NEW DELHI: The Prime Minister, P.V.Narasimha Rao, who had cordial relations with the senior RSS leader, the late Bhaurao Deoras, held the RSSVHPBJP combine in considerable awe after the Dec.6 demolition in Ayodhya, according to a new book by the BJP vice president, K.R.Malkani, Rao reportedly told a religious leader after the demolition, “I never knew that the RSSVHP BJP were so powerful and had so much influence among the people.” He also told Bhaurao Deopras, with whom he was in regular contact on the Ayodhya issue until the latter’s death in May 1992:”If you are to demolish the structure, do intimate mc.” The quotes are attributed to Rao in Malkani’s book “The Politics of Ayodhya and Hindu Muslim Relations,” released by the BJP president, L.K.Advani, were recently. The book puts together various aspects related to the Ayodhya controversy up to the demolition, but claims that “to this day it is not known who decided to demolish that structure and in fact masterminded the demolition.” The buildup to the demolition which came as a mighty pleasant Surprise to most Hindus”) is de tailed over eight chapters, and has some little known points. According to Malkani, a few days after Dec.6, the Union home ministry prepared a note, suggesting that while the idol of Ram “lalla” and the canopy built aver it may remain, the new back walls around it may be removed, Rao reportedly kept “discreetly quiet” and did not approve the proposal. After Deoras” death, Rao sought Advani’s advice on whom he should contact in the RSS, Advani Suggested the name of Prof Rajendra Singh, a senior RSS leader popularly known as “Rajju Bhaiyya.” But as revealed by Malkani, Rao“ never really opened up” during several rounds of talks between the Pome Minister and Prof. Singh before December 6. During one such meeting, Prof. Singh asked Rao to appeal to Muslims to withdraw their claim to the disputed structure as a gesture of goodwill. But Rao said: “Who will listen to me? The Muslims are all with the Janata Dal or the communists.” Most of Prof Singh remarks during such meetings failed to elicit response from Rao, Maikani reports in the book.

Rao did not respond when Prof, Singh told him: “You are all trying to woo the Muslim volte. What will be your share in the same? Why don’t you also please the Hindus and get their votes?” Again, there was no response when Rao was told that the gates of the Structure had been unlocked and the foundation stone laid during the Congress rule and construction work could also begin under the Congress rule.

On the talks held by the Union environment minister, Kamal Nath, with Advani, Malkani writes: ”Advani came to know that the Union home minister did not approve of Kamal Nath’s negotiations with him. Minister (P.R.) Kumaramangalam told Advani that the PM should not have en trusted Kamal Nath with this mission. He also said to Advani that all ministers except himself thought the PM was soft towards the BJP and were opposed to him on that account,”

When Advani met Rao later, he isreported to have said:” You know the type of people we have in the council of ministers, they are (har fan maula’ Gacks of all arts).”” In the book, Rao is alleged to have held back the ‘evidence’ gathered by the Ayodhya cell in the Prime Minister’s Office which “proved the Hindu character of the site,”

Detailing the handling of the Ayodhya issue by successive prime ministers, the book remarks that “if Rajiv was naive…V.P.Singh was too clever by half…the trouble with V.P.Singh was that he thought and behaved like a feudal chief. He was all courtesy and all conspiracy.” Malkani, however, is less harsh on the role of Chandra shekhar.

 

He writes: “The secularists condemn the “sangh parivar’ as communal, fascist and what not. But the ‘parivar’ has ceased to bother. It is so much water off duck’s back. The reason is simple the “parivar” sees itself as continuation of the hallowed tradition of Dayan and Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Tilak and, at a pitch, Gandhi.

Article extracted from this publication >>  October 29, 1993