Click to play videoHello and welcome to a special Devil’s Advocate. Twenty-four hours after the Ayodhya judgment, what did the BJP make of it? That’s the key issue we’re going to discuss today with the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley.
Karan Thapar: Arun Jaitley, the RSS Sar Sangh Chalak have said that there are no winners and losers but many people believe that in the preponderant sense the Ayodhya judgment has come down on the side of the Hidu possession. Will you accept that?
Arun Jaitley: I think to the extent that it opens up the avenue for now the construction of a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya you can say this. But the manner in which the judges have framed the judgment and have addressed the issue and all three have a different approach in which they have done this…I think this whole restraint which is being exercised by various sections don’t look at winners and losers. It’s an issue which requires to be resolved and this judgment perhaps lays a possible framework for moving ahead and that’s why, you see, it’s not just the RSS chief but in the entire country there is a reaction of huge maturity as far as this judgment is concerned barring a few exceptions who may have their grievances.
Karan Thapar: I want very much to talk about the contents of the judgment in a moment, but first, the RSS Sar Sangh Chalak have also said that this is not a cause for celebration but when L.K. Advani says that the judgment has laid the way for a grand temple he sounds to many as celebratory even triumphant.
Arun Jaitley: But that is what even the RSS chief said – that don’t go out of control and start celebrating but this lays down the foundations as far as the temple process is concerned and therefore there must now be an effort to make it a reality. In that sense the language may be different but the nuances of both are really the same.
Karan Thapar: Why must it be ‘grand temple’? Doesn’t that sound triumphant?
Arun Jaitley: You see…I don’t think I’ll be fair if I did not say it and that’s my party’s belief and my own belief that Ayodhya is a place of special significance in relation to the Hindus and if a temple in the place is being built which has cultural, religious, historical significance – which ever sense you say the temple is – it’s always good to call it’s a grand temple, a ‘bhavya mandir’ as the phrases go and why should anybody object to the idea of a grand temple particularly if the court judgment allows the temple to be built?
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that for too many ears the word ‘grand’ seems to have a slight ‘rubbing salt into the wound’?
Arun Jaitley: That’s merely playing with words because if you are having a temple at a place of historical importance – don’t we speak about great places of worship or churches, gurudwaras, mosques when we refer to one those great architectural structures – why must this be insipid if it is to be built?
Karan Thapar: Well, let’s now come to the actual contents of the judgment. First, the judges have concluded that this is a Ram Janmasthan on the basis of that is what Hindus believe. But is tantamount to converting a belief into a fact.
Arun Jaitley: I think we’ve a debate going on since yesterday in the entire country by people including you and me who read the broad headlines of the brief points – none of us has read the judgment. And therefore it is highly unfair to the judges or to the judgment to have detailed discussions without having gone through the logic as far as the judgment is concerned.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that that is what people believe in.
Arun Jaitley: I understand that some of the issues in the judgment were that it was an issue in a civil suit and a civil suit is not a generalized thing. There are issues, which are raised, there are issues which are framed – and the issues were is this place perceived to be a place of worship where Lord Ram was born or was it the janmasthan…now this perception was in itself a issue and this having been framed as an issue both parties have laid evidence and addressed the arguments. The judges are now to answer it…
Karan Thapar: Now you’re being slightly clever in your explanation. They didn’t simply say that this place is perceived as an issue but they went on to argue that the perception had actually converted into a fact or belief …
Arun Jaitley: I don’t think either you or I have read even 500 pages of the judgment, forget the 8,000 words and therefore this is a discussion between two people who’ve just gone through the little summary. I will wait for my final comment and will advice you to wait for your questions. Ask after the judgment has been read by people including you and me and then we start commenting on it. It’s unfair for us to get into a discussion without having gone through the whole document.
Karan Thapar: All right, I get the point you’re trying to make but let me put it like this. You’re a lawyer, let me put it to you that if a community believes that Mr A is born in this place b, does that belief make it a fact?
