Rao delayed HC verdict, Advani tells Liberhan

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI, MAY 15. The Union Home Minister, Mr. L.K. Advani, today accused the Congress Government of P.V. Narasimha Rao of ``using judiciary as an instrument to thwart people's will'' and delaying an early verdict from the Allahabad High Court on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute which ultimately led to the demolition of the mosque at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

``If the verdict on the land acquisition case had been delivered before December 6, 1992, whether for or against the U.P. Government, a situation would have arisen where no demolition would have taken place,'' Mr. Advani told the Liberhan Commission here.

Continuing his deposition for the second consecutive day, he blamed the Centre for not taking any step at any point of time to request the Allahabad High Court to deliver an early judgment. ``Even though the Government was conscious that certain aspects of the Ayodhya dispute could not be resolved through judicial process, they always avoided this by saying `let us wait for the court orders','' he told the one-man Commission.

Mr. Advani said that Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, BJP leader, he and the then RSS chief, Mr. Rajinder Singh (Rajju Bhaiyya), had met the Prime Minister, Mr. Narasimha Rao, to urge him to request the High Court to deliver its judgment early.

``We were also putting pressure on the Central Government to request the High Court for an early verdict. But without giving us any rationale, they refused to do so. When it became public that the Central Government had told Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Advani and others that it is not going to make even a request for an early verdict, the message was conveyed to the judiciary, which did not give an early verdict.''

Mr. Advani said that Mr. Rajinder Singh had met the Prime Minister on December 3 and again urged that the High Court be requested to deliver its verdict before December 6. He said that Mr. Singh also expressed his apprehension that anything untoward could happen in Ayodhya but the Mr. Rao told the RSS chief that he was confident that ``with you all being in control nothing untoward would happen''.

In reply to a query by the Commission's counsel, Mr. Advani said that the nature of `kar seva' at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, was decided by those directly in charge of it. ``As BJP, we were keen that Supreme Court orders be adhered to and a symbolic `kar seva', not amounting to construction, be carried out. It was this plan that was being envisaged. It did appear to us that there were difficulties; so a final decision in the acquisition case would help greatly clear the air.''

Recalling the nascent stage of the Ayodhya movement, Mr. Advani said that for a long time he had nothing to do with the movement even though the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, sadhus and others were involved and the BJP supported it in general. ``Decisions in respect of programmes were taken by those in charge of the movement. A political party comes into sharp focus, therefore, in the minds of the people, it is the BJP whose contribution to the Ayodhya movement got highlighted.''

Mr. Advani said that his anxiety was that a confrontation on Ayodhya issue should be avoided. ``When the BJP took up the Ayodhya cause, it was clearly indicated in our manifesto that we were in favour of a Ram temple but we would like to see this done without hurting the sentiments of our Muslim brethren.''

Stressing that the BJP did not have any coordination with the VHP and others in the decision-making process, Mr. Advani said the VHP expected the BJP to support its cause in Parliament and at other fora. ``But our approach and line was such that at times it may not have been always palatable to them.''

In reply to another question, Mr. Advani said that he favoured a similar approach towards the Ayodhya issue as was adopted for constructing the Somnath temple in the early 1950s by the Nehru Government. About the makeshift temple at the disputed site, he said he did not know who paid for it and added that it would not have cost a lot of money.

Mr. Advani also cited the example of Andhra Pradesh as told to him by N.T.Rama Rao, former Chief Minister, on relocation of about a dozen ancient temples during construction of a dam. Elaborating, he said that relocation meant that the mosque was to be repositioned elsewhere either by consensus of the Muslim community or by legislation, and not illegally and forcibly. Responding to a query, he said he did not know if relocation was discussed by the two sides.

Mr. Advani said that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chandra Shekhar, had consciously brought the two parties together for dialogue and for sometime the dialogue did take place. ``It did not happen earlier or later. Therefore, I have expressed appreciation for his efforts.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Previous : Pak. clarifies Musharraf remarks on NMD
Next     : India, Israel to hold security dialogue