Arun Shourie
"What is the VHP? Whom does it represent? What is its locus standi?", the Supreme Court asked the other day -- and it seemed to have done so in a tone that triggered much delight among secularists.
��A strange question,�� the PM remarked in the Rajya Sabha. A member was up and shouting, actually several secular ones were, interrupting the Prime Minister. Who are the VHP?... They don�t represent the Hindus... They will put a bullet through me..., so what?... The members seemed quite beside themselves. If the mere mention of its name causes so much reaction, the PM observed, then it certainly has locus standi.
In matters of religion and faith, standing is not acquired by winning elections, he said. It depends on the esteem in which people come to hold one...
A telling answer in itself. And it left the critics non-plussed.
Another side to the question that had fallen from the Bench too would have struck you. The Bench did not ask, as the Constitution Bench had not asked, ��Who is Mohammed Aslam, alias �Bhure�? Whom does he represent? What is his locus standi?�� It did not ask, ��What is the Babri Masjid Action Committee? Whom does it represent? What is its locus standi?�� It did not ask, ��What is the �All India Muslim Law Board�? Whom does it represent? What is its locus standi?�� How is it that doubt assailed it only in regard to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad?
To put the matter at the least, the Bench could have looked up the Supreme Court�s own judgement in the Ayodhya case itself! ��The movement to construct a Ram temple at the site of the disputed structure gathered momentum in recent years which became a matter of great controversy and a source of tension,�� the judgement quoted the (Narasimha Rao) Government�s ��White Paper�� as saying. ��This led to several parleys the details of which are not very material for the present purpose. These parleys involving the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC), however failed to resolve the dispute...�� Again, ��At the centre of the Ram Janma Bhumi - Babari Masjid dispute is the demand voiced by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its allied organisations for the restoration of a site said to be the birthplace of Sri Ram in Ayodhya...��
Yet again, ��The VHP and its allied organisations base their demand on the assertion that...�� And yet again, ��The demand of the VHP has found support from the Bhartiya Janata Party...�� And yet again, ��It was also stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindus. Naturally, this became the central issue in the negotiations between the VHP and the AIBMAC.��
But suddenly, What is the VHP? Who does it represent? What is its locus standi?
In any event, that allusion to ��parleys�� holds a lesson we will do well to remember. One of the best things Mr Chandrashekhar did during his brief Prime Ministership was to get the two sides to agree that the only way to make progress was to exchange evidence on the matter. The two sides started meeting and exchanging documents and written arguments. The Babri Masjid Action Committee was guided by a clutch of Marxist historians -- actually, ��guided by�� is not quite right: it seemed just the front for these ��eminent historians��. The latter used the offices and facilities of the ICHR that they then controlled to prepare the AIBMAC submissions -- a fact that led the then Member Secretary to resign from his post.
The ��evidence�� that the Babri Masjid group submitted was no evidence at all. It was just a miscellaneous pile -- much of it puerile: that Rama was a King of Egypt, that he was born in Afghanistan, and the rest!
The VHP marshalled an array of evidence from archaeological sources, from historical records, from literary sources. That was the end of the ��parleys��! Realising that they could produce nothing to match what the VHP had submitted, the Marxist historians and the AIBMAC gentry just stopped attending the meetings. And it was this withdrawal, and the consequential death of the talks that Mr Chandrashekhar had initiated, as much as anything else that triggered the chain of events that led ultimately to the destruction of the mosque.
I did not doubt for a moment that the new efforts of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi would meet exactly the same fate. And for good reason. In one of the letters that he included in his 'A Bunch of Old Letters', Pandit Nehru used a phrase about Jinnah that describes this bunch, and its invariable device to the dot: ��Mr Jinnah�s permanently negative answer,�� Panditji wrote. This is the singular negotiating tactic of such individuals: just go on rejecting every formula that the other fellow brings up.
And the tragedy is -- the self-inflicted tragedy is -- that there always are persons, groups, powers that insist that the onus of producing the next formula, some formula which will incorporate an even greater concession to the other fellow is on us. And in the end we give in to this insistence. The power and groups that keep insisting that we go on producing new formulae: the British on the question of partition, the host of interlocutors on Kashmir, the secularists on the Ram Janmabhumi.
