Narasimha Rao wanted to build temple in Ayodhya: Ram Bahadur Rai

Part I 'There are indications in Rao's book of his desire to build a Ram temple'

Ram Bahadur Rai, editor of the Hindi magazine Yathawat, has followed Indian politics for nearly 50 years with passion. The senior commentator knows the Ram temple-Babri masjid movement inside out, having been close to many Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideologues and, later, worked closely with former Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar. Recently he has made some sensational revelations from times past in his magazine on the Ayodhya issue.

In a conversation with Gopal Krishna, in the context of these disclosures, he shares how then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao had a plan to construct a Ram temple in Ayodhya. He also speaks about the politics of Congress leader Digvijaya Singh who had then extended a helping hand to Rao in the latter's efforts to help build a temple there. This is the first of a two-part interview with Rai.
What is the basis of your claims in your magazine that Prime Minister Rao wanted to construct a Ram temple at Ayodhya?
T

here are two foundations for the claims made in the story. One is Rao’s book which was published after his death. The background to the events of December 6, 1992 (when the Babri masjid was brought down), what happened after that day, and the events of that day find mention in it. There are indications of his desire in that book.
The other book, Wheels Behind the Veil - PMs, CMs and Beyond, by P V R K Prasad, former media advisor and additional secretary to Rao, in which he has said that whatever he has written is not hearsay.
I have written only those things on which I myself was working on or in which I had some role to play.
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-digvijaya-should-be-asked-about-his-role-in-ayodhya-under-narsimha-rao/20130925.htm#1

'Indira Gandhi took a pro-Hindu line'

To contextualise what Rao proposed to do in Ayodhya, it is important to understand what kind of relationship various prime ministers had with the Ayodhya issue and their interventions in the matter from 1947 till 1984. Can you eleborate on this?
On the night of December 22-23, 1949, an idol of Ram Lalla was kept inside the ‘Babri masjid’ religious structure of which the people of the temple movement say it appeared on its own. From that day on, the idol was kept there till 1986, and that is one part of the phase. After the idol was kept there, Govind Ballabh Pant, then Uttar Pradesh chief minister, and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then deputy prime minister and home minister, decided not to remove the temple and idol.
Uttar Pradesh chief secretary Bhagwan Sahay wanted the idol to be removed to maintain the status quo. K K Nayar, the district commissioner (magistrate), said he can do it but his advice was that this should not be done because he did not have sufficient forces to ensure peace in Ayodhya and the adjoining areas. Ultimately, Sahay allowed, in writing, the idol inside the site. This is evident from available correspondence.
The matter went to the court and even the court allowed the idol to remain there. It made arrangements for proper worship but the front gate was locked by the administration. The idol was inside. Pandits go there thrice to perform puja. Pandits are paid for it. But the front gate of the temple remained locked.
In 1986, one person went to the Faizabad court and asked why although worship has been going on since 1949, the front gate remained locked. The magistrate noted that worship was going on and asked that the lock be opened. 
The incident of opening the temple's lock is related to Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. After the mass conversions in Meenakshipuram, in Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, in 1981 (where Mallar families en masse converted to Islam, apparently to express political dissent) and the failure of her experiment in Jammu and Kashmir in 1983 (post an accord between Sheikh Abdullah and Indira Gandhi in 1974, the former defeated her in the elections of 1977 and Farooq Abdullah defeated her in March 1983), Indira Gandhi took a political line two years prior to elections. It was a Hindu line.
The upsurge due to the Meenakshipuram incident led to the formation of an organisation called the Virat Hindu Samaj. Dr Karan Singh became its president with the permission of Indira Gandhi. Giridhari Lal Goswami, the father of Ramakant Goswami, minister in the current Sheila Dikshit government, was very active in this Samaj. All shankaracharyas, maths, sects and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad were part of it.
In Uttar Pradesh, Dau Dayal Khanna, a former state Congress minister known to be very close to Indira Gandhi, was the first one to raise the Ayodhya issue in 1983. Around February 1983, a meeting of the Virat Hindu Samaj was organised in Muzaffarnagar. Gulzarilal Nanda, former acting prime minister, presided over the meeting. A senior functionary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Rajju Bhaiya (Professor Rajendra Singh), was present at the meeting. I was also present. I had come to Delhi in October-November 1982. At the behest of Dr Karan Singh, Dau Dayal Khanna raised the Ayodhya issue.
In 1984, one can understand the VHP’s strength from the a camp it organised in Faizabad on a 50-acre plot of land after cutting down crops with the order of the district collector. Then Congress chief minister Vir Bahadur Singh had instructions from above to facilitate it. It was a camp meant for 5,000 people but only 540 people turned up. The DIG of that time said that very few people have turned up. Other people who turned up later were the people of Chief Minister Vir Bahadur Singh.
Arun Nehru, a Congress minister, knew the Indira Gandhi’s line on the issue. It was at the behest of Nehru that Vir Bahadur Singh asked for the opening of the temple's lock. Later, the VHP made it its own issue in 1984.
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-digvijaya-should-be-asked-about-his-role-in-ayodhya-under-narsimha-rao/20130925.htm#1

