The Babari Masjid Movement is a spontaneous response to the unlocking of the Babari Masjid on 1 February, 1986 and its de-facto conversion into a temple, going much beyond the Injunction of 1950. The blatant illegality executed with the knowledge and approval of the State shocked the Muslim leadership and the masses alike. VHP's threat against thousands of historic Masjids in the country became an ominous reality. With the approval of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat formed a Central Action Committee for the Restoration of the Babari Masjid which accorded recognition to the Babari Masjid Action Committee UP and organised similar Action Committees in several other States.

During 1986 various memoranda and discussions had no impact on the Central Government which continued to maintain that the Ayodhya dispute was a local dispute and at best, a matter for the State Government to deal with, ignoring its national dimension and far reaching implication for the secular order.

Faced with this ostrich-like attitude, the Babari Masjid Movement organised an All India Conference in December, 1986 to place the case before the nation and to organise a programme of peaceful and democratic agitation to force the Government to expedite the judicial process and to enact legislation to protect other places of worship. The BMMCC was born at this Conference.

During 1987, there was a massive response to the call for the boycott of the official observance of the Republic Day. However, it was withdrawn at the last minute, after the President of the Republic as well as eminent national leaders like Chandra Shekhar and the Late H.N. Bahuguna stepped in and offered their good offices. The historic Rally in New Delhi on 30 March, 1987 also made an impact on the national consciousness and the Babari Masjid dispute became a matter of national concern. The Central Government formed a Cabinet Committee and assured the Lok Sabha of its using its good offices to resolve the problem through negotiations.

The BMMCC placed the Ayodhya dispute before the political parties, the parliament and the Government and the intelligentsia in the context of the threat to the secular order, the surging wave of Hindu chauvinism, the demands of the rule of law and the overriding concern for national unity and national integration. There was a rising appreciation of the Muslim case and first Janata Party and subsequently Lok Dal and the Left Parties broadly began supporting the basic demands of the BMMCC. But the Government continued to evade its responsibility. Neither the legal cases relating to the title to the disputed premises pending since 1950 made any progress nor even the BMMCC's offer of reference to a Commission of Eminent Personalities was accepted by the Government, Nor did the Government agree to hold a discussion in the Parliament or outside with political parties. Thus the BMMCC was forced to announce the Ayodhya March in May, 1988 and enter the electoral battle of Allahabad on the side of Shri V.P. Singh and helped him defeat the Congress(I). Then the Central Government first agreed in principle to hold negotiations for exploring the possibility of a settlement and then offered to do so within a specific time. This was the first victory of the Movement.

The Ayodhya March was first postponed and then the call was withdrawn after receiving the clear commitment of the Government that in case the negotiation did not succeed by end October, 1988, the Government would take steps to expedite the judicial process. This was the second victory of the Movement. Eventually the Special bench was constituted and began the hearing of the consolidated cases while the VHP challenged the jurisdiction of the Court. Unfortunately, in November, 1988 on the question of the withdrawal of the Ayodhya March, the AIBMAC was born with 5 members seceding from the BMMCC. The emerging political scenario also played a role. However, the BMMCC decided to avoid confrontation or conflict with the AIBMAC, in the hope of eventual reconciliation and in the interest of the unity and consolidation of the Movement. In any case, on the legal front they have been working together. The Convention should give a clarion call for unity, rising above personal differences.

1989 saw considerable progress on the legal front but the focus was on Shila Yatra organised by the VHP with the intention of performing Shilanyas and commencing the Construction of the proposed Temple on 9 November, 1990. While allowing the Shila Yatra, the Government gave a public commitment not to allow Shilanyas. Yet the Central Government, the State Government and the VHP reached a secret understanding on the performance of the shilanyas and so it was performed under official patronage, on the specious plea that the Shilanyas site was undisputed. The site-plan of the temple which included the entire disputed premises by itself sufficed to make the Shilanyas unlawful. This was done with an eye on the Hindu votes. There is no doubt that the Shilanyas played a decisive role in the defeat of the Congress (I) in the General Election, 1989 as the Congress lost the votes of the Muslims, without gaining the Hindu votes.

The Janata Dal Government, with its survival depending on the goodwill of the BJP, could not act resolutely to stop the VHP agitation and finally could not muster courage to stop Advani's Ramrath Yatra which led to unprecedented communal polarisation and violence reminiscent of the days of the Partition. Neither was any serious or sustained negotiations. The case pending before the Special bench was also held up by technical objections from the other side. To placate the VHP, the Government promulgated an Ordinance, with prior clearance from the BJP, but the Ordinance evoked strong reaction from the Babari Masjid Movement and had to be withdrawn. An enraged BJP withdrew its support from V.P. Singh Government and he became a martyr to the cause of the Babari Masjid. The Babari Masjid was assaulted and damaged by the VHP mobs on 30 October, 1990 - an event which, like Shilanyas, was hailed by the chauvinist forces as a historic milestone, as the beginning of a new era.