And the ones who merely keep deploying the ��permanently negative answer��: Jinnah kept rejecting every formula on partition; Pakistan keeps rejecting every formula on Kashmir; the Babri Masjid votaries keep, and will keep rejecting every formula on the Janmabhumi.
And the infuriating part is that the advice to engage in a dialogue is always directed at us -- the Congress on the question of partition, India on Kashmir, the Hindus on the Janmabhumi! It is because of this unbroken, unvarying pattern of 75 years that the new Interim Order of the Supreme Court fills me with foreboding -- doubly so.
The first concerns dialogue, negotiations. In its 1994 judgement the Supreme Court also had expressed the same pious faith: ��This is a matter suited essentially to resolution by negotiations which does not end in a winner and a loser while adjudication leads to that end,�� the Court said. ��It is in the national interest that there is no loser at the end of the process adopted for resolution of the dispute so that the final outcome does not leave behind any rancour in anyone. This can be achieved by a negotiated solution on the basis of which a decree can be obtained in terms of such solution in these suits. Unless a solution is found which leaves everyone happy, that cannot be the beginning for continued harmony between �we the people of India�.�� The same touching faith! Doomed to the same outcome.
But the least that this route requires to succeed is that the Executive has leeway, that it has a wide enough field over which it can bring the contenders closer. The Supreme Court in its 1994 judgement had left this space -- recall, for instance, the passages regarding the undisputed area. The Interim Order has snatched that space away completely. And taken into the judicial lap what the Constitution Bench had realised was not well suited for resolution through judicial adjudication.
The other omen is of an even darker hue. What the Supreme Court had held about the status quo being maintained only on the disputed site, what the Court had said about it being not just permissible but desirable that the undisputed area be handed back to its Hindu owners -- all this was important, but of far lesser importance than another feature of that judgement, a feature that was of foundational significance.
An argument had been advanced on behalf of Muslims -- the Court remarked that it had been advanced with ��vehemence��. This was the familiar assertion that once a mosque has been built on a piece of land, irrespective of who owned the plot earlier, irrespective of what might have stood on it earlier, irrespective of whether the structure had subsequently been used or not, the land would always be a possession of Muslims.
It was contended that this was the position under Muslim Law, and therefore this is what must hold in this case too -- whether a temple stood on the land earlier, whether namaz had been offered at the site since 1949 etc., all these were essentially irrelevant questions. And that the acquisition of the site by the Government for determining its true owners was invalid on this ground alone: secular laws like the Statute of Limitations, the laws regarding acquisition of property by the State etc., do not apply at all to either a mosque or the site on which it was once built, it was argued on behalf of Muslims.
The Supreme Court dealt in detail with this question -- because of the vehemence with which this argument had been advanced, it said. In doing so it laid down three vital principles. First, it held that what will apply in India is not some abstraction called Mahomedan Law, but ��Mahomedan law as approved by Indian courts��.
Second, it reiterated what Indian courts had from the British period consistently held in regard to the status of a mosque: namely, that a mosque is just another immovable property; that, therefore, the Statute of Limitations applies to it exactly as it does to any other immovable property, that the sovereign power of the State to acquire the structure or the site on which it stands is as unlimited as it is in relation to any other piece of property.
Third, the Court held that even if a structure or practice is manifestly associated with a religion it shall not be immune from State action under the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution -- unless it is a practice essential to that religion. This vital distinction will come home to us when we think of the contrast between, say, the Kaba in Mecca and the mosque next door, between offering namaz and killing cows. The result was immediate. Citing judgements from even the British period, the Court established how, for instance, a mosque could be lost by adverse possession. It showed how even by those judgements it was subject to the Statute of Limitations. It established how ��A practice may be a religious practice but not an essential and integral part of practice of that religion.��
These principles were of foundational importance. They were essential correctives to what had come to pass in the name of secularism. They gave hope that the excesses that had come to be perpetrated in the name of religion could indeed be rolled back through the courts -- for instance, the insistence that namaz shall be offered on public roads, the insistence that slaughtering cows was a fundamental right that flowed from the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.
