![]() Tuesday, Jul 15, 2003 |
| National | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Neena Vyas
Today, top BJP sources made it clear that it was politely, but firmly, conveyed to Mr. Sudershan at the July 12 meeting at the Prime Minister's residence that the party was committed to the National Democratic Alliance and, therefore, could not bring forward any legislation on Ayodhya. The NDA agenda commits it to resolving the dispute through a formula mutually agreed upon in negotiations between contending parties or through a court verdict. "We cannot thrust the BJP agenda on our allies," a senior leader said. In that context, the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani's statement virtually rejecting the suggestion of legislation even before the party considered it formally has not surprised anyone. The confusion arose because after the July 12 meeting, the RSS office-bearer, Madan Das Devi, told presspersons that the BJP had agreed to "consider" legislation as a way out of the impasse. The statement that the BJP had agreed to "consider" this option was a way to mollify the sentiments of the other Sangh organisation, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and broker a truce between the two siblings. The VHP leaders said today that Mr. Advani had only stated what the BJP had been saying all along since coming to power. Before that, when in Opposition, Mr. Advani himself had favoured legislation on the Ayodhya issue, a senior VHP leader said. The issue is expected to be discussed at some length at the BJP's national executive committee meeting in Raipur from July 18 to 20, but that seems to be a formality as the conclusion is foregone. Tomorrow, the party general secretaries will meet the BJP president, M. Venkaiah Naidu, and Mr. Advani to work out the details of the Raipur meet's agenda. At present, the view is that the Ayodhya issue should be dealt with in the general political resolution. But a final decision has yet to be taken. Party leaders admitted that the Vajpayee Government was able to pass the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in the teeth of opposition from the Congress, the Left and some other parties through the joint session of Parliament route. However, Ayodhya could not be taken up similarly because not only were the Opposition parties against it, the NDA allies were also opposed to this. And with elections round the corner, the BJP was not going to do anything that may begin the process of unravelling of the NDA alliance. The Sangh Parivar was keen that the Vajpayee Government resign, if necessary, on the Ayodhya issue and then make it the focus of the next election. However, BJP leaders admit that the party has concluded that Ayodhya cannot bring in the number of votes needed to get a clear majority. The party will have to depend heavily on its allies, and therefore, could not afford to annoy its allies or make it impossible for them to support it. The Congress spokesperson, Jaipal Reddy, today took strong objection to Mr. Advani throwing the Ayodhya ball into the Congress court. "The fact is that the Congress party's stand has been clear and consistent. There is no scope or place for legislation to resolve the Ayodhya issue, nor does this feature in the NDA agenda," Mr. Reddy said. The Congress stand was that all parties should await the court verdict. He said that Mr. Advani's statement virtually saying that legislation on Ayodhya was not possible unless the Congress agreed on it was "the Sangh brotherhood way of keeping the issue alive". "The BJP", he added, "was cleverly and viciously focussing on its own agenda through such statements".
Related Stories:
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|