NEW DELHI - India's interior minister rekindled a bitter debate over the destruction of an ancient mosque on Wednesday, arguing that -- in the eyes of the law -- a Hindu temple had already stood on the disputed site.
On Tuesday Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani expressed regret over the demolition of the 16th-century mosque by a mob of Hindu fanatics, which led to India's worst religious riots since independence decades earlier.
But he struck a different note on the second day of his appearance before a quasi-judicial panel set up to look into the events of December 1992 in the northern town of Ayodhya.
He referred to a court order of 1950 in which the judge noted that Muslims had not offered prayers at the site for many years but Hindus were worshipping there.
"The court order that the status quo should be maintained confers recognition as not only a de facto but a de jure temple as well," he said.
Advani is one of three members of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's cabinet who have been charged by police in connection with the levelling of the mosque built by the Muslim Moghul emperor Babur in 1528.
The incident sparked unrest across the country in which some 3,000 people died.
Hindu revivalists say Babur had originally torn down a temple at the place they believe was the birthplace of their god-king and erected the mosque to humiliate conquered Hindu kingdoms.
Muslims -- who make up about 12 percent of India's Hindu-majority population of one billion -- dispute that, and the fate of the site is now caught in a legal tangle.
A "STRUCTURE," NOT A MOSQUE
Advani's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party rose to national prominence in the 1980s on the back of a drive to build a temple at the disputed site.
On Tuesday Advani told the Liberhan Commission in New Delhi that the destruction of the mosque was unfortunate for the country and had "pained" his party.
But he took a more controversial tack on Wednesday. "...while the structure may have looked like a mosque from outside, it was in fact a temple inside," his lawyer Satya Pal Jain explained to reporters later.
"After the (1950) court order there was a temple, de facto and de jure. There was no other structure."
Advani's regret for the destruction of what he referred to as a "structure" rather than a mosque came in for harsh criticism on Wednesday from members of the ultra-right wing Shiv Sena, a partner in the coalition government.
"The Home Minister is changing colours to suit the situation," a Shiv Sena activist told a meeting of hundreds of raucous party members in New Delhi.
"Mr. Advani should remember that he is where he is only because of the Hindutva (Hindu-ness) programme and the blessings of Lord Ram," he said. "You will continue to rule India only if you live by your words about Hindutva and Lord Ram."
Prime Minister Vajpayee, although seen as a much more moderate Hindu nationalist than his interior minister, triggered a political storm last year when he said efforts to build a Ram temple at Ayodhya reflected national sentiment.
He also refused to sack the three ministers who are among 47 people accused by federal police in connection with the incident.
The Liberhan Commission has the power to summon documents and witnesses but its recommendations are not legally binding and its proceedings are separate from the criminal cases filed against Advani and others.
10:51 04-11-01
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.