'Rao acted in furtherance of what was done by Indira and Rajiv'

What is startling about the disclosure you have made in your cover story?
The conversation which Narasimha Rao had with his media advisor Prasad was unknown until now. There was an impression going around but a recorded conversation was not there. It is not hearsay. It is factual. Everything is factual. I was myself a participant. The story starts thus: Narasimha Rao called Prasad after December 6, 1992, and told him, ‘Woh samajhte hain ki Bhagwan Ram kewal unhi ke hai toh kya Bhagwan Ram unhi ke hain?” (They think that Lord Ram only belongs to them. Does Lord Ram belong to them only?).
There is another thing which I have not said in the story. Rao’s decision to get a temple constructed had its reasons. One was in furtherance of what was being done by Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. He has written in his book all that had happened, but only those aspects which could be written. He indicates how Sardar Patel and Pant had allowed the idol to be kept there.
Besides the facts in the books, what is being disclosed in the story is that senior journalists Nikhil Chakravartty, Prabhash Joshi and R K Mishra went to meet Narasimha Rao and asked why he allowed the Babri masjid to be demolished.
What Rao told them was: "Aap logon ko kya lagta hai ki mujhe rajniti nahi aati? (Do you think I do not know politics?). I want to take away the issue from them (the RSS)."
I was also called by these three journalists whenever their vehicle used to get stuck. I used take appointments with PM Rao for them and sometimes accompanied them.
You were familiar with Chakravartty, Joshi and Mishra and also with their views regarding the Ayodhya issue. In the light of that do you see a corroboration of facts or contradiction between what they have said and what Rao’s media advisor has written in his book?
There is no contradiction. Both were operating at two different levels of dialogue. This has to be kept in mind. What these three veteran journalists were doing was at a different level and Prasad’s level was different. What was common between the two levels was the Ayodhya dispute. These journalists were trying to ensure that prior to December 6, 1992, there could be a compromise between the government and the VHP and RSS.
What these three journalists were doing prior to December 6, 1992, was of their own initiative and not at the instance of Rao. I knew Joshi. It was his initiative to look for some amicable solution. Chakravartty and Joshi were quite independent people and they were involved because they felt that it was their duty. It is possible that Mishra may have been part of the team at Rao’s behest because he was that kind of person. But about Joshi and Chakravartty I can say that they acted of their own volition.
This dialogue was at one level on which negotiations between Rao and the RSS were on. Their role ended on December 6, 1992, but they kept meeting Rao even afterwards. Joshi raised his flag after this incident. But when Rao said, Wahan masjid banayenge (we will get a mosque built there), in Parliament, Joshi said, “Iswhar ke liye aisa na kijiye” (For God’s sake don’t do this).
In public, Rao took this position. But in private, Rao entrusted the task of temple construction to Prasad. The media advisor became active in this matter. Rao had formed a three-member Ayodhya cell. Former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra headed it. Prasad, Gauri Shankar, manager of Sringeri Mutt, and Kishor Kunal were its members. They got the Ramalaya Trust formed.
Another very important disclosure in Prasad’s book is that Digvijaya Singh, the then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, was working as Rao’s ambassador in this matter. He used the state government’s planes for this work wherever required.
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-digvijaya-should-be-asked-about-his-role-in-ayodhya-under-narsimha-rao/20130925.htm#2

 

 

'Digvijaya Singh dances to the tune of whoever is in power'