That is why not so much the Interim Order but the remarks that fell from the Bench during this hearing are so ominous. If that is the mood of the Court, these vital principles will themselves be diluted in the days ahead.
Dialogue and negotiations blocked each time by that ��permanently negative answer��. And the Courts in the mood of which the Bench has given us a glimpse. What conclusion will the Hindus draw?
But they must abide by the verdict of the courts, the secularists say. Will some Hindu in turn not one day tabulate how many times the Constitution has been amended precisely to overturn verdicts of the Supreme Court, and throw the number back at those who keep hurling this counsel at him, and him alone?
Actually, why wait for that anonymous Hindu, dear reader, why not pre-empt him? Study the 90-odd amendments yourself, and answer: how many of them have been enacted to reverse judgements of the Supreme Court?
Indian Express
March 18, 2002
Showing posts with label ram janmabhumi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ram janmabhumi. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Judgement Vs the Interim Order
Arun Shourie
��The mandate (which the Act imposes upon the Central Government),�� the Supreme Court said in its 1994 judgement on the Ayodhya case, ��is that in managing the property so vested in the Central Government, the Central Government or the authorised person shall ensure maintenance of the status quo [and here the Court quoted merely reproduced -- for the second time within ten lines -- the words in the Act itself) in the area on which the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid, stood.��
There had been some discussion, the Court remarked alluding to the special pleading that had gone on, as to what exactly was meant by ��the area�� -- the ��entire area�� that had been taken over or what. But the provision itself sets out clearly what is meant, said the Court.
The meaning is not the entire area that had been taken over and was specified in the Schedule annexed to the Act, the Court held -- ��since the words which follow qualify its meaning confining it only to the site on which this structure, commonly known as the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid stood, which site or area is undoubtedly smaller and within the area specified in the Schedule.��
Moreover, the Court specified, the land over which the structure had stood has not been acquired to be held in perpetuity by the Government. It has not been acquired to be put to sundry use by the Government. The sole purpose for which it has been acquired, the Court specified, is to hand it back to its rightful owners -- Hindus or Muslims -- once the dispute about who owned it is settled.
The acquisition is not absolute, the Court declared. It is not for perpetuity. The relevant provisions are ��transitory�� ��for the purpose of its subsequent transfer to the person found entitled to it as a result of the adjudication of the dispute for the resolution of which this step was taken��.
The Presidential Reference also makes clear, the Supreme Court declared, that ��the acquisition of the disputed area was not meant to be absolute but limited to holding it as a statutory receiver till the resolution of the dispute; and then to transfer it...��
��The duty of the Central Government as the statutory receiver,�� the Court emphasised yet again, ��is to hand over the disputed area in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for implementation of the final decision therein. This is the purpose for which the disputed land has been acquired.��
Contrast this emphatic, unambiguous, recurring declaration of the Supreme Court about what the purpose is for which the disputed land was acquired with the secularist clap-trap: the land must be used for building a hospital, a school, a playground, a park, a memorial... -- that is, for anything but for handing it back to the Hindus should they win the title-suit and thereafter reconstruct the temple -- the ancient, well-documented temple -- that Mir Baqi and his crew demolished.
That the disputed area has been acquired solely for this purpose, and that the mandate to maintain the status quo applies only to the disputed area was set out by the Supreme Court in its judgement not once, not twice, but at seven different places.
And there is a clear reason, said the Court, why the Act has mandated that the status quo be maintained on the disputed area till it is transferred back to its rightful owner.
��Unless the status quo is ensured,�� the Court explained, ��the final outcome on resolution of the disputed area may be frustrated by any change made in the disputed area which may frustrate the implementation of the result in favour of the successful party and render it meaningless.
A direction to maintain the status quo in the disputed property is a well-known method and the usual order made during the pendency of a dispute for preserving the property and protecting the interest of the true owner till the adjudication is made.��
Now, as is well known, the area over which the structure stood is but a fraction of the total area that the Government had acquired: the structure per se had covered just a third of an acre, the appurtenant platform etc. had covered another 2.5 acres or so; but the Government had taken over about sixty seven acres.
