The following is a transcript of the interview which appeared in video newsmagazine Eyewitness’ edition in January 1993.

Prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao explains why he thinks the demolition “was the result of planning, preplanning” and how he trusted the BJP government in UP to stand by its commitments as “democracy can never run on the basis of total mistrust of parties or governments.”

He said that the BJP state government had told the union government, the supreme court and the National Integration Council, that it would guarantee the safety of the mosque “under any circumstances”. 

Karan Thapar: Prime minister, in the light of everything that you now know, do you believe that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was spontaneous or do you have reason to believe that it was surreptitiously planned by elements of the RSS, the BJP, the Bajrang Dal, the VHP?

P.V. Narasimha Rao: I have reason to believe that it was the result of planning, preplanning.

What sort of reasons are these?

You see, putting many things together, you have to take a comprehensive view. I have tried to take that comprehensive view, taking each small bit, each small event, each small reaction, reflex of the state government, and also of the leaders. Every utterance of the leaders, different voices saying something in the court, saying exactly the opposite outside. The advantage of speaking with so many voices and getting away with everything. All this put together makes me believe that it could not be spontaneous, it could not be just on the spur of the moment, and knowing the way they articulated it this time, I’m quite sure that it was pre-planned. 

Let me ask you about your own government’s reaction. After all, you knew that something was likely to happen in the form of kar seva for five weeks. Why did you not do more to prevent this happening? 

What more can you do than giving the state government 192 companies of the central forces, paramilitary forces, which amount to about 11 to 12,000 armed people, asking them to make use of them, because the Constitution doesn’t allow the forces to act on their own. Asking them to make use of them, they are near at hand. In fact, it could have been done very easily, if there had been any will on the part of the state government. They were in Faizabad. This was happening in Ayodhya. I mean, just within 5 minutes, 10 minutes, everything could have been controlled so that was the situation. Not only not making use of them but going to the Supreme Court and asking that the central forces be withdrawn, making protests going from place to place, asking the central forces to vacate the premises they were occupying within 2 hours, giving them notices. Now this is the kind of thing that has happened and as a result of this, the situation went out of control. In fact, they didn’t want to control it in any case. There were orders from the chief minister that no force should be used.

But if, as you say, they did not want to control it in any case, they were not cooperating, why did you not dismiss them [the BJP state government in UP] before December the 6th?

No it is not possible, because they have been telling the courts, telling the National Integration Council, telling the whole world, as a government, they would do it under any circumstances. This was the commitment they were giving to the whole world. 

And you trusted them.

Well, the state government has to be trusted by the central government. If anyone can tell me about any other kind of relationship or particularly a relationship of total mistrust between the state government and the central government, I would very respectfully disagree that it is not possible under a Federal Constitution like India. 

I accept the point of making prime minister, but there is the opposite that can be said also. This is a party, the BJP that has whipped up emotions, as you have often argued on the basis of religion before. The state government was refusing to cooperate with you this time around and they are the opposition, so why trust them? 

No, the question is what do you do if you don’t trust them. You cannot dismiss that government while the government is shouting from the house tops that it is prepared to discharge its constitutional responsibility, never mind which party. The point is whether the state government as such is doing its duty or not, promising to do its duty or not, making preparations for it or not. I have done the utmost I could do by making available a very large force which could have been made use of, at a moment’s notice.

Prime minister, could you not have taken action under Article 355?

No, Article 355 has never been used in the history of this Constitution.

But this is a case where you could have used it.

No, there is no need because we can go straight to article 356. 

But you didn’t do that either.

This is what we did, when they failed, we had to do.

Do you now, in retrospect, think that if you had acted on the basis of 355 or 356 earlier, you might have avoided what happened? 

No, I don’t think we could have used 356 earlier. I’m quite sure about that. 

In hindsight though, would you have preferred now to have used 355 then? 

I don’t want to go by hindsight at all. I would like to do what is possible, what is necessary at the moment. That is how a government works. 

Do you feel, prime minister, that the attitude of accommodation, that the attitude of understanding that you had shown the BJP, now was mistaken or that they misled you? 

I don’t think it was mistaken. You see democracy can never run on the basis of total mistrust of parties or governments. The point is, you do get into difficulties, you have to get over the difficulties, learn a few things about other parties but even then, you see, the Constitution of India has a certain unity of its own and you cannot act in a manner which disrupts the acting, the functioning of the Constitution. I think that is a lesson which everyone has to bear in mind. That is a principle which everyone has to bear in mind. I cannot become unprincipled and violate the constitution because somebody else has done it. I mean, I don’t think anyone can recommend that or commend that. 

