The debate, a day after

The prime minister’s studied ambiguity on Ayodhya is the most significant outcome of the Opposition’s Parliamentary tactics in support of the demand for the resignation of three BJP ministers chargesheeted for their role in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. At the end of the day, there was no suggestion that Atal Bihari Vajpayee regretted giving his blessing overtly to the mandir movement by saying it was an expression of national sentiment. And his coalition remained intact with the more sensitive of his allies having to reaffirm their confidence in him even though his position had changed 180 degrees. The defeat of the Congress motion was a foregone conclusion but the process helped to establish how far and hard secular parties in the NDA were prepared to go in the face of Vajpayee’s “defection” to fight for the neutrality of the coalition agenda. In the event, Mamata Banerjee proved her mettle, saying in no uncertain terms that the demolition was a “heinous crime”, proposing a ban on politicalparties which use religion to win elections, and in tandem with the Telegu Desam, compelling the prime minister to reiterate specifically his government’s commitment to abide by the court’s verdict on the dispute.

But when the crisis had passed with a vote in favour of the coalition, hardliners in the BJP looked like the winners. If Vajpayee’s “national sentiment” statement marks an important shift in rhetoric, its survival could mark a new phase in the party’s relationship with the mandir movement. Until this point the moderates led by the prime minister had managed to obfuscate the relationship and to distance the government from it. Now they have sold the pass. Hardliners in the party will be strengthened by an argument which they will waste no time in claiming has run the gauntlet of a Parliamentary debate and emerged unscathed. With an election looming in UP the moderates will not be inclined to retrieve lost ground. Unless Vajpayee makes a special effort to halt it, there is likely to be a further slide towards the Hindutva agenda with unhappy consequences for the country.

The Congress which initiated this battle has not covered itself with glory. Most of all its tactics failed to keep the debate tightly focussed on the question of the resignations of L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati and their refusal to cooperate with the Liberhan Commission of Enquiry. Inevitably the Congress itself was attacked for acts of omission and commission in Ayodhya over the years. Much of the criticism was justified. But the political objectives of those like Mulayam Singh Yadav who concentrated his fire on the Congress and the BSP, which took the expedient path of abstaining from the vote could not be disguised. The effect was a splendid display of Opposition disunity when just the reverse was needed and would have been more effective in nailing the government on its agenda, hidden or otherwise. Above all an opportunity was lost to reassert the values of this nation of tolerance and pluralism and equality before the law.