What are the disclosures about Digvijaya Singh?
Today Singh is wearing the mask of being a sympathiser of Muslims. He has created an image of being a Muslim supporter. Singh should be asked as to the role he played as the ambassador of Rao when he was the chief minister. Is what is alleged by Prasad correct, or is what he is doing today correct?
Digvijaya Singh has two faces. He is an opportunist Congressman. He dances to the tune of whoever is in power. Sonia Gandhi has taken a line to keep the Congress alive with the help of minorities.
Had Singh been intellectually honest he would have raised a debate about it in the party instead of surrendering his earlier beliefs.
It is relevant to recollect that in 2009, Rahul Gandhi gave a speech in Amethi saying had there been someone from his family as prime minister in 1992, the demolition of Babri masjid would not have happened.
How much does he know about his family history? This book reveals that Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi promoted the temple movement.
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-digvijaya-should-be-asked-about-his-role-in-ayodhya-under-narsimha-rao/20130925.htm#3

'Rajiv Gandhi was not political at all'

Why did Rajiv Gandhi start his election campaign in 1991 from Ayodhya?
Rajiv Gandhi was a transparent person. He was not political at all. Some of his decisions are quite right and some are quite wrong. It depended on whether he had the right kind of advisors, which led to him being caught in Bofors controversy. He must have been advised that if the campaign started from Ayodhya both Hindus and Muslims will vote for him because he was responsible for the shilanyas of the temple.
The Ramalaya Trust was created in 1995. What did this trust do?
On January 7, 1993, the Government of India sent a reference to the President under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution seeking opinion as to whether a temple or other structure had existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya among other issues. A five-judge Constitution Bench was constituted by then Chief Justice M N Venkatachaliah. This bench examined the matter.
I understand that Rao got this reference sent as per his plan. It was sent under the assumption that based on evidence the Supreme Court will at least state that there was a temple at the site. In between the Government of India had acquired 67 acres of land. There was an ordinance and an act in the matter of Ayodhya (the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993). The inference is that the prime minister understood that since he has acquired the land, now the government will be the doer.
Once the decision comes from the Supreme Court on the presidential reference needful action can be taken. Under this Act, the VHP was removed from the scene and the trust of the VHP was to have no role in it. For a temple to be constructed there was a need for an agency since the VHP’s trust was not to be given the land. The Ramalaya Trust was formed for this -- it was created to get the temple constructed.
How far did this plan go?
The Government of India faced a big impediment. Rao got his first setback on October 24, 1994, when the Supreme Court returned the presidential reference. The Supreme Court declined to answer the presidential reference on the question of whether a Hindu temple or other structure had existed at the disputed site prior to the construction of the Babri masjid in Ayodhya.
It rebuked the government for trying to use the court for political purposes, which was Rao’s game-plan. But the court clubbed together different land-ownership title disputes from 1950 till 1984 (perhaps 11 pending cases in different courts) and sent it to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court. There were many ups and downs during the hearing. On September 30, 2010, the Lucknow bench gave a verdict on the ownership of land. There are many books on it. The high court has decided the title suit. (The Supreme Court stayed the high court’s decision on May 9, 2011.)
Was it not about the 2.77 acres of land which was to be distributed into three parts including the Sunni Muslim Wakf Board?
No, that is only part of the decision. The most important aspect of the court’s decision is that it has accepted that this is Lord Ram’s birth place and Ram Lalla is a party to the dispute. Thus, the ownership has been decided. This had not happened till now, from 1949 till 2010. Now construction of the temple over there is certain. The verdict has given a part of the land for the construction of a mosque over there, too.
http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-digvijaya-should-be-asked-about-his-role-in-ayodhya-under-narsimha-rao/20130925.htm#5

Part II of the interview of Ram Bahadur Rai, Editor, Yathawat on Ayodhya

'VHP is trying to revive Ayodhya, but there is no momentum'

Ram Bahadur Rai, editor of Hindi magazine Yathawat and an expert on the Ram Janamabhoomi movement, speaks to Gopal Krishna, how then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao had a plan to construct a Ram temple in Ayodhya and what transpired in the days leading up to and post December 6 1992 in the second and final part of this interview.

Part 1: 'Digvijaya should be asked about his role in Ayodhya under Narasimha Rao'

You have interacted with prime ministers like V P Singh and Chandrashekhar. What was their approach to the issue of construction of temple in Ayodhya? You have written about your discussion with V P Singh in your book Manzil Se Jyada Safar.

V P Singh’s government was formed with the support of the BJP and the Communist parties. The shilanyas at Ayodhya had happened on November 7, 1989 when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM. At that time Congress leader N D Tiwari was UP chief minister and Buta Singh was the Union home minister. This was the result of an agreement between Rajiv Gandhi and the VHP. On December 2, 1989 V P Singh came to power.