Your home minister has at least twice spoken of a contingency plan which he said he had. 

This was a contingency plan. Giving them the force that they need, in case of need, they have to use it, asking them to use it, and telling them, time and again, every hour, to use it. 

But when they, but was there a plan which could have been activated when you realised that they were not using the force you had made available and that things were going out of control?

Well, this is what I’m saying. You see, you have to go up to a point in trusting the state government. There is no way you can say that you are not going to do it. Therefore, for every step, I have a counter step – this kind of thing will not do. The moment our forces were sent there, the protest that came from the government of Uttar Pradesh and the BJP everywhere, including the Supreme Court, they have to be seen to understand what it was even to send forces there. 

Let’s just talk a little about the forces, prime minister. By all newspaper accounts, the demolition began just before midday and it lasted for some five hours. Why was it not possible for your government to act during that time? 

Yes, these hours have been noted. What happened at what time has been noted. We are coming out with a white paper on that. I will give you that, that gives you all the details, but in short, I could tell you that it was known to us only after 1:00. We have, we asked them, they said we want 25 companies. 25 companies were immediately made available. Then again, they said we want 50 companies. They were also made available. In short, when they were on their way to Ayodhya, they were stopped in the middle. There were 200,000 people milling around. The magistrate said, “I am under strict orders of the chief minister that force should not be used. Now you cannot proceed without using force. Therefore, I will not allow you to use force. You please go back”

So, do you have the impression that the chief minister was saying different things to you and different things to the magistrate? 

Absolutely. Absolutely. 

He was actually playing tricks, to coin a phrase.

Well, phraseology is yours, but I am telling you what happened.

And you’re not disagreeing with the phraseology. 

Well, why should I? It is your phraseology, but so long as the substance is the same.

One other thing, prime minister. The actual assault on the Masjid proper began around midday, but your forces didn’t clear it till some 16 hours later. Although when they did, they did so without loss of life. Why was that clearance direct action not possible?

The man on the spot who was in charge of the operations said that they could do it in the night, not during the day, when still 150,000 people were milling around. He waited for the night and then made the assault. 

Also read: Ayodhya’s Class of 1992: The Key Conspirators

So, the timing of the assault was decided by the man on the spot. 

For strategic reasons, yes. 

There’s no political connection, not at all, whatsoever?

Not at all. In fact we were asking him to do it all the time, but he said no, I will have to do it only in the night, after nightfall.

Why did your government not stop the yatras that went on for a week prior, led by Mr Advani and Dr Joshi, when it was quite clear that they were whipping up emotions and creating tension? 

In this country, we don’t stop yatras just for stopping them. Mr Murali Manohar Joshi also went on a yatra, all India yatra, we did not stop. Everyone can go everywhere. I mean there is no stopping this and in fact, if we had stopped the yatras, we were not quite sure that things would not have worsened. I mean, he’s a leader of stature. He is going, we think that he is going, I mean he says he is going to control, he is also making fairy speeches. We know what is happening at the moment, at that moment. We are watching but we cannot really stop the yatra. Have you ever seen a yatra where thousands and thousands of people are participating being stopped? You mean a blood bath there on that same spot! And how do we enter Uttar Pradesh? Who is in charge of law and order in Uttar Pradesh? Who is in charge of stopping the yatra? Am I in charge? Is the home minister of India in charge? Why don’t you ask yourself that question? The yatra starts from Mathura. Mathura is in Uttar Pradesh. Law and order is Uttar Pradesh government’s job, not mine. 

Why did your government not try and limit the congregation that assembled? There were some 3 lakh Kar Sevaks by some account who were there. Could you not have limited that number? 

It did not work in 1990. 

But it could have been tried in 1992. 

No, it could not have been tried because you cannot stop people from going anywhere. You see, you do not know what they are going to do. The point is that if there is a yatra, if there is a religious fervour, somebody wants to go and do kar seva. According to the definition given by the Supreme Court, it’s not as if all kar seva was banned. The Supreme Court gave the parameters of this Kar Seva and they were going to do just that. That is what everybody knew about the kar seva. How do you think anybody will stop or can stop any kar seva? Kar seva was very clearly delimited by the Supreme Court. What all you want to say is I should have done it in spite of it. 

But what do you say to someone who hears you and says he’s given lots of reasons why he couldn’t stop the yatras, he’s given lots of reasons why he couldn’t stop the congregation in Ayodhya growing to five lakhs, but in every case he seems to be pleading helplessness.

I’m not pleading helplessness at all. I am only saying that I am under the Constitution, acting under the Constitution. The moment I was able to act under the Constitution, I acted. 

