Opposition finds PM's musings inconsistent

By Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI, JAN. 2. Each time the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, says something on the Ram temple controversy, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) responds by saying he had remained consistent and truly reflected the party's views. But other political parties and the media see nothing consistent about it.

Today, it was no different. While the BJP asserted once again that ``there was no difference'' between what he told reporters on December 6 and 7 last, what he said in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in response to the debates and what he spelt out in his ``musings'' from Kumarakom, the Congress wanted to know whether he had spoken his final word on Ayodhya. ``We want to know whether the Prime Minister will stick to this position (the ``musings'' position) or change it once again,'' the Congress spokesperson, Mr. Anil Shastri, asked.

The CPI(M) politburo dismissed Mr. Vajpayee's latest statements as ``verbal jugglery'', saying he had earlier suggested that the temple be built on the site where the Babri mosque stood. The party also objected to the Prime Minister equating the problem in Jammu and Kashmir with the Ayodhya issue - the difference being that the Ayodhya issue was deliberately raised, and communal fires were stoked by the RSS combine for assaulting secular principles and for political gain.

The official BJP view was given by the party spokesperson, Mr. Jana Krishnamurthi. ``There was no ambiguity in the Prime Minister's approach. This should put at rest all speculation.''

But the Congress disagreed. ``First he said that the RSS was a cultural organisation; he was forced to retract that. Then, he asserted in Staten Island, New York, that he was a `swayamsevak' always, and then he went back on that. Now, he is trying to go back on his Ayodhya statements,'' Mr. Shastri said.

He wanted to know whether this was the result of introspection or inner contradictions between the BJP and the RSS or the result of pressure from his NDA partners.

`Message to VHP, others'

But some BJP leaders preferred to either maintain a discreet silence - they were not particularly overjoyed by the ``musings'' - or explain Mr. Vajpayee's need to go back to the controversial issue by saying that he was giving a ``message'' to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which is planning to announce later this month the date for starting construction of a Ram temple.

A senior party leader, Mr. J.P. Mathur, said, ``It is a message to the VHP that the Centre will not sit back and watch silently if they break the law.'' Asked when the Centre would act, he said, ``Only when the law is violated.''

Mr. Krishnamurthi had earlier said that because of the differing interpretations by the Opposition parties and the media to what Mr. Vajpayee said in Parliament, this article and a further explanation became necessary. He refused to identify the VHP as the organisation the Prime Minister referred to in his article, saying it was a warning to all organisations not to cross the limit imposed by law.

The CPI(M)'s view was that whatever the Prime Minister had said and was saying, he could not escape the responsibility of having encouraged the RSS-VHP combine to go ahead with a conspiracy to build a temple at the disputed site. When the date for the start of construction was announced later this month, it would put to test his political will. He would be expected to put down firmly any illegal activity and ``discharge his constitutional responsibility''. The Congress noted that had the Prime Minister articulated earlier what he has said in his ``musings'', the confrontation in Parliament could have been avoided.

(Caption: The Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, with the president of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, Maulana As'ad Madani (centre) and the Congress leader, Mr. Arjun Singh, at an Id milan reception in New Delhi on Tuesday. - Photo: S.Arneja)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : Hurriyat undecided about team
Next     : 'A secular, inclusive, integrative agenda'