Message Board

Should the Centre impose President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh to stall VHP's temple designs? Post your views

New Delhi: Lala Ram Gupta, Centre's counsel in the Liberhan Commission on July 1 justified the Narasimha Rao government's decision not to impose President's rule in Uttar Pradesh as a pre-emptive measure to save the disputed structure at Ayodhya, but qualified his submission by saying it was his personal opinion.

Giving his view on the events preceding the demolition, Gupta said till 12 noon on December 6, 1992, everything was normal and there was nothing to suggest that Constitutional machinery had failed in the state.

It was only after noon that frenzied kar sevaks "suddenly and surprisingly" rushed towards the disputed structure breaking the security cordon, he said.

They were followed by 1,000 other kar sevaks and about 150-200 of them climbed the domes of the structure and started demolishing it, without paying any heed to frantic appeals by senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Pramod Mahajan and Uma Bharti, Gupta told the one-man panel probing the sequence of events leading to the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya.

He said the Prime Minister and the Home Minister were constantly being informed about the unfolding situation and obliquely suggested that the imposition of President's rule was delayed, as the Kalyan Singh government was dismissed only at 9.00 pm (IST) on that day.

The counsel evaded direct answers to the commission's queries on imposition of President's rule in three other BJP-ruled states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh saying it was not relevant to the terms of reference of the Commission.

PTI