In between, the Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed in 1986 by Syed Shahabuddin, a Janata Dal MP. A tripartite negotiation commenced in which the VHP, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat used to participate besides members of the Babri Masjid Action Committee. A formula had come out during V P Singh’s regime with the help of or at the intervention of (West Bengal Chief Minister) Jyoti Basu for the solution of the Ayodhya issue because L K Advani had launched his rath yatra. But in the end the compromise formula did not work.

After Singh, Chandrashekhar came for four months. Chandrashekhar had almost clinched a solution on the temple issue. Advani had stated in the Parliament that had the Chandrashekhar government remained in power for few months the solution for temple issue could have been found. Chandrashekharji used to say that the moment they almost reached a compromise, Rajiv Gandhi realised that he would solve the temple issue and ensured the fall of his government.

After that Rao came to power, he got a trust made but the trust did not get the land. By then elections were around the corner. Rao expected to return to power but failed.

After that H D Deve Gowda and I K Gujral became prime ministers. During 1996-1998, there was no effort made for any agreement with regard to the temple issue.

During 1998-2004, quite late I think in 2003, talks commenced on the temple issue. This dialogue happened with Muslim leaders like Maulana Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi, or simply Ali Mian, the former president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jayendra Sarwaswati, Shankaracharya of Kanchi. There were dialogues on but they were behind the scenes.

Did anything come out of these talks?

No, the Kanchi Shankaracharya went to meet Ali Mian who used to live in Rae Bareli. I have also gone there with journalists Chakravarty, Joshi and Mishra in 1991. Before we met Ali Mian, Kalyan Singh, then UP chief minister who had come to know about our imminent visit had invited and met us and suggested that we should also go to Ayodhya and Faizabad as well. Kalyan Singh spoke to Surendra Kumar, the Faizabad commissioner in this regard. We did go there in 1991 after our visit to Ali Mian’s place in November 1991. Ali Mian gave us lot of books, which is still in my library. We saw the Ayodhya temple from behind for the first time. In 2003 during A B Vajpayee’s regime Jayendra Sarswati and Ali Mian had talks to come up with a formula but it was not successful.

What impact did the findings of Archeological Survey of India about the remains of Hindu temple and Buddhist temple at the disputed site have on the campaign for temple construction?

After the demolition of Babri mosque, the ASI undertook excavation. It came to light that the Babri Masjid was constructed on the pillar of a temple.

Historians who were divided into two parts on the issue, one part of these historians held that there was no proof of temple at the site. But the ASI found that there is sufficient proof. The 2010 judgment has come on the basis of those ASI findings.

It is significant to know what happened 15 days prior to December 6, 1992 and 15 days after the event? What were the outcomes of negotiations that were going on?

In short, in 1992, intense talks between the government and the VHP from July 1992 to December 4, 1992 continued at different levels. There were four levels. One level was the one in which these three journalists were involved, second, dialogue between the government and the VHP, third was between the government and the BJP and fourth one was between central government and the BJP-led state government.

As far as I know, these three journalists never contacted VHP because they knew its role. They knew that the matter can only be solved at the level of the BJP and RSS leaders with their intervention. On three occasions, I was with them when talks happened with Vajpayee, Advani and Rajju Bhaiya. They realised that the talks with BJP leaders will not work. They understood that the ultimate decision will be taken by the RSS.

Prabhash Joshi had asked me get an appointment from Rajju Bhaiya for these three journalists. I talked to Rajju Bhaiya’s secretary, Shiv Narayan Singh and ensured that the talks happened as they considered me as a friend and not as journalist. I used to have easy entry in Jhandelwalan office of the RSS even when it used to be out of bounds for media. I had suggested to Rajju Bhaiya that all the RSS office bearers in Delhi should be asked to speak to these journalists. The conversation continued for long hours.

There was another level at which the government was making efforts. On December 4, 1992, the then IB Director met Rajju Bhaiya on behalf of Narasimha Rao. This fact must be there in the books that have come out on the issue. The talks finally broke down on December 4.

