Author: Navhind Times correspondent
Publications: The Navhind Times,
Panaji, Goa
Dated: February 21, 2001
The former prime minister, Mr. P
V Narasimha Rao, on Tuesday told the Justice Liberhan Commission of inquiry
that there was no commitment from his government to re-build the Babri
mosque demolished in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 on the same place.
Deposing before the Commission probing
the factors that led to the demolition of the Mosque for the second consecutive
day, Mr. Rao said all that his government's white paper stated was that
the government would rebuild "the structure" that existed on the disputed
land. He went a step ahead to say it was for the court of law to find out
whether a mosque or a temple existed on the site. "Accordingly the government
would have built a mosque or temple" Rao said adding it was the import
of the white paper his government then had submitted. Mr. Rao buttressed
his arguments by citing the dispute "whether a temple or a mosque exited"
was going on in a local court since 1947 and courts of law could not come
to any conclusion in all these 54 years.
"Since there is a dispute....we
call it a disputed structure or disputed land ... what's wrong in that"
an irritated Mr. Rao asked during cross examination by the defence counsel.
He kept his cool throughout and projected himself as a "democrat." He said
since he was a democrat he did not dismiss the Kalyan Singh led BJP government
in UP then. He went by the Sakaria Commission report which had recommended
that Article 356 of the Constitution invoked to dismiss a state government
should be used in "rarest of rare cases."
Secondly, the then governor's report
was against imposition of the President's rule in the state, although senior
leaders like Messrs. Jyoti Basu, Mulayam Singh and others had then clamoured
for the dismissal of the state government.
Quoting from the governor's report
Mr. Rao said the governor was against imposition of the Central Rule as
lakhs of kar sevaks had already gathered around the site and dismissal
of the state government would have resulted in "blood shed" not only in
UP but also in several states. Secondly, Mr. Kalyan Singh as well as the
UP government had in a sworn affidavit stated before the Supreme Court
that the structure would not be harmed at all.
Mr. Rao said the Supreme Court itself
had allowed "limited kar seva and he could do nothing about. When the defence
counsel implied whether his memory served him better at this age and stage
of health, Mr. Rao retorted holding "it is unfair to question my memory
on every statement I make."
In a related development Mr. Kalyan
Singh today moved the Apex Court seeking to club his petition in the Delhi
High Court along with the one he had already filed before the Allahabad
High Court.
Mr. Singh argued in the petition,
yet to be taken up by the Supreme Court, that since both the petitions
were on "similar and same issues" a High Court of his convenience, Allahabad
High Court in this case, should take up the matter.
In both the petitions Mr. Singh
stated that Liberhan Commission should not summon him as he was already
an accused in the criminal case. His argument is that the Commission summoning
him would force him to make statements which would be used against him
as evidence in the criminal case in the trial court.
The apex court would take up the
matter in due course.
