{
  "type": "article",
  "title": "SP MP Sanatan Pandey Defends Mulayam Singh Yadav Over Ayodhya Firing, Says It Saved Constitution",
  "summary": "Samajwadi Party MP Sanatan Pandey has sparked a fresh controversy by stating that Mulayam Singh Yadav made the right decision by ordering police firing in Ayodhya to protect the Constitution.",
  "content": "Lucknow: Uttar Pradesh politics has witnessed a massive political storm following Akhilesh Yadav's visit to Ayodhya, with the Bharatiya Janata Party launching continuous attacks and the Samajwadi Party camp remaining fully active. Amid this charged atmosphere, Samajwadi Party MP Sanatan Pandey has courted a fresh controversy by openly backing the past actions of the party leadership. Sanatan Pandey stated that Mulayam Singh Yadav did the right thing by ordering the police to open fire on kar sevaks in Ayodhya. He argued that the order was given to protect the Constitution of India, questioning how members of the Sangh managed to reach the disputed site when there was a clear court stay in place prohibiting movement there.\n\n \n\n'Order Given to Protect the Constitution'\n Samajwadi Party leader Sanatan Pandey stated that for the past 35 years, dating back to 1991, the BJP has continuously criticized Mulayam Singh Yadav and claimed that he ordered the firing on Ram bhakts. He asserted that they have used this narrative to mislead the public. However, he countered by asking who ordered the firing on others during their own recent rule, pointing out the respective state and central governments in power at the time. He maintained that if Netaji (Mulayam Singh Yadav) issued the order to open fire to safeguard the Constitution of India, it was a completely correct step.\n\n \n\n'A Civil War Could Have Erupted in India'\n He further elaborated that the Indian army was deployed at that time, and the primary responsibility was to ensure that no one reached the disputed structure, which they refer to as the Ram Mandir, and which was already protected by a court stay. He questioned how those individuals, referring to the Ram bhakts, managed to reach the spot, noting that the responsibility also lay with the central government and the local administration tasked with maintaining law and order. He warned that had the order to open fire not been given, the mosque could have been destroyed, an event that could have triggered a civil war in India, similar to what happened in other countries when religious structures were destroyed. Therefore, the order to open fire was given solely to protect the Constitution of India.\n\nWhat this means for you\nThis political statement is likely to intensify the ongoing ideological friction in Uttar Pradesh politics, potentially sharpening polarization ahead of upcoming political events.\n\n• Across India: The remarks will fuel national-level ideological debates among political parties regarding historical events. This will likely intensify verbal exchanges and counter-allegations across the political spectrum.\n• In Uttar Pradesh: Discussions surrounding historical political incidents will reignite among local residents and party workers. The political environment in the state is expected to see a sharp rise in aggressive rhetoric between rival camps.\n\nWhy this happened\nThis statement emerged against the backdrop of Akhilesh Yadav's recent visit to Ayodhya and the continuous, sharp political attacks launched by the Bharatiya Janata Party in response.\n\n• Political Upheaval: Akhilesh Yadav's visit to Ayodhya triggered a political storm in the state, prompting defensive and aggressive counter-statements from Samajwadi Party leaders.\n• Historical Context: The controversy is rooted in the events of 1991, when police action was ordered to control crowds and kar sevaks in Ayodhya during Mulayam Singh Yadav's tenure as Chief Minister.\n• Ideological Narratives: Both the BJP and the Samajwadi Party continue to project contrasting narratives regarding this historical event and court orders to mobilize public sentiment for their respective political agendas.\n\nQuestions & Answers\n\n1. Which political party does Sanatan Pandey belong to?\nSanatan Pandey is a Member of Parliament representing the Samajwadi Party.\n\n2. Which decision of Mulayam Singh Yadav did Sanatan Pandey defend?\nHe defended Mulayam Singh Yadav's order to initiate police firing on kar sevaks in Ayodhya back in 1991.\n\n3. Why was the firing order given according to Sanatan Pandey?\nAccording to him, the order was issued to protect the Constitution of India and prevent a potential civil war in the country.\n\n4. What triggered this latest round of political controversy?\nThe controversy erupted amid ongoing political friction following Akhilesh Yadav's recent visit to Ayodhya.",
  "url": "https://trendkia.com/en/uttar-pradesh/sp-mp-sanatan-pandey-defends-mulayam-singh-yadav-over-ayodhya-firing-58372",
  "category": "Uttar Pradesh",
  "publishedAt": "2026-11-09",
  "tags": [
    "Sanatan Pandey",
    "Mulayam Singh Yadav",
    "Ayodhya",
    "Samajwadi Party",
    "Akhilesh Yadav",
    "Uttar Pradesh politics"
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "site": "TrendKia",
  "whatItMeansForYou": "This political statement is likely to intensify the ongoing ideological friction in Uttar Pradesh politics, potentially sharpening polarization ahead of upcoming political events.\n\n• Across India: The remarks will fuel national-level ideological debates among political parties regarding historical events. This will likely intensify verbal exchanges and counter-allegations across the political spectrum.\n• In Uttar Pradesh: Discussions surrounding historical political incidents will reignite among local residents and party workers. The political environment in the state is expected to see a sharp rise in aggressive rhetoric between rival camps.",
  "whyItHappened": "This statement emerged against the backdrop of Akhilesh Yadav's recent visit to Ayodhya and the continuous, sharp political attacks launched by the Bharatiya Janata Party in response.\n\n• Political Upheaval: Akhilesh Yadav's visit to Ayodhya triggered a political storm in the state, prompting defensive and aggressive counter-statements from Samajwadi Party leaders.\n• Historical Context: The controversy is rooted in the events of 1991, when police action was ordered to control crowds and kar sevaks in Ayodhya during Mulayam Singh Yadav's tenure as Chief Minister.\n• Ideological Narratives: Both the BJP and the Samajwadi Party continue to project contrasting narratives regarding this historical event and court orders to mobilize public sentiment for their respective political agendas.",
  "questionsAndAnswers": [
    {
      "question": "Which political party does Sanatan Pandey belong to?",
      "answer": "Sanatan Pandey is a Member of Parliament representing the Samajwadi Party."
    },
    {
      "question": "Which decision of Mulayam Singh Yadav did Sanatan Pandey defend?",
      "answer": "He defended Mulayam Singh Yadav's order to initiate police firing on kar sevaks in Ayodhya back in 1991."
    },
    {
      "question": "Why was the firing order given according to Sanatan Pandey?",
      "answer": "According to him, the order was issued to protect the Constitution of India and prevent a potential civil war in the country."
    },
    {
      "question": "What triggered this latest round of political controversy?",
      "answer": "The controversy erupted amid ongoing political friction following Akhilesh Yadav's recent visit to Ayodhya."
    }
  ]
}