130 "Presenting" the Pastclear that the construction can be completed only when the BJP comes to
power at the Centre."^76
With the installation of BJP governments both in UP (September 1997)
and in New Delhi (March 1998), the temple movement did get a boost in
early 1998, and the VHP accelerated carving stone pillars and other stone-
cutting work. When the Week magazine reported in June 1998 that the
VHP was planning to install a prefabricated Ram temple in Ayodhya, the
opposition parties wanted an unambiguous commitment from the BJP-
led government to check such attempts, but that was not forthcoming.
The home minister L. K. Advani assured Parliament that the October 24,
1994, Supreme Court order to maintain the status quo at the disputed site
would be strictly implemented and that the pillar work did not break any
law. Although Prime Minister Vajpayee promised to uphold the rule of
law, RSS chief Rajendra Singh proclaimed bluntly that the temple would
be built at the very place where what he called the disputed structure was
demolished. The VHP leader, Ashok Singhal, however, embarked on a
more intimidatory rhetoric, saying, "The Constitution does not have any
provision to punish the judiciary but religious leaders have." Any delay in
the construction of the temple could break the patience of the sadhus, who
"can then take any decision."^77
The crux of the matter is that the BJP had always advocated negotiated
settlement or suitable legislation in Parliament to resolve the temple issue
and consistently resisted the judicial approach. The party's 1989 Palampur
national-executive resolution itself had stated that "the nature of this con-
troversy is such that it just cannot be sorted out by a court of law." Mindful
of the fact that the party had neither the capability to bring the parties to
a negotiated settlement nor the necessary parliamentary strength to push
through any legislation, the BJP had to feign a newfound faith in the judi-
cial process. However, the BJP's vice president, Kishen Lai Sharma, stated
on June 16,1998, that if the court verdict went against the temple construc-
tion on the disputed site, the party would bring about a constitutional
amendment to facilitate the temple construction.
In July 1999, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court directed
the special judge not to conduct the proceedings in the Babri Masjid
demolition case, since four criminal revision petitions filed by 33 accused
were pending before the High Court. In January 2000, UP Chief Minister
Ram Prakash Gupta, a BJP man, stated that his party had placed the Ram
temple issue on hold to remain in tune with its partners in the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. Later he claimed that the media
had twisted his remarks and said that his government had nothing to do
with the temple construction. Even as unruly statements were made and
recanted by the Hindutva stalwarts, stonecutting and pillar work had
been going on in full swing.
In the meantime, there seemed to be a welcome change in RSS think-
ing about the temple issue. In his August 2000 reply to a Muslim leader's