|
Ayodhya : VHP activists’ entry into disputed site deplored |
 |
Home Minister L.K. Advani had to face the wrath of the Opposition over the forced entry of VHP activists into the makeshift temple at Ayodhya in violation of the Supreme Court order. But the Opposition-sponsored motion in the Lok Sabha seeking to censure the NDA Government on the entry of VHP activists was rejected by Speaker G.M.C. Balayogi. “Adjournment motion is an extraordinary device which, if admitted, leads to setting aside the normal business for discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,” Balayogi said, ruling “though the subject is important enough to merit discussion in the House, I do not consider it appropriate to adjourn the entire business.”
The notice for adjournment motion was given by Mulayam Singh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Somnath Chatterjee (CPI-M), Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (RJD), P.R. Das Munshi (Congress) and G.M. Banatwala (Muslim League) and some others. Protesting against the rejection of the motion, Chatterjee said it could not be casually ignored and rule should be made to stand by. Mulayam Singh Yadav alleged that the BJP was indulging in all sorts of malpractices with the sole motto - how to win the coming Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh.
Alleging that the ruling party was fomenting communal passion and incite riots, Yadav said the recent attempt by Bajrang Dal activists to storm Taj Mahal was an example for this. He said farmers in UP were not getting the right price for their produce and till date they had suffered a total loss of Rs 15,000 crores and sought compensation for them. Chatterjee said the farmers in other parts of the country including Kerala and Tamil Nadu were also suffering and sought a discussion on the issue. He was supported by Congress Deputy Leader Shivraj Patil.
In an effort to defuse the crisis, Advani told the Rajya Sabha that the Ayodhya dispute could be resolved either through mutual consensus among all the parties concerned or on a verdict by the Supreme Court. However, the courts may take a long time in arriving at any decision, Advani said. The over three-hour discussion in the House saw frequent clashes between the BJP members and opposition . The Opposition finally staged a walkout, dissatisfied with the reply of Advani. The debate saw two Muslim MPs actress Shabana Azmi and Mohammad Azam Khan alleging that the patriotism of the minority community was always being challenged and no Muslim was going to ever feel secure in such an atmosphere. Pointed out Shabana “you are continuously making 150 million Muslims pay the price for the foolish utterances of any one of them. How can they ever feel secure?”
The entire Opposition took the Government to task for inaction on the issue of VHP activists entry, while punishing the law-enforcing officials. It was also alleged that the Government was in league with the violators of the court order. But Advani repeatedly asserted that security at the disputed site was reviewed and strengthened. Advani said whatever the VHP did was wrong and condemned the action of VHP leaders who along with over 20 others went into the barred area on October 17. He said the Government was committed to preserving secular values. The VHP had been told clearly that any breach of the Supreme Court directive on maintaining the ‘status quo’ was unacceptable. The UP Government had been told to take immediate action and punish the guilty. The CRPF men responsible for laxity had been transferred, the Minister said .
CPI (M) leader Somnath Chatterjee, went to the extent of accusing Prime Minister Vajpayee of complicity in the incident. “Why else would there be no action taken against the people responsible even after a month has passed since the incident took place?” he asked. He said the Prime Minister’s claim that a solution would be found to the temple issue as well as the recent promulgation of POTO, were all aimed at the UP elections. Along with POTO and the reinduction of George Fernandes as Defence Minister, Ayodhya has come in handy for the opposition to put the NDA on the defensive. The BJP has been sending mixed signals on whether it would use the temple issue for the UP elections. But the fact that the BJP is planning to fight on a separate manifesto is seen as a pointer to the Ayodhya issue coming to the fore once again.
VHP doubtful of solution by March 12
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has expressed doubts that a solution could be found to the Ram temple tangle before March 12 next and insisted that the Union Government hand over the disputed land at Ayodhya before the deadline set by it. “We are not hopeful. We are not getting any feedback (from the Government)”, VHP international general secretary Pravinbhai Togadia said as he warned of an intensified stir if land was not given to build the temple. Reacting to Vajpayee’s comment of finding a solution before March 12, Togadia said, “We are only getting positive good wishes, but we are not observing any positive (Government) action”.
Vajpayee, he said, had held discussions with VHP leaders, including the organisation’s secretary general Ashok Singhal about a month-and-a-half ago, but added that they were not getting any ‘concrete feedback’. Sticking to the VHP’s stand that the Government must hand over the possession of the land, Togadia said sadhus and sants from across the country would meet in Delhi on January 27, when they would finalise the next course of action. “The January 27 meeting will be the last programme to give a warning to the central Government”, he said. “If they do not give the land, there will be a mass agitation”, he warned.
The Prime Minister’s claim that he was working on a solution to the temple tangle, has not convinced either the Sangh parivar or the Muslim organizations. The minority bodies, in fact are worried that a solution may be thrust on them as there had been no talks with the leaders involved with the Babri movement. Except for some exploratory talks, Vajpayee had not held serious talks with the minority groups. Making his task most complicated, some of the BJP and RSS leaders have taken the stand that the temple already existed at the disputed site and the question was only of reconstruction. They cite the views of Home Minister L.K. Advani who told the Liberhan Commission probing the Babri Masjid demolition that a temple always existed at the spot.
|