Arun Jaitley: Well, that makes it a fact of the existence of a belief.
Karan Thapar: No more?
Arun Jaitley: Therefore, you must read the judgment and try and understand that the issue is in relation to the belief. If the belief itself is a ‘distinct issue’ then I am sure that the judges have tried to answer that issue.
Karan Thapar: Except that you’ll accept that there’s a difference between a belief and a fact.
Arun Jaitley: Well. I think let’s read the judgment as to what it has said because I’m given to understand that I’ve read the issues and I’ve read specific issues relating to the belief. Parties have addressed each other in the court on the existence of a belief and the judges have answered it. Let’s not have a discussion, which is devoid of the basic information that’s the text of the judgment.
Karan Thapar: A second part of the judgment that the judges have concluded that the mosque was built upon a previous structure, which they say was a Hindu temple. And that they accept without questioning an ASI report which is highly disputed and therefore considered by many top historians to be questionable?
Arun Jaitley: Well, the views of those historians may be questionable. Ultimately in a democratic society, which is governed by constitutionalism – you can’t have convenience as constitutionalism. You’ve a system where the court appoints the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) as an agency. Some left of centre historian is not the ASI. The ASI, in turn, hires the best international experts. What is the evidence that they have? They have plaques that were recovered immediately upon the demolition of the disputed structure by the ASI. They have pillars and material, which have been recovered by the ASI. Then you had ASI hire an international, I’m told a Japanese agency, which did various other studies by digging below the existing structure to find out whether there was a structure before it – they did laser studies. Now I’ll just place the evidence before you because I have been seeing some adverse comments coming from vested interests and come to a conclusion that the court has given. It is disputed as long as the report doesn’t come. Once there is cross-examination on that report, once grill the ASI for days together and the judges give their opinion it is no longer disputed, although subject to the right to appeal. That becomes a fact that a historian is entitled to criticize the judgment but India will be governed by a judgment delivered by a court and not the opinion of some politically-inclined historian.
Karan Thapar: That is very much a contested answer that you give me. First of all the ASI report needs to be interpreted as different interpretations are as valid as each other. When you need someone to judge different interpretations that person needs to have the expertise to do so. Whatever else judges may be of the Allahabad High Court, they are not expert historians to decide that.
Arun Jaitley: Thankfully, we don’t have a kangaroo system where TV studios or anchors become judges. We are governed by constitutionalism where the judges on the strength of expert witnesses are the judges of even expert evidence. Judges are not expert handwriting witnesses, judges are not expert archaeological witnesses – they can decide questions of science depending on what is the medical evidence. A judge is not a doctor but the expert will come and give evidence and the judge will opine on that – that’s the system we have.
Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you what the problem is in this process that at least in two specific important areas the judges have to rely on something which not indisputable – the first instance – they relied in faith and second, they’ve relied on a contested, disputed opinion.
Arun Jaitley: Now, your question is based on, a) a non-reading of the judgment, b) on an erroneous presumption, at least on the second fact. The first, I have already answered. The judges, I assume, would have relied on the evidence – an ASI report, international agency which did a laser study. Historical writings of a contemporary nature that is 17 century and 16 century writings of travellers, historians of that particular moment. The official gazette of British rule in India as opposed to almost negligible evidence. You found structures there with Hindu markings. Now on the basis of that if judges come to an opinion – and what I seriously object to is that you can’t have a constitutionalism of convenience in India. Pardon me for saying this, till 4 o’ clock yesterday I saw some historians and lawyers sitting in television studios saying a judgment is coming, it must be accepted. At 4:15 when you saw the judgment swinging the other way, you immediately turn into a critique of the Allahabad High Court. Now you can criticize a judgment but you can’t change, within 15 minutes, the tenor of your entire argument.
