With a pout and smirk, Rao goes to Ayodhya panel, says he got news 3 hours late

With a pout and smirk, Rao goes to Ayodhya panel, says he got news 3 hours late
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 19: Though the five-hour demolition of Babri Masjid began at noon, the then Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, claims he came to know of the attack only betweeen 3 pm and 4 pm. He made this claim today while deposing before the Justice Liberhan Commission, which his own government had appointed more than eight years ago to inquire into the demolition.

In an ironic turn of events, Rao was cross-examined by counsel representing L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharati, Kalyan Singh and even theCentral Government. And the thrust of all the counsel's arguments was toshow that Rao himself was to be blamed for the demolition.

It was in response to a query from Satpal Jain, counsel for Advani, Joshiand Bharati, that Rao made the claim that he came to know of the BabriMasjid demolition a full three hours later.

Kalyan Singh's counsel, B.B. Saxena, asked Rao why he had allowed the Ramtemple to be constructed through the night of December 6 and the next day,even after the imposition of President's Rule.

Rao's surprising response was that the construction of the temple at thesite of the demolished mosque came to his knowledge only ``after somedays''.

No matter how much he stretched the credulity of the lawyers, Rao deposedall through with confidence, spicing his replies with wit and sarcasm. Thecounsel for the Babri trio asked him: ``The structure that fell down onDecember 6, 1992 -- was it a mosque, temple or anything else?'' Rao replied:``Am I supposed to express opinions?...I have come here only to giveclarifications."

When Jain persisted with his question, Rao said he would use the expressionin common parlance: Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure.

Jain grilled Rao on the statement he reportedly made within hours of thedemolition that he wanted to construct the structure at the same place.

Rao: ``What I said was rebuild. The place I did not specify.''

Jain: ``What was the structure you wanted to rebuild at that time?''

Rao: ``Whatever structure that was there.''

Later, Kalyan's counsel, B.B. Saxena, reading from the White Paper broughtout by Rao's Government, asked him whether he agreed with its observationthat the structure was erected as a mosque by one Mir Baqi in 1528.

Rao said: ``Regardless of my agreement, what has been written in the WhitePaper I believe to be true. And the alphabet M could not stand for anythingelse but a mosque or a masjid.''

Saxena: ``Is it correct that the demolition of the structure was a suddenact of some mischievous elements?''

Rao: ``I would respectfully submit that it would not be right for you or meto come to any conclusion because it is sub judice.''

Saxena: ``Do you agree with this statement in the White Paper -- `In a moveas sudden as it was shameful, a few thousand people managed to outrage thesentiments of millions of Indians of all communities.' ''

Rao: ``Sudden was in the physical sense.''

Saxena: ``The White Paper does not mention that the disputed structure wasdemolished by kar sevaks and this was also the stand of the Government.''

Rao: ``My answer is that the White Paper also does not mention that therewere persons other than the kar sevaks present at that time.''

Saxena: ``All the four BJP governments (then in Uttar Pradesh, MadhyaPradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh) wanted the disputed structure toremain intact so that they may continue to get votes on that issue.''

Rao: ``I have no knowledge of that pious intention.''

Saxena: ``The BJP governments wanted the structure to remain intact in orderto get votes while the Congress wanted the issue to end and the structure tobe demolished.''

Rao: ``I am no authority on the motivations of the BJP. About the Congress,I stick by what it said in its 1991 election manifesto: The Congress is forthe construction of the temple without dismantling the mosque. It could nothave been clearer.''