We will abide by court verdict: Vajpayee

By K. V. Prasad

NEW DELHI, DEC. 19. The Rajya Sabha today handed the Vajpayee Government a major embarrassment when it adopted, by a 121-86 margin, a motion, recording its ``disagreement'' with the Prime Minister over his strong defence of his three Cabinet colleagues charged in the Babri Masjid demolition case.

Though the vote gave the Opposition only a moral satisfaction and carried with it practically no constitutional significance, the debate gave the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, another opportunity to clarify, for the benefit of the NDA allies as well as the entire nation, his stand on the issue. In his 36-minute intervention, the Prime Minister managed the difficult task of retracting himself back to a reasonable stance and yet reaffirming his ``Hindu'' identity.

Mr. Vajpayee made a number of propositions. (A) He never supported the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya. ``I had opposed it, criticised it.'' (B) The Ayodhya movement began as a movement but it got distorted and restricted, and then the unfortunate incident of the demolition took place. (C) He had never said the Ram Mandir should be constructed at the disputed site. The Prime Minister reaffirmed his Government's commitment made in the Lok Sabha last week to abide by the court's decision in the ongoing Ayodhya dispute and to the NDA agenda. The other alternative was through unconditional negotiations between the two communities, he said and accused the then Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, of ``deliberately delaying'' the decision that could have led to a resolution of the issue.

Despite laboured efforts to come across as a reasonably moderate voice, Mr. Vajpayee could not resist reaffirming his ``Hindu'' identity and insisted on reciting a poem he had penned as a 10th class student. (This poem had first brought forth the young Atal in the right quarters).

The Prime Minister found himself in an uncomfortable position when Mr. Janeshwar Mishra of the Samajwadi Party asked whether by insisting that the Ram temple movement was a manifestation of a ``national sentiment'', was Mr. Vajpayee not validating Mohammed Ali Jinnah's two-nation theory. In a rather feeble rejoinder, Mr. Vajpayee suggested that ``mandir'' was a neutral expression.

Rejecting the Opposition demand for the resignations of Mr. L. K. Advani, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi and Ms. Uma Bharti, he said the cases against them were a result of a ``movement'', a description which attracted loud protests.

Offer to Opposition

The only concession Mr. Vajpayee made was the offer inviting the Opposition to sit with the Government and codify ``propriety'' and draw up a code of conduct defining the situation in which those holding high offices were expected to resign.

In the same breath, he reminded the Congress that it could not adopt a different yardstick in Delhi by demanding that the three BJP Ministers quit their office and another in Bihar, where the party was part of a coalition with the Rashtriya Janata Dal, whose Chief Minister too, was facing charges. Commenting on the motion that disagreed with his clean chit to the three Ministers, the Prime Minister said that by demanding the resignations before the court verdict, the Opposition was ``prejudging'' the issue. The Prime Minister expressed despair that the Opposition had sought to press for a discussion under a motion entailing vote, and pressed home the advantage of its numerical superiority in the House. He asked why it did not bring a no- confidence motion in the Lok Sabha on the issue. Winding up the discussion, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee of the Congress urged Mr. Vajpayee not to ``belittle'' numbers which had a crucial role in parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister's depiction of himself as a hapless victim of ``media'' pressure also did not carry much conviction. In his school-masterly manner, Mr. Mukherjee ticked him off: ``It is the job of newsmen to ask questions. But it does not mean that you, Mr. Prime Minister, should have replied to these. Can you say someone asked a question and you replied to it. Your reply created a confusion.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Next     : A victory for Opposition: Congress