RSS  |  Samvad  |  Vital Infotech Ltd.

December     Last updated: December 23 : 7:00 p.m.

NDA stands united opposition is divided
Dynamics of Ayodhya discourse drastically altered

Shyam Khoala

Parliament has emphatically rejected the Opposition demand to drop three ministers, L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi and Umashri Bharati, for their alleged involvement in the demolition of the Babri structure and has put its seal of approval on their exoneration by the Prime Minister and his decision that he would not accept their resignation even if they offered to quit. Atalji's assertion that Ayodhya movement was a manifestation of the national sentiments has been widely acclaimed and electrified the forces of Hindutva. This has drastically altered the Ayodhya discourse. The BJP is no longer on the defensive. BJP's contention that the three eminent ministers have been falsely implicated in the demolition case has the full support of its allies. Samata leader and Defence Minister Goerge Fernandes came out openly in support of the ministers and the MDMK leader Shri Vaiko chided the Opposition for raising the Ayodhya issue saying the latter had run out of issues. The Tamil Nadu leader described Advani as a man of conviction who had vowed not to enter Parliament till he was cleared of the charges in the Jain hawala case. TMC and the TDP have expressed certain reservations on the Ayodhya issue. It is understandable in view of their apprehension about its fallout on their vote-bank among Muslims in their respective States.

NDA stands united If the Opposition's strategy was to drive a wedge between the BJP and its allies by raising the spectre of BJP's “hidden agenda”, it has misfired. Most of the allies sided with the BJP. Only TMC and TDP wanted the Prime Minister to clarify his position on the Ayodhya issue. The Prime Minister stood his ground. His assurance that the Supreme Court judgement would be respected and that he was committed to the NDA agenda is totally unexceptionable. What else can the Prime Minister say? Can the Prime Minister, or for that matter any responsible citizen, say that he or she would not respect the verdict of the apex court? Did anyone expect the Prime Minister to say he is not committed to his coalition's agenda? The fact that despite their reservation, the allies voted with the Government on the Congress motion under rule 184 that was defeated 291 to 179 (with BSP abstaining) has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the allies need the BJP as much as the latter needs them. If the alliance partners can talk about their party agendas, so can the Prime Minister and other BJP leaders. The issue has been settled once for all.

The Government will abide by the NDA agenda but there can be no ban on BJP ministers expressing their opinion on issues that are close to their hearts. The Opposition, on the other hand, is badly divided, Mulayam Singh, leader of SP. criticised both the BJP and the Congress and held both of them responsible for the demolition of the structure. The BSP went a step ahead and abstained from voting. The Congress was isolated. So were the Communists. Many in the Congress are blaming their leader for losing ground by raising the issue. Atalji referred to the division in Opposition ranks by telling Somnath Chatterjee that the SP would not side with them till the Communists remained soft towards the Congress. Prime Minister remains Atal Three cheers for Atalji for taking the bull by the horn. He steadfastly resisted pressures to budge from his stated position. He reiterated on the floor of the House what he had said in response to questions from the media that Ayodhya movement was a manifestation of the national sentiment and rightly drew a parallel between the reconstruction of the Somnath temple in the 50s and the reconstruction of Sri Ram temple at Ayodhya. In this context, he referred to the national celebration of the 400th year of the Khalsa Panth and the 2600th year of Lord Mahavira to point out that the Ayodhya movement was on similar lines.

He firmly stood by his assertion that there were only two solutions to the Ayodhya dispute. Either it is decided judicially or the Hindus and Muslims find a negotiated settlement to hand over the disputed site to the Hindus for the reconstruction of the temple. It is not without significance that although the Prime Minister recalled what he had said immediately after the demolition of the structure, he refrained from condemning it on the floor of the House. The Prime Minister rejected out of hand the demand for the resignation of the three ministers and went on to say that he would not accept the resignations even if these ministers offered to quit. The cases against them were of political nature and Parliament must wait for the final verdict of the court. Atalji stoutly defended his cabinet colleagues by describing them as able persons who were discharging their duties in an efficient manner. No one in his senses can question the ministers' qualities of head and heart nor can anyone raise any doubt about their ideological commitments. No one need lecture Advani, Joshi and Uma Shri Bharati on political morality, least of all politicians like Jaipal Reddy who have been changing parties to suit political exigencies. Clash of titans One of the msot outstanding performances in the two debates on the Congress motion came from Minister for Law and company Affairs Arun Jaitley. The Pioneer described it as a clash of titans in which Jaitley rip apart Jaipal Reddy's rhetoric.

Pointing out that Jaipal's oratory lacked substance, Arun had a dig at Reddy's political journey from Congress to Janata Dal and back to the Congress by saying that he admired Jaipal's choice of words but not his coice of parties, he admired the turn of his phrases but not the turn of his ideologies. Arun Jaitley embarassed the Congress and its spokesman by quoting from Reddy's Rajya Sabha speech in 1992, in which the latter had said. “this is an essay in evasion, equivocation and escapism which characterized the Congress attitude of sending out confusing signals. Ambiguity is a clear sign of complicity. If BJP believes is positive secularism the Congress believes in paralytic secualrism. All this indicates confusion and complicity of the Congress Government in the demolition of the mosque.” New jurisprudence The motion, Arun said, was politically motivated, unprecedented and seeks to invent new jurisprudence. It was a textbook example of the sub-judice rule being violated. The cases against the ministers were politically motivated and they should be presumed to be innocent till found guilty. Jaipal is a great orator but he was on the wrong side of the truth. His case was weak. He is absolutely right that the Prime Minister' remarks on Ayodhya were not a slip of the tongue but his suggestion that it was a slip of the mask amounts to hitting below the belt. What mask, Jaipal? Atalji needs no mask. His entire political career is an open book.

He is a liberal Hindu who wants to carry everyone along but he has never made any compromises with his commitments. He may have minor differences with his partymen on certain issues but he has never thought of changing parties that appears to be Jaipal's hobby. The Congress that stalled the functioning of Parliament for over a week is the biggest loser in the bargain. If it wared to send a signal to the Muslims that it is concerned about them, it has failed to do so. On the other hand, the bitter memories of Congress party's duplicity have been revived. If any opposition party has gained from the entire episode and the debate, it is the Samajwadi Party. The debate may enable it to consolidate its hold over the Muslims in UP where Assembly elections are due in 2002. As for the BJP, it is the biggest gainer. The party has consolidated its ties with the ideological fraternity and sent strong signals to patriotic Indians that the Prime Minister and his party's heart are in the right place. It has told its allies in uminsitakable terms that while it is committed to the NDA agenda for governance, no alliance partner should presume that it can force the BJP to de-link it from its ideological roots. The Prime Minister has proved, if any proof was needed, that he too is an assertive Hindu and has the will to resist any pressure brought to bear on him from any quarter.