NEWSLINKS US EDITION COLUMNISTS DIARY SPECIALS INTERVIEWS CAPITAL BUZZ REDIFF POLL THE STATES ELECTIONS ARCHIVES SEARCH REDIFF
''It was not an empty promise, but a crucial, important and sincere promise. But how could the structure be rebuilt in accordance with the law when the matter was under litigation,'' Rao said while deposing before the Liberhan commission of inquiry, probing the December 6, 1992 demolition of the disputed structure.
He expressed helplessness in replying to a question by the Muslim Personal Law Board counsel on why no effective steps were taken to fulfil the commitment made by his government, in his address to the nation, in the aftermath of the demolition.
''All that was possible at that moment was to make a commitment that the demolished structure should be rebuilt. Anything beyond that was not possible as a litigation was continuing,'' he iterated, to clarify why no application was moved by his government before any legal body to restore the structure.
Rao said it was the central government's decision to rebuild the mosque at Ayodhya. The Union Cabinet had not given any instruction to the then attorney-general Milan Banerjee to inform a Supreme Court bench, which met on the evening of December 6,1992, that the situation was too hostile for it to pass any instruction for the demolition of the temporary structure put up by kar sevaks.
Though the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress manifestos for the 1891 Lok Sabha polls were far apart on the Ayodhya issue, both envisaged the existence of a temple and mosque at Ayodhya. Only their methodology and arguments were different, the former prime minister said.
On Cabinet colleagues accusing him of 'soft-pedalling the Ayodhya issue', Rao said that at the Cabinet meeting in the aftermath of the demolition, remarks by colleagues were ''characterised by anguish and a kind of helpless anger at how the country was betrayed''.
Denying charges by some senior Congress leaders that he had kept them in the dark while negotiating the Ayodhya issue, Rao said all important Congress leaders were involved in the process. ''In fact, they were involving themselves to such an extent that there were objections from others''.
He refuted the charge that the Ayodhya issue was not discussed at Cabinet meetings.
On then home secretary Madhav Godbole's accusations, in his book Unfinished Innings, that when a crowd of kar sevaks was gathering in Ayodhya, the highest leadership of the country was sitting back, letting events take their own course and not following the contingency plan prepared by him, Rao said the plan prepared by Godbole was not proper.
''He wanted to start the contingency plan, which was kept top secret even from the prime minister. I was only told about it orally, before the arrival of the first kar sevak. The arrival of the first kar sevak was not a contingency. So, in my view, the preparation had to continue by stationing central paramilitary forces. They would have been used only when the actual contingency arrived and the state government felt unable to control a large crowd...''
On why he had rejected Godbole's advice that the government suggest to the Supreme Court to instruct the then Uttar Pradesh Government to submit a construction plan of the proposed temple so that the intentions of the kar sevaks could have been known, Rao said the issue of temple construction did not figure before the Supreme Court and giving such a suggestion was not proper.
''Moreover, the central point has to stop temple construction and not call for such plans. The question of a temple plan was very wide and I was examining it from a different plane. Moreover, the backgrounder prepared by him was at variance with the Congress manifesto and I could not have accepted it.''
On whether he had discussed the matter of kar sevaks assembling in Ayodhya with then UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh when he met him on November 30, 1992, Rao said it was the subject matter of the home ministry and he did not remember it now.
He also defended his asking for the governor's report on the situation in Uttar Pradesh before taking action on the Ayodhya issue.
Rao claimed that he was not espousing the cause of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or the Babri Masjid Action Committee, but the secular cause on the Ayodhya issue.
He, however, had no reply when asked how his secular government had failed to protect a religious place of worship. He only said that during his four sittings at the commission, he was trying to explain how the structure came to be destroyed.
UNI
EARLIER REPORTVerdict on charge-sheeted BJP, VHP leaders reserved
Back to top
Tell us what you think of this report
