Ms. Sandhya Jain in her article on Ayodhya (18 July, 2000) asks (indeed threatens) the Muslims 'to end the negativism over Ayodhya' (because) 'the unused mosque cannot be restored. But a new temple can be built'. In other words, she wants the Muslims to legitimise the act of vandalism committed in the full glare of history with the entire world as its witness, in defiance of the constitution and the Rule of Law. I do not know why the demolition squad, she represents, is so anxious to get the seal of approval from the Muslim community!

The Muslims have never opposed the construction of yet another Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. But no one has yet explained why it must be built over the sit .ons of the Babari Masjid. Why can't be built by its side? Can the birthsite of Ram Chandraji be pinpointed with such precision?

As for the 'unused' Masjid it was used right upto the night of 22-23 December, 1949. If it remained unused since then till its demolition, this was on account of the fact that first a dispute was created and then a status quo order was obtained and the Muslims respected the order. How does respect for law erode or dilute their legal rights'?

Under the law of the land, after the demolition, the Muslims could have insisted on the restoration of the status quo ante, before the title suit proceeded further. They did not, because they want an expeditious verdict And while they have repeatedly reiterated then commitment to accept the final judicial verdict. Whatever it may be, the other side continues to emit lire and brimstone and challenge the constitutional status of the Judiciary and declare from the roof top at the top of its voice that law or no law, the Mandir shall be constructed on the Masjid site. This is the worst possible manifestation of Majoritarianism.