• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Temple talk

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

ON Wednesday, the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, made it clear that construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya was ``an expression of the national feeling, which is yet to be realised''. In other words, the ``nation'' wanted the construction of the temple although, as he hastened to add, how the temple was built ``is also very important''.

This is an unambiguous position to adopt, and it reminds one of equally forthright statements made earlier by BJP functionaries on the same subject. One such statement was that made by K. L. Sharma, the then spokesperson of the BJP, on June 15, 1998, whi ch made it crystal clear that the party was all for building the temple on the disputed site. Sharma said: ``We are committed to it and the temple will be constructed on the site''. He added: ``We will construct the temple according to the law and the Co nstitution... on the disputed site; we will solve this issue through negotiations, legislation and consensus''.

Quite clearly, what both Mr Vajpayee and Sharma were giving voice to -- over a period of two and a half years -- was (by their own admission) the ``national interest''. If this is so, what was the provocation for the then BJP chief, Mr Kushabhau Thakre, to come out with the ``clarification'' just eight days later (on June 23, that is) that the BJP was ``committed to the national agenda on the issue'' and that the Vajpayee Government had decided ``to abide by the court verdict as far as the construction of the temple is concerned''. What if the court verdict painted the demolition of the Babri Masjid in dark colours? Would that also be an expression of the ``national interest'', and would the BJP abide by it knowing full well that the temple's construct ion was (in the Prime Minister's words) ``an expression of national feeling yet to be realised''?

These questions also apply to the present BJP president, Mr Bangaru Laxman, who has made it abundantly clear (on September 12, for example) that ``we will abide by the court's decision; this is our stand''. Interestingly, Mr Laxman is also reported to ha ve said: ``We wanted Muslims to show a goodwill gesture by relocating the mosque. When it was demolished, we described it as unfortunate''. Even more interesting has been Mr Laxman's August 26 Nagpur obiter dicta on the three basic planks on which the BJ P stands -- the uniform civil code, Article 370 and Ayodhya -- namely: ``These issues are like currency. They are no more relevant. They were relevant at a particular point of time''.

Clearly, the Prime Minister cannot agree with this line because he still believes that the construction of the Ram Temple is an ``expression of national feeling''. In other words, the issue is far from being irrelevant today. But is he working in the ``n ational interest'' by not giving concrete expression to the ``national feeling''. Or does he feel that by honouring the programme of the National Democratic Alliance (of which the BJP is a constituent), he is actually working to the greater glory of the national interest than would be the case if the ``national feeling'' on the Ram Temple issue was actively backed?

Indeed, what is so ``national'' about this ``national feeling'' if Mr Laxman's Nagpur invitation to the minority community to identify itself with the BJP is to make any sense? Further, are any issues of principle involved here? If they are, one is remin ded of Mr Vajpayee's noble words uttered on August 15, 1998, when he said: ``I want to assure you that in my whole life I have never compromised on principles for the sake of power; nor am I prepared to do so now. Being in and out of power is the same fo r me''.