| How did this book come about? The man who was Prime Minister when the Ayodhya demolition occurred wrote a book about the event and issued instructions that it should be released only after his death. Obviously, he feared he would be a sitting duck for an all-round attack by colleagues, had the book come out while he was alive. Self-preservation is an instinct P V Narasimha Rao was never in want of. The very act of writing this book, and the style in which it has been written, make that clear. |
| The basic facts are known. But Narasimha Rao has narrated them anyway. In 1986, the locks of the structure known as Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid were opened and worship was allowed by devotees decades after statues of Ram and Sita were planted there in the dead of night and their appearance was hailed by devotees as "Ram prakat divas". Rao does not go either into the politics or compulsions of why an order by a district judge to open the locks to the area of worship, hitherto deemed "out of bounds", was not contested properly""not by the Centre, nor by the state, both with Congress governments in power. The state government did seek a stay on the order, but never followed it up. By avoiding this issue, Rao tries to absolve the Centre, the state and the party of any responsibility for subsequent events. |
| Worse follows. What was happening while "consecrated" bricks were being carried to Ayodhya in 1989, the surest sign that the temple movement was gaining force? Rao recalls passing trucks carrying the "Ram shilas", the so-called "blessed" bricks intended for the temple. As a minister in Rajiv Gandhi's government, he says he watched party colleagues turning "active in the competitive programme of 'occupying' Ayodhya". The Congress wanted to be a pet of fundamentalists""both among Muslims and Hindus. Those who knew what was going on just sat by and watched. To an impartial observer, what does that make them? The word "collaborator" comes to mind. |
| The way the Ram Temple cookie crumbled in 1992 is well-known. Rao, who was Prime Minister, gave a passionate discourse in Parliament in his""and the Centre's ""defence after the demolition. The state government had given its word that the structure would be protected, he pleaded, and he could be faulted only on the grounds that he believed the state government's word, he said. So why didn't the government impose Article 356 and dismiss the BJP-led UP government before the domes could crumble? Rao says he erred on the side of democracy and the Constitution. There were several technical reasons, he says, the most fundamental being that Article 356 cannot be used to sack a state government in anticipation of a breakdown of law and order. It can only be used after law and order has broken down, there is cabinet unanimity that this is so, and the governor is satisfied that the situation is irretrievable. Rao warns that there are similar grey areas in the Constitution that must be clarified to prevent the recurrence of events like Ayodhya. |
| But this is a close call. Was what happened on December 6, 1992, in Ayodhya constitutional? Rao made a virtue of the maxim that "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and held on to it till time had run out. The resonance of the result, in Mumbai and elsewhere, was to prove haunting. |
| Rao's book equivocates on every action/non-action of the central government in its handling of the Ayodhya issue. Given his role in the event, can anyone explain how he is any different from Narendra Modi? The book is an exercise in self-exculpation""both on behalf of Rao himself and the Congress party as a political collective that failed to stand up for what it says it believes. |
| AYODHYA 6 DECEMBER 1992 |
| PV Narasimha Rao Penguin Price: Rs 395 Pages: 317 |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard