Back to Ayodhya

The statements Union Home Minister L.K. Advani and his party colleagues have made before the Liberhan Commission in the past few days reflect the Bharatiya Janata Party's strategy to improve its electoral prospects in Uttar Pradesh which is threatening to slip away from its hold.

PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI NAUNIDHI KAUR in New Delhi

"I AM proud of the Ram movement. I think it is a great movement," declared L.K. Advani on June 13. Deposing before the Justice M.S. Liberhan Commission, which is inquiring into the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992, the Union Home Minister said in the same breath: "We have been unfair to ourselves by terming as a mosque the structure where Lord Ram's idols were being worshipped under a court's direction. By doing so we have earned a bad name for the country."

So, the fangs are out again. With the elections to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly expected to be held early next year, the issue of Ayodhya evidently could not remain in the background any longer. The compulsions of coalition politics made the Bharatiya Janata Party keep in abeyance its Hindutva agenda, which is woven around this issue. Now it has been brought to the fore again by the man who ensured the BJP's electoral advances by riding a rath from Somnath with Ayodhya as the destination. Although the rath was stopped in Bihar by the indomitable Laloo Prasad Yadav, the wave of communal frenzy generated by it eventually took the BJP to power in New Delhi.

The party which had just two seats in the Lok Sabha in 1984, won 86 seats in 1989. Its vote share too increased from 7.4 per cent in 1984 to 11.5 per cent in 1989. And in 1991, the same Ram temple helped the party increase its strength in the Lok Sabha to 120, with a vote share of 20.1 per cent.

The Ayodhya formula, however, did not work in the post-demolition days, forcing the party to take recourse to strategies such as projecting a larger-than-life image of Atal Behari Vajpayee and coining slogans like "Give us a chance". But there is a section in the party that feels that the time has come to invoke the name of Ram. And they have found a platform in the Liberhan Commission where even Ministers wax eloquent on the Hindutva agenda without attracting criticism for fanning communalism. Thus, in a sense, the much-delayed proceedings of the Liberhan Commission have come as a blessing in disguise for the BJP.

Taking pride in his participation in the Ram temple agitation, Advani justified the BJP joining a movement that was originally initiated by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). He said that it was only in 1986, when Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi started practising vote bank politics, that the BJP was forced to join the temple movement. "The Supreme Court judgment in the Shah Bano case was reversed to appease the Muslim vote bank. And in order to appease the Hindu vote bank, the unlocking of the temple gates and shilanyas were allowed. We had no choice but to join the movement to fight the politics of vote bank," Advani said.

BJP leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi and Vinay Katiyar have been singing the same tune before the Liberhan Commission. Joshi declared that there was no dispute about the fact that what existed in Ayodhya was a temple. Katiyar said that the temple did not become a disputed structure just because some people said so. "Just because some people say that Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory, does it become disputed?" The similarity in the depositions of these three leaders shows that there indeed is a method in the apparent madness over Ayodhya. These obviously are not random statements made on the spur of the moment; they are part of a well-thought-out strategy.

That the strategy has something to do with U.P. is clear from the fact that the BJP is hard-pressed to find an issue that will ensure its victory in the Assembly elections. Hidden in the statements of Advani is also the message that when the time comes, the party will stand by the side of those (mainly the VHP) who have declared that the construction of the Ram temple will begin in March next year. This is evident from his defence of the kar sevaks' action of hoisting a saffron flag atop the Babri Masjid in October 1990. "It was a symbolic gesture in the backdrop of strict restrictions imposed by the then U.P. Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav," he said and declared that it was the "happiest day" in his life. Not long ago Advani had said that December 6, 1992, when the Masjid was demolished, was the "most unfortunate day" in his life.

This is the first time since he became Home Minister that Advani has spoken out so extensively in favour of the Ram temple agitation. Since Advani is the de facto Number Two in the party after Vajpayee, his endorsement of the Ram temple agitation would have cheered the votaries of Hindutva in the BJP. This section of BJP supporters was unhappy that the party had put the temple issue on the back burner in order to please its allies at the Centre.