The only area over which there was a dispute about ownership -- the part over which there has been a dispute ever since the temple was destroyed -- are the one-third to 2.7 acres. Muslims have maintained that as they had acquired it and built a mosque on it long ago, it is their�s forever.
Hindus have maintained that it had been wrested from them by force, that what was sacred to them was razed, that they have never abandoned their ownership of it, that they have -- even when denied access to it -- continued to venerate it from the platforms, the bye-lanes around the spot.
After recounting the successive stages by which the Hindus have come to physically resume worship of the idols at the spot at least since 1949, the Supreme Court observed, ��On the other hand, at least since December 1949 the Muslims have not been offering worship at any place in the disputed site though, it may turn out at the trial of the suits that they had a right to do so.�� This limited area is what is known as the ��disputed area��.
About the rest of the area, the Supreme Court noted with emphasis, there is no dispute at all. "The narration of facts indicates," the Court said, "that the acquisition of properties under the Act affects the rights of both the communities and not merely those of the Muslim community.
The interest claimed by the Muslims is only over the disputed site where the mosque stood before its demolition. The objection of the Hindus to this claim has to be adjudicated. The remaining entire property acquired under the Act is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims. A large part thereof consists of properties of Hindus of which the title is not even in dispute.��
The purpose for which this undisputed area had nonetheless been acquired was to ensure that, should courts ultimately decide that the disputed site in fact belongs to Muslims, they should not be prevented from enjoying the property by not having access to it.
Indeed, the Court went further. Elaborating on the significance of the words that had been used in the Act itself in this regard -- the words ��so far as may be�� -- the Court held, ��This provides for the situation of transfer being made, if necessary, at any stage and of any part of the (undisputed) property, since Section 7(2) is applicable only to the disputed area.��
Lest any authority use even this clear enunciation to hold on to the undisputed area, the Court added, ��The provision however does not countenance the dispute remaining unresolved or the situation continuing perpetually.
The embargo on transfer till adjudication, and in terms thereof, to be read in Section 6(1), relates only to the disputed area, while transfer of any part of the excess area, retention of which till adjudication of the dispute relating to the disputed area may not be necessary, is not inhibited till then, since the acquisition of the excess area is absolute subject to the duty to restore it to the owner if its retention is found to be unnecessary, as indicated.��
But are all the sixty-seven acres needed for this limited purpose? Should more be acquired to ensure full enjoyment by Muslims in the event they win the title suit? The Court�s answer was absolutely unambiguous: "... the extent of adjacent area considered necessary is in the domain of policy and not a matter for judicial scrutiny or a ground for testing the constitutional validity of the enactment...��
Because of its preoccupations at the time, the Government had not been able to determine, much less indicate to the Court how much and what parts of the undisputed area were required. The Court observed, ��However, at a later stage when the exact area acquired which is needed for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition can be determined, it would not merely be permissible but desirable that the superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner.��
The Court did not just say, Government ��may�� or ��might�� return this undisputed area to its Hindu owners. It held that the Government is duty-bound to do so, that once it has determined what exact portion is needed for the limited purpose of enabling Muslims to enjoy the disputed site if the courts ultimately hold in their favour, the undisputed portion ��must�� be restored to the undisputed owners.
Contrast these emphatic, unambiguous, recurrent declarations of the Supreme Court with what has now been stated in the interim order. In this order, the judges state, ��Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition nor shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith.��
How can this be squared with the judgement of the Constitution Bench on the case? Actually, there was one way to square the two. But that turned out to be a telltale embarrassment! In the paragraph preceding the one I have just quoted, the judges set out what they meant by ��the aforesaid land��.
Ordering that counter-affidavits and rejoinders be filed successively in four weeks each, the judges directed, ��In the meantime, we direct that on the 67.703 acres of land located in revenue plot Nos. 159 and 160 in village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumipuja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place.��
Only two revenue plots in just one revenue village. That left the overwhelming part of the undisputed land out of the Court�s order, and, therefore, one could have assumed that in some sense this interim order conforms to the judgement. But the omission had but to be brought to its attention, and the Court foreclosed that construction!