The Chandra Shekhar Government tried to bring down the temperature and buy time, first by negotiating with the VHP and then arranging direct negotiations between the VHP and the AIBMAC. The BMMCC refused to enter into negotiation under duress while the VHP was committed to Kar Seva Phase II beginning on 6 December, 1990. However with official approval Kar Seva Phase II was converted into 'Satyagraha' which lasted until 14 January, 1991. Immediately thereafter, the VHP has announced a new campaign for mobilisation w.e.f. 1.2.91. As foreseen by the BMMCC, the negotiation between the AIBMAC and the VHP failed to produce any constructive results, though it tried to substitute the judicial process, give propaganda advantage to the VHP and prepare the ground for a political award.

Today we must assess what we have gained or lost during the last 5 years of democratic, peaceful and non-violent struggle.

The first fact is that the Babari Masjid still stands though its status as a mosque remains to be restored and for all practical process it remains converted into a temple.

The second fact is that despite high pressure mobilisation and exploitation of religious passions, vast segments of the Hindu community continue to reject the very idea of the demolition of the Babari Masjid to build a temple in its place.

The third fact is that repeated threats apart, the VHP has not been able to march towards other Masjids and widen the battle front.

The fourth fact is that all political parties, with the sole exception of BJP, broadly support the demand of the BMMCC for the settlement of the dispute through the judicial process and for the enactment of a law to protect the status of all places of worship as on 15 August, 1947.

The fifth fact is that the Special Bench of three judges has made considerable progress; identified the issues, surveyed the 12 disputed premises and set the stage for examining the witnesses.

The sixth fact is that the Muslim community has been forced to pay a heavy price by deliberate accentuation of communal violence and by the application of terrorism on a massive scale by Trishul dharia, giving them the choice of surrender or perish. But this has also exposed the real face of the Ram Janambhoomi Andolan - political movement using fascist methods to demolish the secular state and to erect the Hindu Rashtra, in its place. There is a growing appreciation of the fascist threat to the Indian society, in India and abroad. The result is that increasingly the intelligentsia has taken up the defence of the cause of the Babari Masjid, particularly the jurists, the academicians and the journalists. It is no longer seen as a Muslim problem but as a national problem.

The seventh fact is that despite volumes of 'irrefutable' evidence, the VHP has not been able to provide an iota of legally acceptable evidence to support either of its two basic assumptions that the Babari Masjid site is the exact birth-site of Shri Ram Chandrajri or that a Ram Janambhoomi Temple was destroyed to construct the Babari Masjid on its site. In fact now VHP has shifted its position; the Ram Janambhoomi Temple was not constructed by Vikramaditya in 50 B.C. but by an anonymous Raja in the 11th century AD; it does not assert that there was a miraculous divine manifestation of the idols of Ram lala within the Masjid on 22-23 December, 1949; unable to produce any primary record to support the existence of the Ram Janambhoomi temple on the Babari Masjid site, it speaks of a religious structure which stood on the same site, not necessarily in 1528. It now demands evidence from the Muslim community that the Masjid was constructed on vacant land, as it has no evidence to support the existence of a temple within 200 years of the construction of the Babari Masjid on either side i.e. from the 14th to the 17th century. The so-called archaeological 'evidence' consisting essentially of 14 pillars and 6 pillar-bases has been challenged by experts and has brought into question the identification of Ram with Ayodhya, there being no evidence of human habitation before circa 7th century B.C.

Hence the VHP has no Constitutional case, no legal case, no historical case, no archaeological case, no moral case, no religious case; its only argument is the argument of revenge, its only passion is hatred; its only method is coercion, its only objective is disintegration.

As for the future, since the negotiation at various levels, political and religious, have failed to provide any common ground for settlement, the law must take its course; the rule of law must prevail; agitation must cease; the judicial proceeding must be expedited with state assistance, both communities must agree to abide by the final judicial verdict; all political parties must agree not to exploit the dispute for political purposes.

The State must assert its authority, ban the militant Senas and organisations which challenge the Constitution and the rule of law, take strict notice of communal and inflammatory propaganda and make a firm declaration that pending final judicial verdict the state shall protect the disputed premises which are in the custody of the Court as an attached property against any unilateral change and that, after the final political verdict, the state shall enforce it, whatever the cost.

If the Hindu religious authorities, but not the VHP, wish to build another magnificent temple in honour of Ram Chandrayi on undisputed land within the Janambhoomi, the State should, in my view, extend all possible assistance.

To the Muslim Indians as a community and to the secular Indians of all religious persuasions, the Babari Masjid has become a symbol of the confrontation between secularism and chauvinism, of the struggle between democracy and fascism, of the conflict between the rule of law and mob rule, of the dichotomy between the vision of plurality and the pressure of assimilation. The Babari Masjid dispute is a part of the unfinished agenda of the nation and a test of our secular and democratic commitments, individually and collectively. The Babari Masjid Movement, must reaffirm its commitment to the restoration of the Masjid, not just the protection of the structure, and to legal, peaceful and democratic means to attain these goals. The Movement must also consolidate itself and establish links of understanding and cooperation with all secular forces.

To battle for the Babari Masjid is, therefore, to battle for the vision of India which inspired the Freedom Movement and which promises free- dom and equality, justice and dignity to all its communities, to all its people.