One other concern that people have is why did you arrest Mr LK Advani and Dr Joshi, when a lot of people feel that this has perhaps given their party a cause to rally around? 

I don’t care who is rallying around whom. I am absolutely certain that the leader who is responsible for a particular act has to be proceeded against. 

Do you think that the arrest of people like Mr Advani and Dr Joshi was an essential bridge and an indication to the Muslim community that we will treat this sort of behaviour seriously? 

Well, it was not an indication, it was the performance of a duty. Indication is secondary because we don’t arrest people just to indicate something. That’s not done. Arrests are not carried out with such such motivation. The motivation is the reason that they have to be arrested under the law. They have done something which they have to pay for in terms of legal proceedings. 

How do you respond to the deep feeling of betrayal and insecurity that many Indian Muslims today feel? 

I too feel the same kind of betrayal has happened, not only to them, not only to me, to the whole nation. I have all sympathy and love for them. I feel exactly as they feel, the same distress and the same anguish, but I would like to embrace them and tell them that we will face this danger together.

How do you, as prime minister of India, react to the demolition and destruction of Hindu temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh and the attack on Indian diplomatic property? 

My reaction is the same whether it is a Hindu temple or a Muslim Mosque or any other denomination. The desecration or destruction of places of worship is a heinous crime. It should not be done anywhere and whoever does it is really doing a great disservice to not only all religions but to mankind itself. 

What about the fact that the Pakistan High Commission in Delhi has been flying its flag at half mast? What do you say about that? 

About what? 

They have flown, in the capital of India, their flag at their High Commission in Shantipath at half mast.

I must check on that. I must check on that. 

It was done as a deliberate attempt to show sympathy with the Muslim community in India for what happened.

It doesn’t have to be. I mean, it is being done everywhere by Pakistan. Pakistan is heading this campaign.Everyone knows that. 

Do you, as prime minister of India, resent the fact that they are using this politically?

Of course, I resent it. I have expressed it several times. I have made it absolutely clear that this is not on but this is going on. This is what the unfortunate part is. 

One last question, prime minister. You spoke about duty but when you first came to office as prime minister, you defined your duty as putting India’s economy back on the rails. 

Yes. 

And you did so by launching some of the most far-reaching economic reforms. Now it’s widely believed, in the light of what’s happened, they’ve either been shelved or they’ve been forgotten about or derailed. Is that so? 

Well, I think none of these is true. Neither derailed nor shelved nor forgotten. The only thing is you have only one event that hits the headlines. No event hits the headlines always. I mean, today Ayodhya has hit the headlines. After a few days, it will no longer hit the headlines. We will go back to our economic program. In fact, the economic program is on. There has been no Interruption whatsoever. 

Also read: The Provocateur in Chief – L.K. Advani

So all the speculation is unfounded.

Absolutely unfounded.

You say after a few days. So, can you give me an indication, will we see economic reforms before the year is up, more economic reforms? 

Well, what I’m saying is the process of economic reforms has not stopped. It will not stop because once you do the essentials, there is not very much more to do. You have to do a few things here and there by way of maintaining the pace etc., which is being done, but that is not noticed because that becomes routinised. 

But just as committed to things like an exit policy to freeing the exchange rate to financial reforms of banks?

All those matters are being examined. You see there is no such thing as an exit policy properly so called. What we are doing here through the national renewal fund is to see that wherever it is necessary to bring a a particular industry back to health. We take several measures. Out of those measures, reduction of the workforce is one and when that happens, we will have to see that it is is done with a human face. We will have to see that no one is thrown on the street without a job. In this country that should not happen and that aspect is being taken care of. 

My last question, prime minister, addressed particularly to those who are supporters of yours. They look at you and they say the prime minister’s in a no-win situation. If he is strong and tough with the BJP, he could polarise the situation and make matters worse. If he doesn’t take strong action, he’ll lose the Muslim community.

I am not in a no-win situation. I am not really out to win communities. I am out to do my duty and that is the duty of secularism. I have to see that this country is held together. I do not really calculate what is going to happen tomorrow. I am calculating what is to happen in the long run and that is my real concern. This India should remain should live forever for the coming generations. 

And the Congress party and …

The Congress party is solidly behind this. 

The cabinet as well? 

The cabinet, the Congress party, every Congressman in this country is behind this. No one wants anything else done or anything different done. 

In which case there is no question of Mr Narasimha Rao resigning as prime minister of India…

Why should I? There’s no question. No question at all. 

You will finish your full 5 year term…

Of course, I will. I will. 

Prime minister, thank you very much indeed 

Thank you.