Karan Thapar: Now that you’re talking about a different issue – you’re talking about how commentators changed their positions and your criticism of the commentators is legitimate from your standpoint. I don’t want to prolong the argument over the validity or the invalidity of the basis of which the judges have come to conclusion but then let me just point one thing out and then I’ll move on – that the elements of fact that you point to such as plaque, pillars, Hindu markings – have other interpretations in the eyes of the reputed historians like D.N. Jha, Irfan Habib and Jay Menon that’s why it’s a contested fact…
Arun Jaitley: It is a contested fact between ideologically motivated historians of different varieties. The others have will say something else. But in a democratic society, governed by the rule of law, ultimately, the disputed fact has to be decided even if it’s an expert judgment by a court of law.
Karan Thapar: That’s true except for the fact that the disputed fact still has contentious aspects that people often remember. However, let’s change that and come to a different aspect of this judgment. The judges have dismissed the Sunni Waqf Board petition on the grounds that it was time barred, they’ve recognized the site as the Ram Janmasthan, they’ve also said that the mosque was built upon a Hindu temple instead of handing the site entirely to the Hindus, they’ve chosen to split it into three equal parts. I quoted to you that their findings don’t match their conclusions.
Arun Jaitley: Let me tell you that you’ve not read the basic logic they’ve arrived at. May be even I would like to contest that from a different point of logic. But it is quite possible for a judge having dismissed that suit come to an alternative finding and I’ll tell you how. The judge dismisses the Sunni Waqf Board suit on the ground of limitations. The suit is not maintainable. Then it goes to the suit filed by the deities and says there are no original titles or documents produced by anyone of them and there can’t be. But possession for centuries is in all three. Somebody has been worshipping in different parts of the structure. I, therefore, hold this possession to be joint. And on that basis I declare you as joint owner but I don’t want disputes any further, I pass on final decree of ownership 1/3 each but it’s a preliminary decree how this 1/3 is to be partitioned. So in the deities suit, having dismissed the Sunni board’s petition on the basis of limitations, the court was perfectly entitled to come to this view. May be those appearing for the deity be entitled to say having come to that conclusion it should have given it to them entirely but if the court came to an alternative view it not that it is some fanciful view, it is a plausible view, which on given facts may be possible to come to an opinion that this shouldn’t have been done.
Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you why I raised this issue. Many people have come to a personal conclusion that there is a strong element in the solution to the goes by such as reconciliation of compensation or compromise. Are you, Arun Jaitley, and the BJP in agreement with that sentiment?
Arun Jaitley: Well, I don’t think I’ll give a final opinion without having read the judgment. We’ve only made a limited comment that this judgment is a step forward in the construction of a temple, which if it does, it will improve community relations in India, it will also add to India’s integration, that’s the sufficient hint which we’ve given. But I found, I must say, the reaction of a large number of friends belonging to the minority community on television, which was also positive. I’ve spoken to a number of them but however, there are some both in the civil society as well as in the political domain who want to continue as Indian minority living in fear. They seem to be more disturbed than the minorities themselves.
Karan Thapar: Okay, that again is another of your personal opinions but let me tell you one of the problems with the three-way split of the land. How can you build a grand temple on 1/3 of land?
Arun Jaitley: I’m not a great voter of giving it away three ways. But assuming that the court at some stage decides that let’s end the dispute? You must leave it to the wisdom of people to work out solutions. There’s the Supreme Court still, which is awaited, there will be parties which are open to negotiations and I think the resilience of the Indian society is how to do it the society will work it out. Without reading the document, in a 10-minute interview you and I can’t decide how it will be done but then I know of cases in the world where it has been done. It is not impossible. Or the court leaves an opportunity that if it can’t be done here, for the mosque, give a land elsewhere from amongst the acquired land of the government. Therefore the court has various pragmatic options. Therefore the court has phrased it in a manner where it does not add to the tension but dilutes tensions in India.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that there is a second level of problem that is after 1/3 land is given to the Sunni Waqf Board, they are free to do what they want. Would you be happy if they choose to build a mosque, adjacent to the Ram Janmasthan and adjacent to you grand temple?
