NEW DELHI: Both the House: of Parliament were rocked Monday by newspaper report on some demolition work near the disputed Ram Janambhoomi Masjid site Ayodhyaas Parliament was once again assured by the Government that it was all forth Construction of the temple but no for demolition of the mosque.

The Home Minister Mr S.B Chavan who responded to the points made by several member {in the Rajya Sabha on the issue said he would go with anyone for the construction of the temple but fears of demolition of the mosque should be removed. This was only in keeping with India’s tradition of tolerance.

Mr Chavan said he had written the UP Chief Minister when some information was available from certain sources. The Union Home Secretary also spoke to the UP Chief Secretary on Monday but no response had come from the state government. The Home Minister pleaded inability to reply to the psalms made by the members in the absence of any communication from the UP government.

Several members tried to make out a case against the UP Government and even suggested that Article 356 should be invoked against the state government. In the Lok Sabha they demanded a statement from the Government The BIP leaders in both houses Mr L.K. Advani in the Lok Sabha and Mr Sikander Bakht and Mr Pramod Mahajan in the Rajya Sabha stoutly defended the state government and refuted the charge that there was any violation of High Count verdict or the assurance given by the UP Chief Minister to the National Integration Council.

Some members even went to the extent of suggesting that there was collusion between the Centre and the main opposition party the BJP.

In his reply Mr Chavan said he was not putting the UP Government in the dock. At the same it would have to abide by any directive that the Centre gave to it on this subject Mr Chavan hastened to add that he distinguished a directive Mr. Chavan said the Centre would have no option but to invoke Article 356 of the Constitution.

In the Lok Sabha the Minister of State of Parliament Affairs Mr P.R Kumaramangalam assured the House that he would get back to it after ascertain the position.

In the course of prolonged exchanges during zero hour in the two Houses a significant statement made in the Rajya Sabha by the BJP member Mr Pramod Mahajan was that his party would not raise the Janamabhoomi question again fit was defeated in single point national referendum Earlier Mr Bakhthad claimed that the BIP government in Uttar Pradesh had a “mandate” for the construction of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya Certain Congress members objected to this and said that the “mandate” of the voters throughout the country was against the demolition of the mosque. Mr Rajmohan Gandhi (JD) endorsing the view said that the National Front-Left Front combine and the Congress had a virally identical stand on the issue during the elections.

Lok Sabha members while raising the issue alleged that a wall was coming up on the dispute site and demanded that the Government get the site plans from the state government and place it before the House. The matter was raised by the CPI (M) leader Mr Samnath Chatterjee who was supported by Mr Srikant Jena (JD) Mr Suliman Saltand Mr B Ahmed (Muslim League) Mr Nirmal Chattejee (CPIM) and several other members. The BIP leader Mr. L.K Advani said the State Government was adhering to the court orders very scrupulously and added that the disputed property had not been acquired by the Stat. The area was being leveled as per a plan to promote tourism.

His party colleague Mr S.C. Dixit said there was complete peace in Ayhodhya and some members in the House wanted to create trouble there to get political mileage. He referred to the land acquisition and pointed out just the land had neither been transferred nor any permanent structure had come up on it. He said it was wrong to say that a wall was coming up on the disputed land. There was only a boundary wall and there was not violation of court orders.

The discussion in the Upper House on the issue which was listed as a special mention in the name of Mr Suresh Kalmadi (Congress) carried on for about three hours. The issue was taken up during zero hour by Mr Kalmadi. Several other members both from the treasury and the opposition benches sought to speak on the subject. The Deputy Chairman Dr Najma Heptullah agreed to a discussion on the subject.

Article extracted from this publication >> April 3, 1992