 | « Back to article | Print this article |
The Bharatiya Janata Party said on Monday, that the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya was a result of public anger and asserted that it would build a Ram temple at the same site for "national justice", as it slammed the Liberhan Commission report as "a political document" which is "biased".
Opening BJP's defence on the report which has indicted a number of its leaders, party chief Rajnath Singh said in the Lok Sabha that the Liberhan Commission report was "a bundle of grave errors" and its intent appeared to be "pre-decided" and aimed at "character assassination" of certain political leaders and parties.
The Commission has reached "bizarre" conclusions, he said during the debate and took strong objection to the adverse comments made against former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and senior leaders L K Advani and M M Joshi. Singh said the report was "not unbiased" and said it was a "political document of character assassinations" as legal criteria for indictment had been ignored.
"Whatever happened on December 6, 1992, was a result of public anger. There was no mosque at the site since 1936," Singh said, amid repeated disruptions caused by objections from Congress and some other parties like Samajwadi Party. "The Liberhan Commission report is a bundle of several errors....even after spending 17 years it has not been able to bring out the truth," he said.
During the 17 years, Justice Liberhan or anybody else from the Commission had not visited Ayodhya even once, Singh said and likened him to Sanjay, an aide of Mahabharat's Dhrithrastra, who had a special vision and could give a blow-by-blow account of the Kurukshetra war without being there. "Who is that Dhrithrastra," he asked.
Singh said the indictment of Vajpayee and other BJP leaders was not based on facts but assumptions and the commission seemed to be "pre-decided" on whom to blame for the demolition and has thus reached "bizarre" conclusions. Hitting out at the Commission for describing Vajpayee as "psuedo-secular", he said even Nehru had praised the BJP leader and Rao used to see him as a political guru. "The report is totally baseless, prejudiced and is a deliberate attempt to target some persons and political parties," he charged.
"Building a Ram temple is not just religious justice, but also national justice. BJP reaffirms its commitment to build Ram Temple at the same site. When BJP, which was part of NDA, was in power, it could not deliver on its promise despite trying its best," the BJP said. He insisted that no 'namaz' had been performed at the disputed structure since 1934 and the doors of the structure were opened for Hindus for 'puja' of the Ram Lala in 1949.
Hitting back at the Congress, he said then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had gone to have 'darshan' of Devraha Baba on November 6, 1989, before elections and had a meeting for 40 minutes. "The government should state what did they talk for 40 minutes," he said.
As Singh spoke about the events preceding December 6, 1992, Home Minister P Chidambaram intervened saying the issue of 'namaz' or 'puja' being conducted at the disputed structure in Ayodhya could not be discussed in Parliament as the matter was sub-judice.
"Whether namaz or puja was being conducted is part of the title suit. We are not here to debate a title suit. It is sub-judice and cannot be debated in this House," he said, adding that the debate should confine to the Liberhan report. Chidambaram, who is expected to reply to the debate tomorrow, said the Liberhan Commission was appointed only to "go into the circumstances leading to the demolition" so as to find out who demolished the structure.
Agreeing with Chidambaram, Speaker Meria Kumar said the members should be conscious of the fact that the matter is sub-judice and their statements should not prejudice the title suit. She asked the members to confine to the report. At this, Murli Manohar Joshi (BJP) said the point was raised by the party to highlight inaccuracies. But Singh contended that as the matter was in courts, there was no point debating the report at all.
Defending the then Kalyan Singh government in UP, Singh said the Congress had in 1945 given a strong commitment not to allow country's partition but failed to keep the promise. "Why questions are now being raised about Kalyan Singh's assurance to the Supreme Court on not allowing any damage to the disputed structure," he posed.