Arun Jaitley: One hasn’t thought in detail about these comments and one hasn’t thought of such queer, absurd or hypothetical situations.
Karan Thapar: This is not bizarre or hypothetical. This could actually happen.
Arun Jaitley: When this happens we’ll react to it. But today we are at an interim stage where the high court has decided and given a roadmap. Parties are likely to move to the Supreme Court, parties are also likely to sit for negotiations and don’t forget that in the course of all this what is the future cost – so trust the maturity of the parties and the Indian society.
Karan Thapar: Now, the Allahabad High Court has itself said that the status quo will be maintained for three months because they want to give the parties time to work out among themselves how the 1/3 division of the land will happen. Now is that likely or is that a tall order?
Arun Jaitley: Well, I think all options will be explored by parties. If parties sit together and the government facilitates that I think it would be possible. I think there’s a role of the State in resolving issues also. The appeal court will itself do it. After all the Supreme Court is going to be the appeal court in this. Courts also try and bring about justice between the parties and therefore there are various opportunities. I can’t foresee all that will happen over the course of the next three to six months.
Karan Thapar: As the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, would advice the government to bring the parties together to work out this division?
Arun Jaitley: Let us first await for some more time – what is the attitude of the various contesting parties and therefore I would suggest and it is a comment that I’ve made about positive development of the judgment in the suit. It takes us in the direction of a temple, it takes us in the direction of better national integration and better inter-community relations. Let’s move on that roadmap rather than become confrontationalists in this issue.
Karan Thapar: Let’s come to the influence that this judgment is going to have on parties and political sentiments in India? Is there going to be a wind in the BJP sails hereafter?
Arun Jaitley: I am nobody to praise my party, although I ordinarily do that. But if you see the reaction of the BJP and the RSS and this comes from two of us senior-most people, Bhagvad ji has said so, Advani ji has said so – our reactions have been most modest.
Karan Thapar: Your reactions may be modest but are you anticipating that there’s going to be a wind of support for you and this is going to help you not just in elections in Bihar?
Arun Jaitley: Even when you’re being told that you’re consistently using it for political purposes, we’ve always said that we don’t want to politicize it for the purposes of elections. Today we are in Opposition.
Karan Thapar: Can you resist doing so?
Arun Jaitley: Well, you see there is the dynamics of politics. Today we’re in Opposition and even then if we are successful in having the temple bill, it’s really a great pleasure but we’re not likely to link it to any particular election.
Karan Thapar: Rhetoric may not be celebratory and triumphant but you do sense in your heart that there is a wind of support behind you.
Arun Jaitley: I think there is a very large number of people who are relieved, who are happy, if not rejoicing. Some people may want more on either side but at the same time as I’ve said we reacted with a great sense of maturity. India has probably reacted with a very great sense of maturity.
Karan Thapar: Will the BJP, now in a more formal, upfront way, revive the Ayodhya, Ram Mandir issue? You’ve downplayed it for many years – will it now come to the forefront?
Arun Jaitley: Well there are some issues, which remain relevant. This issue is relevant because the court has announced the judgment. This issue will remain relevant because the matter will go up for appeal and will go for different kinds of procedures as far as the Supreme Court is concerned and therefore, political parties don’t censor themselves on those issues and every party, I’m sure, will comment on it. But I can assure you with this positive step, we’re going to have a lot of responsibilities on our shoulders, How to deal with it, and we want a great solution for this. We’re not the principal party responsible for this. We’re neither in government, neither Vishwa Hindu Parishad nor the Sunni Waqf Board – they are the principal parties. But certainly in the direction of a temple to the satisfaction of all if the solution comes – BJP will certainly act in a very responsible manner.
Karan Thapar: So you’re not going to take advantage of it but exploit it.
Arun Jaitley: I haven’t said so and I don’t intend on saying so.
Karan Thapar: Arun Jaitley, with that smile on your face, it was pleasure talking to you.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
