Senior BJP leader and senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad had appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case as the lawyer representing Ram Lalla, the deity. Ahead of the Ram Temple inauguration, he speaks with The Indian Express:

Q) You were closely involved with the process that is now set to culminate into the construction of the Ram Temple. Looking back, what are your thoughts?

Let me give a context. Three important findings in the judgment given by the Supreme Court are very crucial now. The Muslim side could not produce any evidence. They were in exclusive possession of the so-called Babri structure for the last few hundred years. There is ample evidence on record that, in spite of the erection of the so-called disputed structure, the faith of the Hindus never wavered on the place of birth of Lord Ram. They would go and bow their heads in front of it, for which there are accounts of travellers and Christian missionaries. Archeological Survey of India (ASI) findings also clearly established that on the ruins of a very old temple of the 8th-9th Century, the Babri mosque was erected. That many of the artefacts of the temple had been used in it. Therefore, a question I would like to raise is that, in view of these scientific findings… why was the same statesmanship and determination not demonstrated in the case of the Ram Janambhoomi dispute as was done in the case of Somnath?

Sardar Patel, K M Munshi and Rajendra Prasad showed determination which was crucial for (rebuilding) the Somnath temple. When India became free, the entire country was littered with statues of Queen Victoria, Lord Harding, King George V… were they removed or not? Why? Because they were not statues of creativity but symbols of slavery. The same attitude ought to have been shown here.

India is linked with Lord Ram, Krishna and Mahadev. In the original Constitution, the founding fathers had placed images of many extraordinary religious leaders and other eminent people. Lord Ram figures, Lord Krishna figures, but no Babar or Aurangzeb… A defunct mosque, where the local Muslims themselves said they rarely offered namaz, was forced to become a tradeable commodity in vote bank politics. Otherwise this would not have become an issue.

The question also arises as to why the whole litigation took so much time. Why more than 75 years? Why did it take more than 10 years in the Supreme Court? After all, the Supreme Court expedites many hearings – from constitutional morality to adultery. Many times the Supreme Court has opened at midnight to give some relief to a terrorist who had got capital punishment. I have no grievance, but why did this case take so much time?… Those who are saying that the BJP is trying to capitalise, let me ask you, if Narendra Modi were not the prime minister, would this have got done?

After conclusive evidence was found by the Court, we thought at least the Congress would have shown a large heart.

Q) The Opposition’s argument is that the ceremony has become a BJP-RSS event.

The temple is being erected with a Supreme Court order. It had ordered a committee to be formed for this purpose. No State fund is being used. But PM Modi took the initiative to erect this beautiful temple, turn Ayodhya into a great city. Would there have been this beautiful airport, amenities, railway station?

But they (the Opposition) needed an alibi… The Congress fought for the freedom movement, they know (Mahatma) Gandhiji talked about Ram Rajya. It is regrettable that they are not going. Posterity is going to ask them a lot of questions.

Q) The decision to make Ram Lalla a party in the case. How did that come about?

It was very much there from the beginning. Among the original suits, one was by the Muslims to offer namaz and the other by Gopal Singh Visharada. I need to recall the contribution of Lal Narain Sinha, the attorney general of India. He was a legal luminary and the last word in law for Indira Gandhi, but a Ram bhakt. When I had done two years of practice and was working at the Patna High Court, I met him. He asked me a question, ‘Young man, if the Muslim suit is dismissed, they will not offer namaz there. But even the Hindus cannot offer prayers. What would be your strategy about the birthplace of Lord Ram Lalla? Is Ram Lalla Virajman a deity or not? Go and file a suit on his behalf. That I am Lord Ram Lalla Vijajman, I am the owner of this premises, I declare my right to the title to enable my devotees to have my darshan.’

Under the Hindu law, a God is a deity, a juristic person who gets own property. This is a typical aspect of the Hindu law of endowment… Therefore, Ram Lalla Vijaman himself became a plaintiff. The Supreme Court accepted it.

Q) Attempts were made to find a negotiated settlement, with litigation seen as the last option. What happened to those?

The Supreme Court had also asked for an amicable settlement. So many, including Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and retired judges, were involved. But nothing came out of it. Let me tell you that the Muslims knew there was no case in Ayodhya. They knew that it was the issue of Lord Ram and that the Hindus must get it. But they did not want to go on record. They used to tell me this while I was Law Minister.

Q) How has Ayodhya influenced national politics?

I was a lawyer in the Patna High Court when (L K) Advaniji was arrested (during his Rath Yatra, in Bihar). I went to meet him. What he wanted was not bail, but permission to go to New Delhi to vote for the no-confidence motion against the V P Singh government. Lalu Prasad (the then Bihar CM) became a champion by arresting him, Mulayam Singh Yadav became the champion of secular politics by firing upon kar sevaks. These two ultimately ended the clout of the Congress, they met all that the Leftist parties wanted. The CPI has a powerful presence in Bihar even now.

And we started rising in the political landscape.

When Mulayam Singh ordered firing on the kar sevaks, I went to meet them. How cruel and devastating (it was). But all human rights bodies remained silent. You could speak in favour of the terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir, but no sympathy for kar sevaks – this showed their double standards. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement has exposed the faultlines of India’s secular politics and continues to do so today.

Q) But do you think the line between State and religion has become blurred, with the Modi government taking the lead on the Ram Temple issue?

One must remember that this matter was in the Supreme Court. India is a deeply religious country, and respect for all faiths is integral to Indian ethos. Rig Veda says ‘Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti’, meaning truth is one but interpreted differently. You have your own perceptions, you respect my path, I will respect yours. The ultimate truth is permanent, eternal and omnipresent. That is the real core.

Therefore, India’s secular not because of the constitutional induction. The founding fathers knew about it, so they did not include secularism as a part of the Preamble.

But India has never been a theocracy. The State will maintain neutrality from religion and the State will treat all religions equally. The first mosque (in India) had come up in Kerala; when the Parsis were persecuted in Iran, they came to India. The Constitution also accepted that in spite of the pain and agony of Partition, we would not go in for a theocracy. But this does not mean that because of one view, political reason would have veto over other views. That is the issue. That’s why I asked why there was no enthusiasm for Ram Mandir.

Q) But the State is involved with all its formal and informal wings in Ayodhya. The PM is going to do the consecration.

Felicitating the grand ceremony, arranging for that does not mean blurring the lines. So many people are coming and the machinery is just facilitating them. Should religious places in India be filled with dirt? Why cannot our religious places become extraordinary, like the Vatican? Ayodhya is sacred to the Hindus. The priests are there, (but) after all Modi, our Prime Minister, is a Ram bhakt. The President of India had gone for the Somnath function. I totally disagree with (Jawaharlal) Nehru’s views on it (opposing then). The Prime Minister is going there as a real worshipper of Lord Ram, and he is following the required discipline for it.