MANI SHANKAR AIYAR, former Indian diplomat and Union Minister, has been a long-term parliamentarian from the Congress Party and has held various ministries including Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ministry of Panchayati Raj. In an interview with MOHD NAUSHAD KHAN on his recent book, “The Rajiv I Knew,” he said Shilanyas was a big political mistake. Excerpts:
In your book you have said Narasimha Rao was the first prime minister of BJP. What made you think so? Is it because of his handling of the Babri Masjid issue or for any other reason?
It was just a throwaway remark… But there was a serious purpose behind that remark. It is connected with the way in which Narasimha Raoji handled the Babri Masjid. He was also not very comfortable with the word secularism because when I was on my Ram Rahim Yatra, he communicated to me that he had no objection to my yatra, but he didn’t agree with my definition of secularism. And when I said, ‘What is wrong with my definition of secularism’, he said, ‘you don’t seem to realize that this is a Hindu country’. I was shocked and I said to him, ‘But I thought, Sir, we were a secular country’.
Can you please explain why you have written ‘Shilanyas was a mistake’?
Shilanyas was a big political mistake. I don’t think the Congress Party or the Congress government should have got involved with the Shilanyas or anything else to do with constructing a temple because secularism essentially means the state has no religion.
And so, I don’t think Rajiv Gandhi should have involved himself with the Shilanyas. But he felt that so long as the Babri Masjid was preserved, there would be no objection to building a temple beyond the disputed area. Unfortunately, the area designated by Home Minister Buta Singh included, as it later turned out, a part of the disputed area; but in any case, it was wrong politics to have undertaken Shilanyas ceremony in the middle of the election process. And there was a blowback. I think many Muslims seeing the Shilanyas taking place and those seeing the Babri Masjid still existed decided not to vote for the Congress. And, therefore, Congress paid a heavy price and we lost more than 200 seats.
So, from Shilanyas to Babri Masjid demolition, what was its impact on Congress?
On the question of the masjid/temple at Ayodhya, Rajiv Gandhi closeted himself with a cabal of advisers to work out an alternative plan for dealing with the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid crisis. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, the statesman-jurist, was the strongest voice of those making the argument that the crux of the issue lay in determining whether Babar’s general, Mir Baqi, had destroyed an extant Ram temple to erect the Babri Masjid or whether he had only built the mosque on unused land that was now being claimed as the birthplace of Ram.
He suggested that it be left to the Supreme Court to pronounce its view on this limited but crucial question after hearing the historical and archaeological evidence from respected experts. Siddhartha Ray further argued that there were two ways of securing the SC view on this ‘key question’: either under Article 142 or 143. Under Article 142, the SC view would be expressed in court as an order that ‘shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. If raised before the SC as a presidential reference under Article 143, the court’s finding would be a non-binding ‘opinion’ addressed to the president. Ray preferred raising the issue in the Supreme Court under Article 142 as that would result in a ‘binding’ order.
Another alternative that was considered related to requesting the Supreme Court to convoke a commission of inquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, comprising five sitting judges of the Supreme Court, selected by the Chief Justice of India, to determine the question of fact as to whether, at the site of the dispute, a Ram mandir was destroyed to build a masjid in its place. If it was held that such a commission could not be established owing to the same question pending before the Allahabad High Court, an ordinance or law might be passed under Article 138 enlarging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. These alternatives were put to PM Chandra Shekhar by Rajiv Gandhi in writing and others were conveyed orally. Chandra Shekhar finally decided on Article 143, a non-binding opinion on a presidential reference.
There is perception that because of Rajiv Gandhi, the gates of Babri Masjid were unlocked. How would you like to clarify it?
Of course, since it was in power, Congress was responsible for the unlocking of the gates. But the question is who in the Congress? The Congress Chief Minister of UP, or the Congress President or the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was responsible? Stray remarks to me by the PM indicated he had nothing to do with this tragic farce and was deeply disturbed. Another PMO officer, Wajahat Habibullah, handled minority affairs; I was neither asked nor consulted by the PM on the matter. Wajahat Habibullah writes in his memoirs that he ‘put to PM the question of the unlocking of the gates’. Rajiv Gandhi answered, ‘I knew nothing of this development until I was told of this after the orders had been passed and executed.’ He regretted that ‘he had not been informed of this action’ but suspected it was MoS for home affairs, Arun Nehru, and his political secretary, Makhan Lal Fotedar, who were responsible. He added that he was ‘having this verified. If it [is] true, I will have to consider action.’
The internal party enquiry Rajiv Gandhi had ordered as Congress president revealed that while Arun Nehru was behind the conspiracy to open the gates at Ayodhya, Fotedar wasn’t. So, Arun Nehru was dropped but not Fotedar. Thus did Rajiv approach this matter with the utmost rectitude: punishing the one and sparing the other, although a much easier path would have been to spare the politically powerful Arun Nehru and punish the party apparatchik, Fotedar.
Rajiv Gandhi was not consulted because he would never have agreed to such an unprincipled step. So, the ‘formidable cousin’ decided to present the prime minister with a fait accompli, unmindful (or, perhaps, conscious) that this would stir the cauldron of communalism.
You have also mentioned the handling of Shah Bano case by Rajiv Gandhi. How would you like to recall it?
Yes, I have mentioned it at a great length. The Supreme Court decided on 19 September 2001, that far from reversing the 1985 judgment the Act passed by Rajiv Gandhi actually implemented that decision. So there was no reversal of any decision and what he did was that he incorporated that aspect of Muslim Personal Law into our Civil Law and said that Muslims should obey their own law. He did the right thing. It may not have been a popular thing to do but sometimes the right thing is not the popular thing.
Rajiv Gandhi’s handling of the Shah Bano controversy typified his style of working, that of carefully listening to all points of view and only then rising to his responsibility as PM to make a final decision. It was a decision that was endorsed by the SC judgment in 2001. That ought to have been the end of the matter. Unfortunately, however, sections of public opinion, in particular those that consider Muslim Personal Law to be callous and the 1985 SC judgment to be ‘enlightened’, continue to assert this judgment was ‘reversed’ by the Rajiv Gandhi government.
PM Manmohan Singh had said that Muslims should have first claim on the resources. What was the approach of Rajiv Gandhi towards minorities? Do you think Rahul Gandhi is also following footsteps of his father?
He was very sympathetic to them. He believed our religious minorities must not only be given a place of complete equality with all other Indian citizens as per the Constitution. But their special problems that arise from the fact of their being minority must be looked at with sympathy and urgency by the government. This looking at Muslims’ problems with sympathy and from their point of view is called appeasement by the BJP.
You appease an enemy. Neville Chamberlain was appeasing Hitler. So, are the Muslims of India our equal citizens or enemy? How can you appease the Muslims? They are not against us our country. They decided to remain in this country. So, therefore, the word appeasement is wrong. As far as looking after this special interest, they arise from their minority status. I think that is the right thing to do for a secular state. And on what context Manmohan Singh said was the report of the Sachar Committee which showed the economic, social, and educational and health and other problems of the Muslims particularly ‘Pasmanda Muslims’ was even worse than that of Scheduled Caste. So, it was in that context he said they should have the first claim on our resources and not because they were Muslims, but because the community happened to be economically deprived. If you twist that to say that means you deprived the Hindus, that is not what he was saying at all.