Yet that is but one of several reasons why the Prime Minister was entirely right when, during his response in the Rajya Sabha on 14 March, he said -- in the understatement so characteristic of him -- that the new order will have to be discussed in detail some day.
Indian Express
March 17, 2002
��The mandate (which the Act imposes upon the Central Government),�� the Supreme Court said in its 1994 judgement on the Ayodhya case, ��is that in managing the property so vested in the Central Government, the Central Government or the authorised person shall ensure maintenance of the status quo [and here the Court quoted merely reproduced -- for the second time within ten lines -- the words in the Act itself) in the area on which the structure (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure), commonly known as the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid, stood.��
There had been some discussion, the Court remarked alluding to the special pleading that had gone on, as to what exactly was meant by ��the area�� -- the ��entire area�� that had been taken over or what. But the provision itself sets out clearly what is meant, said the Court.
The meaning is not the entire area that had been taken over and was specified in the Schedule annexed to the Act, the Court held -- ��since the words which follow qualify its meaning confining it only to the site on which this structure, commonly known as the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid stood, which site or area is undoubtedly smaller and within the area specified in the Schedule.��
Moreover, the Court specified, the land over which the structure had stood has not been acquired to be held in perpetuity by the Government. It has not been acquired to be put to sundry use by the Government. The sole purpose for which it has been acquired, the Court specified, is to hand it back to its rightful owners -- Hindus or Muslims -- once the dispute about who owned it is settled.
The acquisition is not absolute, the Court declared. It is not for perpetuity. The relevant provisions are ��transitory�� ��for the purpose of its subsequent transfer to the person found entitled to it as a result of the adjudication of the dispute for the resolution of which this step was taken��.
The Presidential Reference also makes clear, the Supreme Court declared, that ��the acquisition of the disputed area was not meant to be absolute but limited to holding it as a statutory receiver till the resolution of the dispute; and then to transfer it...��
��The duty of the Central Government as the statutory receiver,�� the Court emphasised yet again, ��is to hand over the disputed area in accordance with Section 6 of the Act, in terms of the adjudication made in the suits for implementation of the final decision therein. This is the purpose for which the disputed land has been acquired.��
Contrast this emphatic, unambiguous, recurring declaration of the Supreme Court about what the purpose is for which the disputed land was acquired with the secularist clap-trap: the land must be used for building a hospital, a school, a playground, a park, a memorial... -- that is, for anything but for handing it back to the Hindus should they win the title-suit and thereafter reconstruct the temple -- the ancient, well-documented temple -- that Mir Baqi and his crew demolished.
That the disputed area has been acquired solely for this purpose, and that the mandate to maintain the status quo applies only to the disputed area was set out by the Supreme Court in its judgement not once, not twice, but at seven different places.
And there is a clear reason, said the Court, why the Act has mandated that the status quo be maintained on the disputed area till it is transferred back to its rightful owner.
��Unless the status quo is ensured,�� the Court explained, ��the final outcome on resolution of the disputed area may be frustrated by any change made in the disputed area which may frustrate the implementation of the result in favour of the successful party and render it meaningless.
A direction to maintain the status quo in the disputed property is a well-known method and the usual order made during the pendency of a dispute for preserving the property and protecting the interest of the true owner till the adjudication is made.��
Now, as is well known, the area over which the structure stood is but a fraction of the total area that the Government had acquired: the structure per se had covered just a third of an acre, the appurtenant platform etc. had covered another 2.5 acres or so; but the Government had taken over about sixty seven acres.
The only area over which there was a dispute about ownership -- the part over which there has been a dispute ever since the temple was destroyed -- are the one-third to 2.7 acres. Muslims have maintained that as they had acquired it and built a mosque on it long ago, it is their�s forever.
Hindus have maintained that it had been wrested from them by force, that what was sacred to them was razed, that they have never abandoned their ownership of it, that they have -- even when denied access to it -- continued to venerate it from the platforms, the bye-lanes around the spot.
