Shahabuddin Revives Earlier Offer of Adjacent Land to Build Ram Mandir

Shahabuddin's Reply of 11 August, 2000 to RSS Chief Sudarshan

I thank you for your letter of 7 August, 2000, on the Babari Masjid Question.

Let me first express my deep appreciation for your forthright statement that 'There is no denying the fact that in a democratic society we have all to accept the judicial verdict'.

The option of negotiation is certainly ever available in the larger interest of amicable relations between the two communities, indeed of the nation. But negotiations must be free of coercion, on terms of equality and on the basis of mutual understanding of the essentials of the question, as perceived by the two sides.

However, keeping in view the basic philosophy and structure of the Constitution, in our view, a particularised piece of legislation to acquire and then to hand over the site of a Masjid for the construction of a Mandir, or vice versa, would be unconstitutional. The parallel of the Shah Bano Case does not apply because in that case the question at issue was the misinterpretation of the law by the Supreme Court, which had to be corrected by legislative action. In the Babari Masjid case, if the title suit for the Masjid site is finally decided by the judiciary in favour of the Muslim community, the Parliament has no jurisdiction to nullify a fact as established by the judicial verdict, because that will not only amount to usurpation of property but also a clear deviation from the principle of equality.

Whatever the manner of description of the Babari Masjid in the government documents or otherwise, even you accept that it was a functional Masjid until 1934-36. In fact it was a functional Masjid right upto the night of 22-23 December, 1949 when through the unlawful introduction of Ram Lalla idols a dispute was engineered How can a deliberately created dispute change the nature of the structure or the title to the property?

In elaborating the third option of voluntary relinquishment of claim by Muslims on the Masjid site, you have gone into considerable details. But may I point out that a Masjid, which stood for nearly 500 years, and its site, under the Indian law, is prima facie Wakf.

Justice Tilhari's order of 1.1.1993 merely records a de facto situation and cannot override the final judicial verdict on the question of title.

The Babari Masjid Movement never offered to 'transfer the Masjid site to the VHP'; it offered to advise the Muslim community to agree to the Masjid being handed over to the Hindu community if it was proved that a standing Mandir, commemorating the birthsite of Shri Ram Chandraji stood on the site in 1528 and was demolished to construct the Babari Masjid on its place.

I am not aware of what transpired during the Babari Masjid Action Committee - Vishwa Hindu Parishad negotiations but the Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee had independently endorsed the proposal of Justice V.S. Krishna Iyer and his colleagues, submitted to then P.M. Chandra Shekhar, for the appointment of a Commission consisting of retired Supreme Court Judges to go into the above question of fact, provided the VHP stops all agitation, commits itself to accept the verdict of the Commission and does not treat this as a precedent to lay claim to other Masjids. I do not know whether the proposal, which was also endorsed by the Congress President Rajiv Gandhi, with some modifications, was considered and accepted or rejected by the VHP.

Whatever pre or post-demolition archaeological evidence may be there, it is still there. Experts have questioned their relevance and authenticity. The Archaeological Survey of India found no trace of human habitation in Ayodhya earlier than the 6th Century BC, thus indirectly delinking modern Ayodhya with Shri Ram Chandraji of the Ramayana.

I agree with you that eminent historians can disagree. That is why we had suggested a judicial forum. Yet, the VHP contention on Babari Masjid cannot be accepted only on the ground that other temples are known to have been destroyed by some Muslim rulers. Every event has to be considered in the light of its circumstances in time and space.

May I add that the essential issue relates to the site of the Masjid proper, not to the whole of the disputed area, about 6.5 acres, or even to the whole of its compound which had the Ram Chabootra in its South-east corner. We had, as you may know, offered as much of this disputed land and the compound as may be needed for the construction of the proposed Ram Janambhoomi Mandir. in the immediate vicinity of the Babari Masjid, so long as the Masjid site (plinth area about 60' X 60') was left untouched. Do you think that this offer deserved unceremonious rejection?

Once again I thank you for your kind response to my letter. Let me assure you that the Muslim community is eager for an honourable solution but it is not prepared to surrender to coercion and humiliation.