ayodhya with
the model of the temple created in Jaipur. The model was to have been
consecrated in the Sarayu river before being placed at Karsevakpuram.
The yatra was conceived to "revive the Hindutva fervour" in northern
India and provide a launch pad for the "final kar seva" - that of
building the temple. Until Vajpayee's controversial statement of
December 6, there were indications that the yatra had been shelved;
Sangh Parivar activists were of the view that even if the yatra was
held it would not be a high-profile event. But Vajpayee's statement has
given the necessary fillip to the VHP to go ahead and make the yatra a
big event.
Enthused by the situation, Sangh Parivar insiders say the timetable for
the final kar seva would be rescheduled so as to start the run-up in
July-August 2001 instead of March and end by November-December. The
factors that prompted the Rashtriya Swayamsev ak Sangh (RSS) to suggest
a revised schedule were mainly related to the logistics of
the "adventurous kar seva". The logistical problems in undertaking the
task between March and May apparently include climatic conditions,
difficulty in getting the organ isational set-up in place and lack of
clarity in naming the commander-in-chief of the operations. The
agitation between 1989 and 1992, which culminated in the demolition of
the Babri Masjid, was led by Ashok Singhal and his second-in-command
Vinay Katiyar, who was then chief of the Bajrang Dal. The state of
health of Singhal and Giriraj Kishore, number two in the VHP, do not
permit them to command such a massive operation. The RSS is weighing
the strengths and weaknesses of younger leaders like Vinay Ka tiyar and
Praveen Togadiya. Political factors are bound to complicate these
logistical problems, though.
The Sangh Parivar earlier feared that Bharatiya Janata Party leaders
close to the Prime Minister would oppose the kar seva as an exercise
that would break the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) at the
Centre. But clearly, that threat seems to have receded since December
6. For the time being, however, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal would
basically attempt to keep their flock together until a concrete plan of
action is announced.
RAVI SHARMA
Ashok Singhal, VHP president.
There is already an indication as to what direction the "many moves" to
retain the flock would take. Vinay Katiyar, the BJP's Lok Sabha member
from Faizabad and a secretary of the VHP, told Frontline that he
proposed to initiate a dialogue with Mu slim leaders to find a solution
to the stasis. According to him, there are two ways to resolve the
Ayodhya issue; one is to introduce legislation to construct the temple.
This may not be possible at the moment as there was no unanimity in the
NDA on the issue, he said. "Hence dialogue is the only option and I am
going to initiate it."
However, Vinay Katiyar clarified that giving up the temple idea would
not be one of the parameters of the dialogue. He asserted that the
temple would come up at Ram Janmabhoomi. "We are ready to offer another
spot in Ayodhya for building a mosque. Muslim s have to accept it
because with the construction of the Ram mandir, the towns of Ayodhya
and Faizabad would spring to a new life, socially and economically.
There would be greater attention on the two towns and a lot of good
would come out of that. Righ t now there is only despondency there and
we need to change that for the betterment of the economic life of even
Muslims."
Clearly, Vinay Katiyar is getting ready to make a new move in the many
games played by the Sangh Parivar, which is all geared to launch new
enterprises in January.
--
http://www.indiacyberportal.com/index.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/