General secretary of the BJP Pyarelal Khandelwal denied that the party was trying to draw political mileage from the Ram temple issue. He, however, admitted that the BJP had always been in favour of building a Ram temple at Ayodhya and would support the movement when the time for its construction came. "The BJP has never treated the Ram temple issue as a part of vote bank politics. But we have been supporting the temple construction programme and will continue to do so," he said.

Statements like this, say political observers, are part of a last-ditch attempt by the BJP to save its sinking ship in U.P. The party's prospects in the State are indeed bleak. With several Ministers allegedly having criminal links, the party's "clean" image has taken a beating. Besides, the compromises the party has made in order to survive in power have belied its claim that it is a "party with a difference". There is no development work worth the name being carried out in the State. Atrocities on Dalits have increased, and the Other Backwards Classes, being increasingly marginalised within the BJP, are disenchanted with the party. "The Hindutva agenda is being raised deliberately. The cry will reach a crescendo around December and peak in March when the VHP plans to start the temple construction work in Ayodhya," said a political observer. It is no mere coincidence that the Assembly elections are due in March.

As the Liberhan Commission went ahead with its proceedings it became clear that the BJP had little reverence for it. Vinay Katiyar said that its report would be "thrown into the dustbin". According to him, Ram "is responsible for the December 6, 1992 event" and "is angry with the establishment of the Commission." He said: "When Ram, the owner of the land and temple in Ayodhya, has not filed an FIR, how can Hindus be prosecuted?" Referring to the Commission's proceedings and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case in Lucknow, Katiyar said that Ram found them ironical because even though he was legally the owner of the temple his devotees were being prosecuted.

Advani misquoted former Prime Minister V.P. Singh. He said that on October 18, 1990, V.P. Singh told him over the phone that some ray of light was visible and asked him why they could not convert it into a full beam. "Then you (Advani) and I (V.P. Singh) can perform kar seva together," Advani quoted V.P. Singh as saying. V.P. Singh was prompt in his rebuttal. Though he did not deny what Advani had attributed to him, V.P. Singh said he was quoted out of context. "My statement was not presented in a true form," he said. According to V.P. Singh, what he actually said was that if the pro-Hindu forces agreed to construct a Ram temple in any place other than the disputed site he would not hesitate to offer kar seva there. "I stick to my statement and ask the National Democratic Alliance government to select any site other than the disputed one in Ayodhya for the construction of a Ram temple." "In that case," he said, "I would join the kar seva."

In his deposition, Murli Manohar Joshi revealed the real agenda of the BJP. He admitted that the U.P. government had acquired the 2.77 acres of land at the Ayodhya site in October 1991 in order "to facilitate construction of a temple and to reduce the conflict to the minimum". But the U.P. government's notification had stated that the land was being acquired to develop tourism and create facilities for pilgrims.

THE statements by Advani and BJP leaders were strongly criticised by the major political parties. The Congress(I) accused them of pursuing their "core communal agenda". The Left parties demanded Advani's resignation and described the contents of his deposition as being contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Referring to Advani's comments about V.P. Singh, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, using strong words, accused BJP leaders of routinely resorting to untruths. The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) said that as the U.P. elections were approaching, Advani and the other members of the Sangh Parivar were trying to whip up communal hatred.

The VHP is confident of getting the BJP government's support at the right time. "Our movement has nothing to do with politicians of whatever hue. Irrespective of their support or opposition, we will continue to struggle and die for the temple construction and our programme will begin in March next," said Acharya Giriraj Kishore, the VHP's senior vice-president. According to him, the BJP will support the VHP's programme out of political compulsion. "They are a political party and whatever they do has to have a political end. Otherwise why would they support us? Only to do bhajan-kirtan?" he said.