In the Babari Masjid case (1994), the Supreme Court virtually made the Centre a kind of trustee of the disputed site on which the Masjid was situated in the interregnum during which the civil court will decide the issue ... To the Supreme Court: "the status of the Central Government ... is, therefore, that of a statutory receiver in relation to the disputed area, coupled with a duty to manage and administer the disputed area, maintaining status quo therein till the final outcome of the long- standing dispute relating to the disputed structure at Ayodhya". Today, the Union - the trustee, the receiver - is silent, content with watching the deft, but nasty, moves of the VHP with silent approval.

We can ponder over the Supreme Court's words with analytical narrowness to argue that the Union was only concerned with the physical corpus of the site; or enlarge the interpretation to place it in the responsible position of being truly and genuinely responsible for ensuring that the status quo was preserved with equity and fairness and that any claim to build on the site is - at this stage - ex- facie bogus, mischievous and contrary to the clear injunctions against temple construction. The more expanded interpretation is consistent with the Centre's general duties of governance including upholding secularism which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The fact that the construction for the site is taking place ex-situ is really irrelevant ... If the Union is a statutory trustee - in letter, spirit and secular intent – can the Prime Minister maintain a communal silence contrary to the duties of the Union which arise - not just from its statutory status - but from the Constitution itself? As things stand today, Vajpayee is no better than his BJP – or shall we say, the VHP - colleagues.

As it is, both secularism and the Muslim community have been cheated, at least twice over. The first disaster was the destruction of the mosque on December 6, 1992 when any self-respecting nation could not but hang its head in shame. The second disaster was the erstwhile Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's deliberate delay so that a makeshift temple was constructed after the destruction of the Masjid. Instead of removing this makeshift temple, the Congress(I) allowed it to remain. On January 7,1993, the Rao Government passed an Ordinance preserving the status quo as on January 6, 1993 rather than on December 5, 1992.

The Muslims had not only witnessed the destruction of an old mosque, but had to be content with an illegally constructed makeshift temple at the same site protected by a statutory status quo. That is why the Supreme Court split (3:2), with the minority rights the "Act and the Reference ... favour one community and disfavour another (which) is, therefore, opposed to secularism and is unconstitutional". To add insult to injury, the Congress(I) Government's White Paper proudly declared its commitment to secularism and ignored this subterfuge while pledging to build the mosque. But, there was worse to come. The BJP published its `White Paper'. It is a communal document calculated to gather the so-called Hindu faithfuls and incite hatred against the Muslims, proposing the case of a historical revenge against the latter's monuments. Even the judiciary was not spared the BJP's intemperate style and language. In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the Ayodhya Act of 1993, making a plea for preserving the status quo; and in 1995 sent Kalyan Singh to prison for his violation of neutrality. The arrogance with which both Kalyan Singh and the BJP received his punishment revealed its game plan to use the issue of building a temple to win elections ...

In October 1990, Advani was arrested while demonstrating for construction. He continued in this strain. Today, he - although the Home Minister – faces criminal proceedings in connection with the destruction of the mosque. On February 3, 1993, Vajpayee decried court intervention because the temple was a matter of faith. What is the stance of the BJP Government and its leaders today? The BJP has never missed the chance to cash in on Ayodhya, its modus operandi has been to make the VHP place its case. The Centre's White Paper (as noticed by the Supreme Court) records the demand for the temple as a VHP demand. It was the VHP that held discussions with the Babari Action Committee between December 1, 1990 to February 6,1991 and in October- November 1992. Its stance during those discussions makes painful reading. Time and time again, the VHP makes communal demands and strikes communal .postures. This is exactly what the VHP's ex-situ construction activities constitute. On these questions, the BJP is no more than the political arm of the VHP; and until they speak unequivocally, this is no less true of the various allies of the BJP (great secularists that they are) unless they make the position clear. If secular decency is unlikely to prevail on the BJP, let us at least return to its legal obligations. The least the Centre can do. is to make the legal position as clear as its Attorney General, Mr. Soli Sorabji's arguments when he opened the Babari Masjid case in 1994. Legally (i) The disputed site vests in the Union Government which is in the position of the statutory receiver; (ii) There is no question of any fresh temple construction taking place until the civil dispute is arguable that it is the positive duty of the Union to quell all doubts about construction on the site; (iv) Both in and ex-situ construction of the temple are ex-facie illegal, especially whereby the ex-situ construction is pointedly and avowedly for a temple at the site of Babari Masjid; (v) The construction is an illegal conspiracy imbued with malice to defy court injunctions; (vi) Insofar as the ex-situ construction activity seeks to obviate, civcumvent and undermine court injunctions, it constitutes a civil and criminal contempt of court; (vii) In the ex-situ construction (and statements in its support by the VHP) represents an incitement to religious strife and a threat to the public order; (viii) If anything is to be constructed, the Union must fulfil its promise to start work on the restoration of the Babari Masjid so that a valuable monument is restored and the Government redeems itself  as being capable of secular fairness; (ix) The Government must make a positive statement that it abides by secular principles and views the ex-situ construction of the temple as a wrongful act and threat to secular peace. it is under a duty to do so in the light of its basic structure obligations to act in aid of secularism as declared in the Bommai case. Governments which subvert the secular structure have no right to constitutional existence; (x) If possible, the Union should mediate a settlement in favour of secularism.

Today, the VHP is running riot terrorising Christians and intimidating Muslims. Earlier, I had filed a contempt petition against Mr. Giriraj Kishore for scandalising the judiciary in matters connected with Ayodhya. This a pending. Now, the VHP leaders like Ashok Singhal openly declare that the judiciary is to be taught a lesson - inviting and feeding on the law of contempt for publicity, He needs to be put in his place. The BJP's failure to control the VHP is a massive failure of governance: and, reveals all that people fear of the BJP's election-based communalism and lack of secular values. Unfortunately, by saying nothing, the BJP's allies in this Government (such as the Samata and others) conspire silently.                                                                                                                                       (Source: The Hindu, 19 June, 1998)