Author:
Publication: The Times of India
Date: June 15, 2001
Union home minister L. K. Advani's
sixth deposition before the Liberhan commission was spent discussing the
relative merits of different proposals to solve the Ayodhya tangle and
analysing the political gains different parties made out of the issue.
On the proposal by then prime minister
P.V Narasimha Rao, in his meeting with sadhus in July 1992, that different
lawsuits on the Ayodhya issue be consolidated to be decided by one judicial
authority, Mr Advani said the BJP as a party did not object to it. But
he added a caveat, "We have to see the history of this case. It has been
going on since 1949. The history of this case is a lesson that this matter
can be resolved mainly through negotiated settlement or through legislation
as V.P. Singh had proposed. Even consolidation will not solve the matter
though one would not object if the proposal comes."
Mr Advani also disclosed that for
months, Kamal Nath, then a minister in Rao cabinet, was in touch with him
and had similar plans as suggested by V. P. Singh earlier. "But after several
meetings a point came when I was told by R. Kumaramangalam that Mr Kamal
Nath's proposals were his own and did not have the PM's approval. I was
taken aback to hear that he was not authorised. In fact, he had even showed
me draft proposals and at no point I felt he was unauthorised. I still
feel so," Mr Advani said.
Responding to a question on how,
after the government acquired 2.77 acres of land near the Babri masjid,
demolitions of smaller temples were carried out, Mr Advani said this could
best be answered by the people involved. "I or the BJP was not involved
in these matters," he said. When Liberhan counsel Anupam Gupta wondered
if it was not anomalous to demolish other temples to construct a Ram temple,
Mr Advani persisted with his earlier answer.
On the kar seva in July 1992, Mr
Advani made it clear that the call was given by sadhus and the BJP was
only supporting it. However, he added, "We were firm that the court orders
should not be violated." He also admitted that during the course of this
action there was interaction between the UP government and the BJP leadership
in Delhi.
