Kalyan-stung, Govt eats its Babri words

This major shift in stand follows a counter-attack from Kalyan Singh on June 20 and a brain-storming session Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani had with his Cabinet colleagues Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj in North Block a week later.

The attempt is clearly to control the damage caused by Kalyan Singh’s accusation that Advani and other Sangh Parivar leaders had hatched a ‘‘deep and secret conspiracy’’ to demolish the mosque and that ‘‘these leaders had not only kept me in the dark on the issue but also betrayed me.’’

Interestingly, it was Kalyan Singh’s counsel B B Saxena who set the ball rolling this morning when he objected to what he called was ‘‘misreporting’’ in the media about the Centre’s criticism of the Kalyan Singh Government.

Urging the Commission to warn the media or ban any reporting of the proceedings, Saxena claimed that the Centre’s counsel, Lala Ram Gupta, had not made any of the anti-Kalyan Singh remarks ascribed to him. Saxena also regretted that the media reports had ‘‘misled’’ his client into attacking Advani.

The Centre’s counsel, as if on cue, agreed with Saxena’s interpretation of his submissions and said, ‘‘I have said nothing about the state Government.’’ And that all he said was that the Kalyan Singh Government did not have a contingency plan to deal with the possibility of Kar Sevaks running amok.

Lala Ram Gupta’s claim contradicts his statements on June 19 both in the commission and when he spoke to the media. While contending that the Kalyan Singh Government had no contigency plan to meet the eventuality of demolition, Lala Ram Gupta had said: ‘‘In such a situation, which all of us agree was sensitive, the state Government failed in its duty to deploy the stationed Central forces.’’

Lala Ram Gupta also denied having said before the Commission earlier in the month that the Narasimha Rao regime’s decision to ban the VHP in the wake of the demolition was ‘‘correct.’’ Lala Ram Gupta had on the earlier occasion approvingly quoted the report of the Justice Bahri tribunal, which upheld the VHP ban because of the provocative speeches of its leaders.

The Commission’s counsel, Anupam Gupta, cornered Lala Ram Gupta by asking him to clarify his position on the submissions he had already been recorded to have made in the previous hearings. ‘‘Are all the arguments I heard you make earlier washed out or erased?’’ Anupam Gupta questioned.

When there was no response from Lala Ram Gupta, Justice M S Liberhan said: ‘‘But that is a matter of record. So how can that be erased?’’ Anupam Gupta asked the judge to put the same question to Lala Ram Gupta. The Centre’s counsel got off the hook as Liberhan closed the discussion on the subject by saying, ‘‘What he said is already on record. It is for me assess its effect on evidence.’’

Lala Ram Gupta on his part tried to wrap up his arguments today by submitting written submissions of Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi on the allegations made against them in the context of the demolition. ‘‘I am only submitting written submissions. I have nothing to add,’’ said Lala Ram Gupta.

But Anupam Gupta pointed out that Lala Ram Gupta had not yet answered a question put to him in the previous hearing about the Constitutional options the Narasimha Rao Government had to prevent the demolition. The question flowed from the Centre’s written submission that the Rao Government could have ‘‘intervened and taken all Constitutional steps to deploy the forces to meet any situation.’’

This flew in the face of Narasimha Rao’s own deposition before the Commission that, under the Constitution, the Centre could only send its forces to Ayodhya and their deployment was entirely in the hands of the state Government.

Anupam Gupta asked Lala Ram Gupta to explain why exactly the Vajpayee Government felt that the Rao Government could have on its own deployed para military forces in Ayodhya on the fateful day.

The Centre’s counsel again said: ‘‘I have nothing more to add.’’