Any Change in Status-quo by Receiver would be Illegal

Shahabuddin Cautions Home Minister Advani

I - Letters of 25 February, 2000

You are aware that the Supreme Court in its Judgement and Order of October 24, 1994 generally upheld The Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya: Act, 1993, appointed the Government of India as the Statutory Receiver and ordered the status quo to be maintained until the title to the disputed areas included, pending before the Allahabad High Court was decided and the Supreme Court itself allotted the land to various parties in the light thereto.

The Government of India has appointed the Commissioner of Faizabad to discharge the function of the Receiver.

The status quo is being maintained since then.

We understand from the press report in the Dainik Jagran of. 17.2.2000 (copy attached) the that Commissioner of Faizabad has submitted a proposal to the Central/State Governments to change the status quo within the acquired land, with a view to facilitate the 'darshan' of the deity placed in the make-shift structure unlawfully constructed on the debris of the Babari Masjid, by reducing the distance between the entry and the deity as well as to reopen the other temples which had been acquired under this Act.

The proposal would constitute a blatant violation of the Order of the Supreme Court and add to the security risk, particularly whent he VHP is threatening to construct the proposed Mandir on the disputed site at a time of its choosing in defiance of the law.

We request you to reject the proposal and instruct the Commissioner to maintain the status quo exactly in accordance with the Supreme Court Order.

In case the Government wish to make any change, we request that the matter must be placed before the Supreme Court and its order must be obtained to make any change whatsoever in the management of the acquired land and the structure thereon.

Il - Letter of 20 April, 2000

Please refer to my letter of 25 February, 2000 drawing your attention to the proposal of the Receiver of the Acquired Areas in Ayodhya (the Commissioner of Faizabad) to change the status quo near the Babari Masjid site.

I had requested you to reject the proposal and instruct the Commissioner to maintain the status quo in accordance with the Order of the Supreme Court. I have not received any reply from you.

I would be grateful to be informed where the matter stands.

Shahabuddin Opposes S. Patil's Proposal Letter to The Mainstream, 10 April, 2000

Apropos Mr. Sharad Patil's "Open letter to President K.R. Narayanan" (8 April, 2000), his proposal on the Babari Masjid Question is illogical and impracticable Having stated 'whether a Ram Temple stood prior to the construction of the mosque is still not clinched historical evidence', he proposes the construction of the Temple and a mosque alongside, what he calls, Loka-Kule in between. If the disputed site is the birthsite of Ram Chandraji, a Ram Mandir would have marked the site and if that standing Mandir was demolished to construct the

Masjid in its place, there is no moral, though not a legal case for the reconstruction of the Ram Mandir on the spot

Otherwise, why shouldn't the Babari Masjid be rebuilt

the site? The Muslim community is agreeable to the construction of a Ram Mandir on an adjacent site, which may wholly or partly occupy the disputed 6 acres of Wakf land outside the Masjid.

Hundreds of temples and mosques stand side by side in many places in our country without any community tension or a buffer structure between them.

Adding a new dimension of glorification of " victims of Ram" will only create new controversies and delay the solution of the Ayodlya dispute.

Even if it is admitted that some monuments in India stand on the debris of earlier structures, there is no la which would legitimise the demolition of existing structures to rebuild the earlier. In fact the law prohibits. So do international conventions. The question also arise how far back in history will we go?

My Stand Remains Unchanged Shahabuddin's Letter to Ram Gopal, 25 March, 2000

My stand on the Babari Masjid question remains unchanged. I could not have spelt out the details in short private communication to you.

It is indeed immaterial whether the alleged Mandir was magnificent or modest. Anyone who builds a Masjid knows that a Masjid cannot be built on usurped land. The essential question, therefore, is whether the Babari Masjid was built on the site of a pre-existing, standing temple, after destroying it. It is the anti-Masjid agitators who claim that the Mandir marked the birth-site of Ram Chandraji. So it could not have been just an ordinary temple.

Mir Baqi is not a fictitious name. Babar Nama has some pages missing. So there is not even a reference to Ayodhya in Babar Nama. Again it is not important who built it. Or whether it was rightly called the Babari Masjid. In fact it was called by various names at various times.

Frankly I do not understand how a Mandir can be 'shaped' into a Masjid, using the same foundation, The genuineness of the 'archaeological' material alleged to  have been discovered in the ruins of the Babari Masjid has been questioned. The trouble is that you swallow everything that the Hindutva -leaning historians or archaeologists state.

The presumed date of construction of the Ram Janambhoomi Mandir was shifted by the VHP from pre-historic time to the 11th Century to fit in with available material. But there is no other Ram Temple in the whole of the country dating earlier than the 16th Century when the Ram cult came into vogue. The excavations near the Babari Masjid site undertaken in 1976-77. It would be useful for you to read the complete reports.

Ayodhya Mahatmya, I am advised, gives the directions to locate the Janambhoomi but they do not lead to the Babari Masjid site!

Yes, as a lawyer, I would say that the claimant has to prove his case, not the defendant. It is the VHP which has been agitating the question. No one did until 1949 and more precisely until 1983.

Incidentally, the VHP does not base its claim on the miraculous emanation of Ram idols in the Babari Masjid on 22-23 December, 1949!

So far, I have not come across any objective evidence that the Babari Masjid site was the Grabh Griha site, or that the Babari Masjid was built after destroying the existing Ram Janambhoomi Mandir on the site. But I know that the Hindu claimants have already made up their mind that a Masjid has no right to exist on the commanding heights of Ayodhya, not after the Hindus regained 'freedom after 1000 years of slavery'. So it has to go. So it is no longer a question of reason but of power.