BJP slams SP MP Sanatan Pandey over defence of 1990 Ayodhya Kar Sevak firing
Synopsis
Thirty-six years after the Ayodhya Kar Sevak firing, it is back at the centre of UP's political discourse. SP MP Sanatan Pandey's public defence of Mulayam Singh Yadav's 1990 order — in which 15 people died — has triggered a coordinated BJP response from a Deputy CM, a party MP, and a national spokesperson, signalling a deliberate move to keep the episode alive ahead of Uttar Pradesh's next electoral cycle.
Key Takeaways
SP MP Sanatan Pandey publicly defended Mulayam Singh Yadav 's 1990 order to fire on Kar Sevaks in Ayodhya , calling it necessary to 'save the Constitution.' The 1990 Ayodhya firing during Mulayam's tenure as UP Chief Minister resulted in 15 deaths and remains one of the most sensitive episodes of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.
UP Deputy CM Brajesh Pathak accused the Samajwadi Party of consistent Muslim appeasement and using caste and religious divisions for electoral gain.
BJP MP Tarun Chugh claimed Pandey's remarks amounted to the SP admitting it 'attacked unarmed, innocent people.' BJP National Spokesperson Guru Prakash called the defence of the killings evidence of the SP's 'anti-Sanatan and anti-Hindu stance.' The SP had not issued a formal party-level response as of the time of reporting.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday, 9 November 2026, mounted a sharp attack on Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Sanatan Pandey after he publicly defended the late former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav's order to open fire on Kar Sevaks in Ayodhya in 1990. BJP leaders accused the SP of entrenching a pattern of vote-bank politics and religious appeasement, calling Pandey's remarks a defence of one of the most controversial episodes in UP's political history, in which 15 people died.
What Pandey Said
Sanatan Pandey, speaking to reporters, described Mulayam Singh Yadav's order as constitutionally justified. 'I say that firing bullets to save the Constitution of India was absolutely the right thing to do by the respected Netaji. He fired the bullets to save India,' Pandey said.
He further argued that had the firing not taken place, the disputed structure in Ayodhya would have been demolished, potentially triggering widespread communal unrest and even a civil war. 'Had Netaji not come and ordered the firing, the mosque would have been demolished; the disputed structure would have been demolished. At that time, temples were also being demolished in other countries. So, a civil war could have broken out in India. We had the firing carried out to save India and its Constitution,' he said.
Pandey also questioned why some SP leaders were reluctant to publicly stand by Mulayam Singh Yadav's decision, asserting the party had acted in accordance with its reading of constitutional responsibilities.
BJP's Counterattack
Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak accused the SP of making appeasement politics a consistent electoral strategy. 'The Samajwadi Party has consistently engaged in appeasement of Muslims, and this latest statement is an extension of that politics. The party tries to convince Hindus of its devotion and seeks the blessings of Lord Ram, but it can never truly belong to Lord Ram or Lord Hanuman. Its leaders repeatedly make statements that can create unrest in society,' Pathak said.
He further alleged that for the SP, Muslims were 'simply a vote bank,' and that the nation would not forgive such comments. 'Politics is all about dividing people on caste lines and pursuing religious appeasement for votes,' he claimed.
More BJP Voices Weigh In
BJP MP Tarun Chugh framed Pandey's remarks as an inadvertent admission of culpability, saying the SP had 'finally accepted that it attacked unarmed, innocent people' and described the 1990 firing as 'a black chapter in the history of the nation' that the party reportedly takes pride in.
BJP National Spokesperson Guru Prakash also condemned the statement, arguing that justifying the killings reflected what he characterised as the SP's 'anti-Sanatan and anti-Hindu stance.'
Historical Background
The firing on Kar Sevaks in Ayodhya during October and November 1990, ordered when Mulayam Singh Yadav was UP Chief Minister, remains one of the most politically charged episodes linked to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The episode has periodically resurfaced in electoral discourse, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, where it carries strong emotional resonance across communities. This latest exchange comes at a time when the Ayodhya narrative retains significant political salience following the consecration of the Ram temple in January 2024.
What Comes Next
The BJP's coordinated response — drawing in a Deputy Chief Minister, a party MP, and a national spokesperson within the same news cycle — signals a deliberate attempt to keep the 1990 episode in public discourse ahead of future electoral contests in Uttar Pradesh. The SP has not issued a formal party-level response beyond Pandey's individual remarks, leaving open whether this represents official SP positioning or one leader's personal defence of Mulayam Singh Yadav's legacy.
Point of View
But the more revealing story is the BJP's swift, multi-voice response — Deputy Chief Minister, MP, national spokesperson — in a single news cycle. That coordination suggests the 1990 Ayodhya firing is being actively weaponised as a pre-election framing device, not merely reacted to. The SP faces a structural dilemma: defending Mulayam Singh Yadav's legacy satisfies a core base but hands the BJP a ready-made communal flashpoint. What is missing from mainstream coverage is any scrutiny of Pandey's constitutional argument on its own terms — whether the 1990 order was legally defensible has never been conclusively adjudicated, and that silence itself is part of the politics.
NationPress
9 Nov 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did SP MP Sanatan Pandey say about the 1990 Ayodhya Kar Sevak firing?
Sanatan Pandey defended Mulayam Singh Yadav's decision to order firing on Kar Sevaks in Ayodhya in 1990, arguing it was necessary to protect the Constitution and prevent a potential civil war. He said, 'He fired the bullets to save India,' and claimed the alternative would have been the demolition of the disputed structure and widespread communal violence.
What happened during the 1990 Ayodhya Kar Sevak firing?
The firing on Kar Sevaks in Ayodhya during October and November 1990 occurred while Mulayam Singh Yadav was Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. The incident, in which 15 people died, is closely linked to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and remains one of the most politically sensitive episodes in UP's modern history.
How did the BJP respond to Pandey's remarks?
UP Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak accused the SP of consistent Muslim appeasement politics. BJP MP Tarun Chugh said the remarks amounted to the SP admitting it attacked unarmed people. National Spokesperson Guru Prakash called the justification evidence of an 'anti-Sanatan and anti-Hindu stance.'
Why does the 1990 firing controversy resurface periodically in UP politics?
The 1990 Ayodhya firing carries strong emotional resonance in Uttar Pradesh because it occurred at the peak of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and involved unarmed pilgrims. It is frequently invoked in electoral discourse to consolidate Hindu sentiment, particularly now that the Ram temple in Ayodhya has been consecrated, keeping the broader Ayodhya narrative politically salient.
Has the Samajwadi Party officially responded to the BJP's criticism?
As of 9 November 2026, the Samajwadi Party had not issued a formal party-level response to the BJP's attack. The remarks in question were Sanatan Pandey's individual statement, leaving it unclear whether this represents official SP policy or a personal defence of Mulayam Singh Yadav's legacy.