After recounting the successive stages by which the Hindus have come to physically resume worship of the idols at the spot at least since 1949, the Supreme Court observed, ��On the other hand, at least since December 1949 the Muslims have not been offering worship at any place in the disputed site though, it may turn out at the trial of the suits that they had a right to do so.�� This limited area is what is known as the ��disputed area��.
About the rest of the area, the Supreme Court noted with emphasis, there is no dispute at all. "The narration of facts indicates," the Court said, "that the acquisition of properties under the Act affects the rights of both the communities and not merely those of the Muslim community.
The interest claimed by the Muslims is only over the disputed site where the mosque stood before its demolition. The objection of the Hindus to this claim has to be adjudicated. The remaining entire property acquired under the Act is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims. A large part thereof consists of properties of Hindus of which the title is not even in dispute.��
The purpose for which this undisputed area had nonetheless been acquired was to ensure that, should courts ultimately decide that the disputed site in fact belongs to Muslims, they should not be prevented from enjoying the property by not having access to it.
Indeed, the Court went further. Elaborating on the significance of the words that had been used in the Act itself in this regard -- the words ��so far as may be�� -- the Court held, ��This provides for the situation of transfer being made, if necessary, at any stage and of any part of the (undisputed) property, since Section 7(2) is applicable only to the disputed area.��
Lest any authority use even this clear enunciation to hold on to the undisputed area, the Court added, ��The provision however does not countenance the dispute remaining unresolved or the situation continuing perpetually.
The embargo on transfer till adjudication, and in terms thereof, to be read in Section 6(1), relates only to the disputed area, while transfer of any part of the excess area, retention of which till adjudication of the dispute relating to the disputed area may not be necessary, is not inhibited till then, since the acquisition of the excess area is absolute subject to the duty to restore it to the owner if its retention is found to be unnecessary, as indicated.��
But are all the sixty-seven acres needed for this limited purpose? Should more be acquired to ensure full enjoyment by Muslims in the event they win the title suit? The Court�s answer was absolutely unambiguous: "... the extent of adjacent area considered necessary is in the domain of policy and not a matter for judicial scrutiny or a ground for testing the constitutional validity of the enactment...��
Because of its preoccupations at the time, the Government had not been able to determine, much less indicate to the Court how much and what parts of the undisputed area were required. The Court observed, ��However, at a later stage when the exact area acquired which is needed for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition can be determined, it would not merely be permissible but desirable that the superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner.��
The Court did not just say, Government ��may�� or ��might�� return this undisputed area to its Hindu owners. It held that the Government is duty-bound to do so, that once it has determined what exact portion is needed for the limited purpose of enabling Muslims to enjoy the disputed site if the courts ultimately hold in their favour, the undisputed portion ��must�� be restored to the undisputed owners.
Contrast these emphatic, unambiguous, recurrent declarations of the Supreme Court with what has now been stated in the interim order. In this order, the judges state, ��Furthermore, no part of the aforesaid land shall be handed over by the Government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the Government till the disposal of this writ petition nor shall any part of this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith.��
How can this be squared with the judgement of the Constitution Bench on the case? Actually, there was one way to square the two. But that turned out to be a telltale embarrassment! In the paragraph preceding the one I have just quoted, the judges set out what they meant by ��the aforesaid land��.
Ordering that counter-affidavits and rejoinders be filed successively in four weeks each, the judges directed, ��In the meantime, we direct that on the 67.703 acres of land located in revenue plot Nos. 159 and 160 in village Kot Ramchandra which is vested in the Central Government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone either symbolic or actual including bhumipuja, shall be permitted or allowed to take place.��
Only two revenue plots in just one revenue village. That left the overwhelming part of the undisputed land out of the Court�s order, and, therefore, one could have assumed that in some sense this interim order conforms to the judgement. But the omission had but to be brought to its attention, and the Court foreclosed that construction!
Yet that is but one of several reasons why the Prime Minister was entirely right when, during his response in the Rajya Sabha on 14 March, he said -- in the understatement so characteristic of him -- that the new order will have to be discussed in detail some day.
Indian Express
March 17, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)