I - On Vajpayee's Ambivalence Over Ayodhya Verdict, 20 June, 1998

We have noted that while committing your Government to respect the judicial verdict on the Babari Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi question, you did not specifically declare that in case the final judicial verdict was in favour of the Muslim community, it will also be given effect to, as you did in case the verdict was for the construction of the Ram Mandir on the disputed site. I do not know whether this distinction was inadvertent or deliberate. However, it has been notice and has served to nurse doubts and apprehensions about the stand of your Government on this question. In its 1994 judgement, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that "in the event of the Muslims succeeding in the adjudication of the dispute requiring the disputed structure to be handed over to the Muslims, their success should not be thwarted by denial of proper access to, and enjoyment of rights in, the disputed area by exercise of rights of ownership of Hindu owners of the adjacent properties". It was further laid down by the SC that in respect of the disputed area "the Central Govt. is merely the statutory receiver, as indicated, with the duty to restore it to the owner in terms of the adjudication made in the suits."

In view of the above, and also taking into account the statements made by K.L. Sharma, Vice-President of the BJP that in case of an adverse verdict, the Government would enact a law to hand over the site to the VHP for the construction of the proposed Mandir, I urge you to clarify the stand of the Government. I also request you to stop the transportation of stones, pillars and other architectural artefacts from Rajasthan to Ayodhya and to impound the carved and finished pillars already in stockthere. I also request that your Government should take due cognizance of the repeated statements made by the VHP leadership proclaiming their intent to defy the law thus pressurizing the judiciary as well as inciting the people.

Il - On 'Renovation' of Make-shift Temple Letter to Home Minister, 20 June, 1998

As you are aware, the Supreme Court (SC) in its judgement of 24 October 1994 has not only ordered the maintenance of the status quo on the disputed land in Ayodhya, including the Babari Masjid site, but also made observations on the make-shift structure standing on the debris of the Babari Masjid, The SC has also asserted that there cannot be any enhancement of the facilities on the site. You may recall on 10 May 1996 the SC stayed the order of the HC dated 23 February 1996 for enhancement of facilities for the devotees at the site. We have received information that as the authorised person for the site, the Commissioner of Faizabad intends to reconstruct the make-shift structure to replace the 'Tripal', the 'Ballis', etc. I request you to caution him that no such work should be undertaken which may have the effect of the slightest change in the position as it obtained on 7 January 1993. Indeed, before authorizing any repair or reconstruction, it would be advisable for the Government to obtain appropriate orders from the SC and take the public, specially the parties concerned, into confidence.

III - On RSS Threat to Construct Mandir even Against Judicial Verdict, 25 June, 1998

The RSS chief Mr Rajendra Singh is reported to have stated on June 22 in New Delhi that the temple would be constructed on the disputed site "at all costs" and that if the Court verdict was not favourable, a legislation would be enacted. I feel that the persistent threat by the RSS, the VHP and the Bajrang Dal leadership to construct the temple on the Babari Masjid site, at a time of their own choosing without waiting for the judicial verdict not only contradicts what you have stated in the Parliament but also constitutes a direct threat to the democratic system and a blatant contempt of the Judiciary.

No litigant can set a time schedule for the Courts. It appears that such public statements are meant to terrorise Judiciary, to demoralise the other party concerned namely the Muslim community and perhaps also to incite, encourage and maintain the moral of their supporters in the country. The RSS chief should, therefore, explain what he means by the phrase 'at all costs'. Assuming the final judicial verdict favours the Muslim and the Parliament does not pass a law, whose Constitutionality would be doubtful for taking over the site of a masjid and giving it to a Hindu body for the construction of a mandir, will the Sangh Parivar then still build a temple on the disputed site in defiance of the Judiciary and the Legislature and perhaps the Executive also. Are our people to pay the costs of the proposed mandir in terms of democracy, secularism and the rule of law. I request you to kindly advise the Sangh Parivar not to make such noises which bring into question the credibility of your Government.