Front Page
Govt. appeasing VHP, says Opposition
By Our Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI, JAN 28. Opposition parties today accused the Government of ``appeasing'' the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) by referring to the Law Ministry the question of handing over the land acquired by the Centre in Ayodhya to a VHP-run trust. They said they were opposed to the handing over of any part of the land to anyone or any body before the final resolution of the Ayodhya dispute by the court.
However, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said it would react ``after the Law Ministry's report becomes available''. The party general-secretary, Sunil Shastri, argued that the Law Minister would examine the feasibility of handing over to the VHP-run trust only the ``undisputed land'' acquired in Ayodhya. While reiterating that the party was for settlement of the dispute through negotiations or a judicial verdict, the BJP created more than enough manoeuvering room for itself on an issue that was once its pet theme.
Strangely, it refused to react to the abusive language used by the VHP-supported `sant' rally against the Prime Minister on Sunday, with its leaders pleading they did not know what had been said. Nor was the party willing to say a word against the leaders who attended the rally and kept silent even as the Prime Minister was being attacked.
The Congress ruled out handing over any land to the VHP, including the area adjoining the disputed portion. Citing the 1994 Supreme Court judgment to support its stand, the party spokesperson, Jaipal Reddy, said, ``The Supreme Court judgment prohibits any decision on the matter until there is a final judgment.'' The Government was only a receiver of the 67-acre piece of land and it could decide about it only after the dispute was settled by the courts.
The party was conscious of the timing of the ``VHP demand'', coming as it did during the campaigning for the Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls. The Congress does not want to be viewed as being ambivalent on the issue; hence the unambiguous assertion. It also sought to nip in the bud the VHP's attempt to create the impression that the Congress was in agreement with it because of Sonia Gandhi's decision to depute Arjun Singh and Mr. Reddy to meet with VHP leaders.
Mr. Singh said the Congress had agreed to meet the VHP leaders because it did not want to be seen as shutting the door to talks. The meeting was called off after the VHP announced its `chetavani yatra'.
``We made it clear to them that since they had announced the `yatra' - that too in the middle of the elections - their mind appeared made up and there was little point in talking at this stage. We would consider it a later stage.'' The party emphasised that unlike the Government, which was willing to explore the legal possibility of handing over some of the land, the Congress was opposed against it as the VHP's temple construction plan included the disputed area on which the Babri Masjid earlier stood.
The CPI pointed out that the Government had clearly given in to the ultimatums issued by the VHP and the `chetavani yatra', which had challenged the authority of the rule of law and the Supreme Court. The party warned that efforts were on to create a situation in Ayodhya similar to that on December 6, 1992 when the Babri Masjid structure was pulled down. If the temple construction was allowed, it would ``break the social fabric'' and cause immense fear and insecurity in the minds of the minorities.
The CPI(M) politburo hit out at the Government for appeasing the VHP and taking steps towards helping the ``illegal moves for construction of a temple at the disputed site''. The reference to the Law Minister was seen by the party as a way of keeping alive the ``patently disruptive demand of the VHP'' and it could only worsen communal tensions. The move had ``dangerous implications for the country's unity.''
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Front Page
|