Rao’s proposal was that the Kar Sewa that was supposed to happen on December 6 should be stopped but Rajju Bhaiya did not agree to it. What needs to be understood is that in the long talks with the RSS, the VHP, Rao wanted the Kar Sewa to be stopped and dialogues to continue. The problem before the RSS and the VHP was that during Rao’s tenure the Kar Sewa was postponed several times earlier. Had Kar Sewa been stopped even this time, the credibility of the temple movement would have suffered. Andolan ki naak kat jaati, because the RSS and the VHP had used their full energy and appealed for the Kar Sewa.

BJP senior leaders L K Advani and Dr Murli Manohar Joshi were on their rath yatra. Uma Bharti, Sadhvi Ritambhara were part of the movement. Till the evening of December 5, some 2.5-3 lakh people had gathered there. Besides RSS and VHP people even those who were not affiliated with them actively had turned up in large numbers. Some had even walked on foot to reach there.

Rao wanted to destroy the credibility of the RSS, the VHP and the BJP forever this time. The difficulty for the parivar outfits was that they had appealed to the people and now they could not have backtracked. No one had full control on the people who had gathered there.

It is a matter of research as to what happened on December 6. Was it the mob which did it or was it part of planning? It is my belief that it was part of the pre-planning of some VHP people. I know the person that who had planned it. But the Central Bureau of Investigation which was asked to probe could never reach him. The CBI reached and charge-sheeted only known faces. It could not reach the mind behind this event. On December 6, it happened by afternoon.

Now there are two versions about it. Kuldip Nayar’s book Beyond the Lines narrates that Narasimha Rao kept sitting for his worship when the kar sevaks began pulling it down and rose only when the Babri Masjid was demolished. He got up only when the last stone was removed. This version is untruthful.

The person who told him did not know about it. Rao has written about what he did on December 6 in his book. How he called the concerned people at his residence at 3, Race Course. But I am narrating what he has not written in his book.

According to Congress Rajya Sabha MP, H S Hanspal who was very close to Rao, the prime minister remained sitting in the lawns on the back of his residence on December 6. R K Khandekar, Rao’s secretary used to come and brief Hanspal at regular intervals. When the masjid was demolished, Rao got up from his chair in the lawns.

Whatever Rao did as per his book he did only after the demolition. Even what his media advisor has written is corroborative of Rao’s version, it is not contradictory. He has referred to the assurances from leaders. Khandekar remained with Rao till the latter’s death in 2004.

What was Narasimha Rao’s first reaction after the demolition of the Babri mosque? He is believed to have said that the BJP, the RSS and the VHP betrayed him.

Rao was an experienced and wise person. When the talks broke down on December 4, he understood what was going to happen to the religious structure on December 6. I think even Rao wanted this to happen. He was a political person. He wanted to snatch the temple issue away from the BJP, the RSS and the VHP. The rest is a matter of assumption. It is a fact that Rao had never thought of becoming the prime minister.

The Congress had not given him ticket to fight the elections in 1991. His politics had ended. He had almost shifted to Andhra Pradesh. He used to live at 9, Motilal Nehru Marg before becoming the prime minister and after that. But suddenly after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991 because he was the tallest leader in the Congress after Rajiv Gandhi, he was made the president of Congress and then the prime minister.

I saw Narasimha Rao in Parliament from my seat no 21 exactly above Speaker’s chair in the Parliament’s press gallery that he used to remain unruffled amidst hullaballoo unlike Manmohan Singh. It was difficult to read his face. He accepted December 6 as inevitable. Whatever he has written in his book is for public consumption.

Prasad, in this book, refers to an assurance by the BJP leaders in the matter of the Chalo Ayodhya campaign that it would remain peaceful. He was with the prime minister. Rao was deeply concerned about the law and order situation. He has explained the role of the prime minister and why President’s rule was not imposed in Uttar Pradesh. He reveals that Narasimha Rao was watching TV to comprehend the goings on in Ayodhya on December 6.

After that Justice Liberhan inquiry commission was constituted which submitted its report on June 30, 2009, what were its findings?

Rao spoke to Naresh Chandra, former cabinet secretary and on his suggestion this commission was constituted. They understood that the commission stretched itself for quite a long time. Perhaps the report has not been tabled in Parliament.

What was the political fallout of the December 6, 1992 event. Who gained and who lost as a consequence? Political slogans like Garibi Hatao and Mandir Banao were never fulfilled. How do unfulfilled promises and slogans adversely impact the prestige of political parties?

