But Mutual Settlement Desirable for Future Relations
RSS Chief Stresses Settlement Through Negotiation, Legislation or Unilateral Concession
Sudarshan's Reply, 7 August, 2000 to Shahabuddin's Letter of 8 July, 2000
I am in receipt of your letter dated 8 July, 2000 regarding my statement on the Babari Masjid dispute. In this respect, I would like to make the following observations for your kind perusal.
You would kindly agree with me that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not debarred mutual settlement amongst the parties whereby a part of the required land on which the disputed structure stood could be transferred. This would equally imply out of court settlement which would, in any case, be acceptable to the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The second option of legislation by the Parliament is equally valid as the Parliament is the supreme body and keeping in view the Shah Bano case, its decision for the transfer of the site if the disputed structure for the construction of the temple will be well within its competence. It is important to observe that the White paper issued by the Government of India has always used the term 'Disputed Structure' rather than a 'Masjid'. In true sense of the world, it could never be reckoned as 'Masjid' when no namaz was ever offered at this site since 1934-36.
The third option for the voluntary relinquishment of the claim of the Muslims of the disputed site is much more feasible and pragmatic solution, especially when it is known from the revenue documents of the late 191/201 century that the plot of land on which the disputed structure stood was never under Wakf. In fact, it has never been a Wakf land. At the same time, the present existence of the makeshift temple on this site since December 6, 1992 has also the judicial sanction wide the judgement by Justice H.N. Tilhari dated 15t January, 1993.
Lastly, it must be mentioned that the offer of the Babari Masjid Action Committee/Babari Masjid Movement Coordination Committee to transfer the site of the disputed structure to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad provided it was proved that the so-called Babari Masjid was constructed. on the site of the erstwhile Janamsthan temple was never denied or rejected by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Vast evidence comprising both the archaeological and literary sources has been furnished which confirms the fact that the so-called Babari Masjid was constructed during the reign of Babur, the first Mughal monarch after demolition of the Janamsthan temple. It can also bc well ascertained that the mutual dialogue between the Babari Masjid Action Committee and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad was sabotaged by the Babari Masjid Action Committee in November 1992, much before the demolition of the structure on 6 December, 1992. The Babari Masjid action Committee withdrew from the mutual dialogue simply on the plea that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad was undertaking another Kar Seva Operation, which in fact, would not have affected the disputed structure itself. Whatever the nature of the event of the demolition of the disputed structure on 6th December, 1992, regrettable or otherwise, it cannot. Be denied that from the historical viewpoint, it was an act of mob violence. At the same time, after the demolition of the disputed structure, fresh archaeological evidence. covering the foundation stone inscriptions of the earlier temple, which was destroyed in the 16th century for building the so-called mosque on it, was discovered. This is rather unchallengeable evidence for the prior existence of the temple on the disputed site.
Your benign assertion that the proof of the earlier existence on the disputed site should be to the satisfaction of eminent historians, is a highly controversial statement. It is difficult to satisfy the eminent historians if they deliberately refuse to see the truth. After all, apart from the Ayodhya temple, there were other temples like the Mathura or the Banaras etc. for which there has been no controversy about the fact that the mosques were constructed on those site in 17" century during the reign of Aurangzeb. If the act of the parliament had not protected these monuments from any further controversy about their transfer, the so-called eminent historians of the Babari Masjid Action Committee would have equally offered half baked arguments/excuses to the effect that the 17th century mosques had not been constructed on the sites of the earlier demolished temples. As such, the words 'satisfaction' of eminent historians is rather a questionable term when the historians are unwilling to accept the broad daylight historical fact. There is no denying the fact that in a democratic society we have all to accept the judicial verdict.
But at the same time, for the present and future amicable relations between the two communities, it is most desirable to arrive at a mutual settlement on the basis of any of the options offered by me in the earlier settlement.
