NEW DELHI: There was public difference between the opening remarks of the Prime Minister and Home Minister at the National Integration council meeting recently, with Narasimha Rao sounding more conciliatory than his Cabinet colleague.

While it was left to Chavan to declare yet again the Center’s resolve not to allow the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya known as the Babri Masjid, the remarks of Rao who only in the Lok Sabha was charged by the Janata Dal’s Nitish Kumar of speaking “like an officer and not like a leader” continued to be couched in convoluted bureaucracies,

The Prime Minister spoke of developments in Ayodhya which had “diluted the consensus of the event. The UP Government had given a solemn commitment to the last NIC meeting in November 2,1991 than it would not allow the raising of any permanent structure at the disputed site,

The responsibility of the State Government comes clearly into focus in this matter as it stands,” was the farthest Rao would go as to the inability or unwillingness of the State Government to stop the building activity at Ayodhya which continued even as the NIC was debating, violating the court’s cease-and-desist order four days ago.

Neither the PM nor the Home Minister, in their opening remarks, offered a solution out of the untenable situation arising out of the non-implementation of the judicial order, and left it to the NIC to find a way out. In fact, the Prime Minister even wished that the NIC had been held a few days earlier leaving himself open to charges of dereliction of duty by unkind critics. Rao’s description of the grave crisis arising out of the UP Government’s handling of the issue which has virtually turned into a test of the secularist credentials of the Indian State also left much to be desired.

During the last three or four days, “We have been under very great pressure and tension all of us; all sections of the community have been equally under pressure,” was all the Prime Minister would say, adding that “we have appealed for the creation of an. atmosphere conducive to a satisfactory settlement of the dispute.”

But, despite its glaring lack of a plan or an innovative alternative, it was the Home Minister who was more forthright, The Center, said Chavan would never compromise on the fundamental values while finding a solution to the temple masjid issue.

What is at stake is the not the safety of the Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri Masjid structure alone, but also our belief in secular values, our belief in the sanctity of the judicial system and the respect for the rule of law,” the Home Minister said.

It was also Chavan who informed the meeting that construction work of a permanent nature had been taken up in the acquired land near the structure at Ayodhya despite court orders barring such activity,

He said that despite orders, construction was allowed to continue on July 15 and 16 and statements were being made by but construction would continue  in defiance of court orders

We have repeatedly urged the Uttar Pradesh government to suspend the construction till the matter was resolved through mutual consultations and agreement or through court verdict.”

The tameness of the language used by the PM and Chavan was justified by government sources who said that the Prime Minister had to sound conciliatory in order to pilot a resolution acceptable to all parties including the BJP representatives at the communities.

They explained the subtle difference in the strength of the language used by Rao and Chavanas only a matter of emphasis. The Prime Minister, given his apex Position, had to play the arbiter and the persuasive elder statesman, The Home Minister, of course came out much stronger because  he had to explain the situation on the ground, sources said.  

In contrast to the Prime Minister low key, non-confront at Approach was the hard-‘ speech of his predecessor, said that if the controversy Not amicably resolved it to disastrous consequences for the  nation.

Article extracted from this publication >> Aug 7, 1992