The event of December 6, 1992 changed India’s politics. It had two contradictory consequences. One was that Hindutva politics came to the centre-stage, everything else went to background. Socialism, Communism, the middle path of the Congress, everything which was going on in politics since 1947 till 1992, this event overturned this. Ye mera mat hai. December 6 ko jo kuch hua mein usko uchit manta hu. Ye hona hi tha. Ye apariharya tha. Jis tarike se hua wah galat hua. (This is my view that December 6 was appropriate. It was bound to happen. It was inevitable. But the way it happened was not appropriate.)

I spoke to Atal Bihari Vajpayee on December 6 between 9.30-10 pm on the phone. I met and talked to him that night. Vajpayee issued the statement, which I had written, some 15-16 sentences on his notepad. He asked someone to bring some sweets for me but I said this is not the occasion for sweets. He asked me as to what happened there in Ayodhya. Kalyan Singh was saying that he was also not told till 6 pm. I told him that December 6 has presented an occasion to turn it into a movement.

I asked him to issue a statement the next day advising the kar sewaks and leaders present in Ayodhya to own the act of demolition of Babri mosque on affidavit nahi to December 6 kalank ki tarah peecha karega (else December 6 will haunt like a stigma). Vajpayee agreed to spread this idea but decided not make this statement. He tried for it but he did not succeed. Had some 1 lakh or 1.5 lakh people given that affidavit it would have created a new kind of movement.

Because Muslims were not ready for it earlier, they are not ready now and they are unlikely to be ready in near future, as a reaction, terrorism took birth. The right thing would have been that the Muslim leaders should have accepted that this is not a matter of temple and land but it is a matter of rashtriya akansha (national desire).

How is the issue of construction of temple relevant for Bangladesh and Pakistan? What impact does it have over there?

Do not include Bangladesh in it. Pakistan is a terrorist state. This event helped the aim of Pakistan to promote terrorism. Bangladesh is not in this category. It keeps changing like under the leadership of Sheikh Hasina. There is a conflict which is on since the birth of Bangladesh. When there is a different party in government then Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence becomes active over there. It is more relevant for Pakistan.

Both the Congress and the BJP have similar approach on the issue of construction of temple either in public or private. Is it true or not?

Till the arrival of Sonia Gandhi, it was the same. After her arrival it has changed.

Is it that what started from Somnath temple has continued till P V Narasimha Rao’s plan for construction of the temple?

The mainstream of the Congress was always in favour of temple from day one. Jawaharlal Nehru used to keep himself above it. But Somnath temple was constructed during his tenure. His minister K M Munshi got this temple constructed. He was responsible for the temple construction. It was constructed by the government of India.

Munshi was ready to resign but not give up his work of temple. After Sardar Patel’s death, President Dr Rajendra Prasad inaugurated the newly-constructed temple. The mainstream of the Congress was supportive of temple either implicitly or explicitly.

How do non-BJP and non-Congress parties especially the Left and socialist parties in particular look at the issue of construction of temple in Ayodhya?

This is a group which has lost its political path. The secular line which is there in our country is based on the wrong understanding of secularism or is based on western secularism. Secularism means Sarv Dharam Sambhav. But here people who are secular are making untruthful propaganda into their principled position.

Since 1984, the Left historians have raised flags and have been arguing that there is no proof of temple at Ayodhya where the mosque was constructed. But in 2010, when even the court ruled that there was temple, some historians were proved right, although, they do not have evidence for it but there is circumstantial evidence which is spread all over the country. Like the Gyanvapi mosque, it is a mosque which was converted into a temple. It is either due to the political compulsion or ignorance or misunderstanding of history of these groups. 

How do the poor benefit from having a mosque in Mecca, a church in the Vatican and a temple in Ayodhya? How are the exploited masses beneficiaries from it?

See, a mosque, a church and a temple are part of Dharm Tantra. Dharm Tantra is a Satta (state) in its own right. The poor are not in its agenda. The spread of Dharm Tantra alone is in its agenda. For the poor there is Rajya Tantra. In our country there was a system of keeping the king under dharma but that system is not there for 1,000 years.

What did VHP expected to gain from its planned 84 Kosi Yatra during August-September 2013? What has it gained and lost from it?

Yathwat has published an interview of the VHP’s Ashok Singhal in this matter. Besides that my impression is that VHP has been trying to get a temple constructed there. For that they made this effort to rejuvenate the movement. But there is a question mark on the momentum it can gain the intensity of 1991-1992.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-vhp-is-trying-to-revive-ayodhya-but-there-is-no-momentum/20130926.htm#1