'Litigations Would Not Help'

Union home minister L.K. Advani today said that consolidation of Ayodhya related litigationswould not help to resolve the dispute and it could only be resolved through negotiations or legislation.

Deposing as a witness before the Liberhan commission of inquiry, probing the events leading to demolition of thedisputed structure in Ayodhya in december 1992, he said "consolidation of all the cases relating to the dispute couldnot solve the problem though BJP would not object if such a proposal came"

"We have to see the history of the case, which has been going on since 1949. The history of this case is alesson and a guide for us", he said while making his party's stand clear that it could be resolved mainly througha negotiation or through a legislation.

He made this submission in the wake of a question that former premier P.V. NarasimhaRao had sought four months' time from the sadhus and sants in July 1992 to resolve thedispute and that he wanted to consolidate all the cases under one judicial authority.

He, however, snapped at the commission's counsel for "testing his memory on the basis of newspaper reports"after the latter put a question to him whether the Rao government had in July 1992 approached theBJP, VHP or RSS to tackle the situation in Ayodhya, where kar seva was going on.

He said the commission could well draw inferences from the recorded facts of both the official white paper andBJP's white paper. 

When asked if his party had exerted any influence on the sadhus and sants, who were leading the movement,Advani said the BJP did not have any direct influence on them and his party had only supported the movement.

He, however, said "I am sure the views of the BJP were taken cognizance of by the sadhus and sants. ButI do not think we exercised any veto on them".

When asked if he and Atal Behari Vajpayee had requested Rao to intervene in the matter as the leaders of the movementwere not listening to them or the BJP, he said "our entire efforts were targeted at making thegovernment to talk to the sadhus and sants.

"BJP's efforts were targeted at making the government to talk to the sants" and following talks betweenRao and leaders of the movement on July 23, the kar seva was stopped onJuly 26 that year," he said.

After the talks, Rao did not take any initiative to resolve the dispute tillDecember six, when the disputed structure was demolished, he said.

He said Rao had failed to initiate any negotiation though he had promised in parliament to continue the dialogue
from the point where former premier Chandra Shekhar had left.

Chandra shekhar during his tenure as prime minister had called the disputing parties for negotiations to decideamong other things if a temple existed at the disputed site.

Asked if the Rao government wanted to have a legislation to resolve the dispute,he  said "I do remember that Kamal Nath, member of Rao's cabinet, had met me several time to putforth certain proposals which could be regarded as similar to some extent what former premierV.P.Singh had conceived".

Advani said he did not continue the discussion with Kamal Nath after he was informed byR.Kumarmanagalam that "Kamal Nath's proposal was his own and it did not have the stamp ofapproval of the prime minister".

On politicisation of the Ayodhya issue, he said "we also had not been active in the movement as it was more of areligious movement. After 1985, we felt there was a need to fight the vote bank politics". 

Congress president Rajiv Gandhi started election campaign from Ayodhya in 1989 with a slogan of bringingram rajya to appease the Hindus, he said adding "this made us feel why weshould not do something which is reflection of the sentiment of a overwhelming majority of the country". 

"We recalled the Somanath temple analogy and urged the Rajiv Gandhi government to take the sameapproach, which the first independent government had taken towards Somnath temple,to the Ayodhya issue".

Stating that this was the background of the BJP's active participation in Ayodhyamovement, he said for most political parties publicly supporting to the Babri MasjidAction Committee (BMAC) "it was a case of pure vote bank politics".

"The turning point came in 1985 when the Supreme Court judgement wassought to be negated by a legislative act".

He indicated that while the Muslim law was amended to appeal to thecommunity's vote bank, opening of the temple gate at Ayodhya was meant to appealto the Hindu vote bank and said "these decisions were not on the merits ofthe cases".