What is your reaction to the controversy over the Ayodhya issue?
What is your reaction to the controversy over the Ayodhya issue?
I do not want to add much to what has already been said because that will only add to the Opposition’s desire to create confusion and try and make political capital. They (the Opposition) have been attempting to create a needless controversy by raking up a non-issue. There has been no change in the situation for nearly a decade, because the construction work away from the site (the ‘pre-fabrication’ of a Ram temple) was first begun in 1990. There is nothing illegal about that and, as I have said in Parliament, our stand on the issue is exactly the same as that of the previous governments.
But hasn’t there been a qualitative change in the situation after the prime minister’s assurance on June 10 in the Rajya Sabha that the court’s decision will be fully honoured whichever way it goes?
What Vajpayeeji said in Parliament, in fact what I said in my own way, is the position of the government. There should be no confusion on that. We have said that the status quo will be maintained as that is the court’s directive. Also, we have dropped the Ram mandir from the national agenda for governance, therefore there should be no doubts. So where does the question of legislation by the government (to overturn a possible adverse verdict) for a Ram Temple arise?(This contradicts BJP spokesperson K.L Sharma’s assertion at a press conference in Delhi on June 15 that the BJP-led Central government would like to "legislate to nullify an adverse (to the BJP-VHP view and in favour of the disputed site being handed over to the party pleading for the restoration of the Babri Masjid) verdict". Sharma added, "Parliament has a right to legislate even after a court verdict", giving the example of the Shah Bano case in which the apex court ruling was nullified by the Rajiv Gandhi government through legislation. He said the BJP-led government would "see how it could be done" when asked how such legislation could be pushed through Parliament given the government’s fragile majority.)
What is your impression of the situation in Bihar in comparison with Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, where demands for dismissing the state government have been raised?
In comparison to the other two, Bihar is different. The violence is continuing and the (law and order) situation has turned ugly.
But the media has been reporting the collapse of the state machinery for well over a decade now and under various regimes.
Yes, but there is a qualitative difference. For example, I have just concluded meetings in the Home Ministry with the states where there is Naxalite activity...in the other three Naxalite-infested contiguous states (of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh) the problem of violence persists in spite of the state governments; in Bihar it seems to be continuing because of the state government. There is a deterioration.
Will the Bihar government be dismissed? Does the governor’s report and the feedback from the Home Ministry team call for such a step? Even a party like the CPI(M), whose MLA was murdered, is not demanding the Rabri government’s sacking.
The violence is continuing but the situation is being politicised. We will therefore take all precautions. There is no specific governor’s report as such, apart from the routine situation reports. As for the Home Ministry team, it is yet to submit a final report. But despite the grim scenario in Bihar, the sacking of a state government under Article 356 is a delicate and complicated matter. And we have been against its misuse. It will be contemplated only after a careful scrutiny of all the evidence and we will proceed very carefully.
The criticism on the Budget has been that the government has fallen between two stools—neither whole hog swadeshi nor liberalisation.
Naturally, our opponents will say that. But our swadeshi policy—which means encouraging and providing impetus for indigenous small-scale units, cottage industries and agriculture but which is at the same time against the license-quota Raj and unnecessary fetters on the economy—is for many the ideal blend. It does not mean that we are isolationist or protectionist in economic terms at all; our working out an agreement with Suzuki on the dispute over Maruti is a case in point. And apart from the confusion over the urea and petrol price hike and its eventual withdrawal, the Opposition found it hard to come up with any criticism of the Budget. Even these were functional problems which, really, are par for the course.
Tags