6.2 The record of the proceedings of the dialogue between the VHP and the Masjid groups in the year 1990-91 as summarised by the Special Cell and made available to the Prime Minister Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, and which in fact formed the background paper to the dialogue in October 1992, brings out many interesting facts. To the extent relevant, the summary of the minutes and notes of the Government is extracted and reproduced below.

6.3 Minutes of the meeting of VHP/Masjid groups held on December 4, 1990 

An extract from the minutes reads:

“At this stage Shri Sharad Pawar asked whether there was any mention in the official gazette or not (about the demolition of the temple and the building of the mosque) Mr. Jilani admitted that in British official Gazettes it has been mentioned. Shri Shekhawat suggested that official Gazettes were based on facts. But Shri Azam Khan claimed that this problem was the creation of the Britishers to divide the country.

“Then Shri Shekhawat asked when it was mentioned in the official gazettes that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple at the very site where Lord Rama was born; did anyone dispute the assertion of the British records. It was replied in the negative.”

6.4 The minutes then proceed to set the schedule for furnishing evidence and its examination:

“Then Shri Shekhawat suggested that the evidences of both sides should be exchanged and examined by experts. But Mr. Jilani was of the opinion that first the members of both committees should first examine the evidences and then the experts’ help should be taken.

“Mr. Pingale suggested that all these should be done within a time-frame.

“Shri Sharad Pawar suggested that a definite date should be fixed for the submission of the evidences and their exchange.

“Mr. Kaushal Kishore told that historical and archaeological evidences were ready but it would take a fortnight to prepare legal documents. So with the consultation of all including the three Chief Ministers and the Minister of State for Home affairs, the following decisions were taken:

a. Both sides should furnish evidences to the minister of State for Home Affairs by 22.12.90

b. The MOS(H) will make photocopies of evidences to all concerned by 25.12.1990 and

c. After reviewing the evidences both parties will meet in the Maharashtra Sadan on 10.1.1991 at 10.00 AM.”

Masjid groups could not dispute the fact of demolition recorded by Aurangazeb’s grand daughter, or the finding that Babur’s will (which says he was secular) was a forged document

6.5 The minutes of the meeting of 1st January, 1991, contains the presentation made by Prof. B.R. Grover. The points made by Prof. Grover which were not rebutted at the meeting by anyone are summarised below:

“It is very unscientific and unjust to label this belief of Ram Janmabhoomi as of recent origin. A vast mass of historical and archaeological evidences is there to prove that the Hindus have regarded it as the birth-place of Lord Rain for centuries. It is a different matter whether these writings have been labelled either imperial or partisan.

“Whether Ram was a historical figure or a myth is not a relevant question. The moot question is whether there was a temple at the disputed site prior to the construction of the mosque or not.

“I have examined relevant revenue records for two months and found that there has been a tampering with the revenue records. He gave some instances. He claimed that even the tamperings can be detected by proper scrutiny.

“We have classified evidences into four categories (a) historical (b) archaeological (c) revenue and (d) legal. Then he went on citing documentary evidences from the evidences submitted earlier. He told that the earliest reference is in Abul Fazl’s book, Ain-e-Akbari. He called Abul Fazl a secular scholar.

“Oudh is the name of both province and the town. The first reference of Babri Masjid is that of 1855. In 1861, Ayodhya was outside Ram Kot.

“Babar went to Ayodhya twice. There is one direct reference when he says that he visited Oudh and was to go for Shikar. But immediately thereafter the pages are missing since the time of Babar. Another visit is inferred from the reference of Buxar.

“I don’t claim that Babar went to Ayodhya to demolish the temple. But certainly he had dialogue with local people.

“I have examined and found that the place is called Ram Janmabhoomi after 1949. Earlier it was called Janmasthan; prior to that it was known Sita Ki Rasoi the temple which was demolished and the mosque was constructed.

“Then he gave the testimony of Aurangazeb’s grand daughter. She was scholarly. She was the daughter of Bahadur Shah I. Bahadur Shah was 62 years old when Aurangzeb died. So the age of Bahadur Shah’s daughter can be well assessed. She made it clear the offering of the namaz in the recently converted mosques including those at Mathura, Kashi and Ayodhya was sacred. She writes this temple [was] Sita Ki Rasoi temple. This was known by the name at the time.

“Then he read some other testimonies from the evidences already submitted. He cited the Imam’s accounts. How Muhammad Asghar, Muazzan of the Babri Masjid filed a representation in 1858 in which he alleged that the Hindus had temporarily occupied the mosque and how they have been struggling for occupying the Janmasthan which was having a mosque built over it. Then he cited the Kazi’s verdict, his peshkar’s version and Wazid Ali Shah’s decision. Then he cited Muslim writers testimonies and made it clear that they are based on numerous writings of earlier period and hence they are to be relied upon.

“Then he narrated how there has been a deliberate attempt to suppress the testimonies of Muslim writers. Four such instances have been given in the main evidence submitted earlier. Many more can be added. Then he gave the account of Joseph Tieffenthaler which makes it abundantly clear that the Ram Janmasthan temple was different from the birth place of Lord Ram. It was the place where the mosque was constructed and the Hindus had not forgotten this site. He further said that there was no road before the 20th century separating the present structure from the present Janmasthan temple. The entire area was one complex known as Ram Kot.

“The architectural style of the mosque is Jaunpuri. There is no minar in the mosque.

“In 1934 Bairagis threw [away] the main plaque during the riot. This plaque was earlier in the mimbar; but now it is not fixed at the old place. In the riot of 1855 also, the Hindus tried to capture the mosque. He suggested that Babar Kalandar was different from Babar, the Mughal Emperor. He further said that the so-called Babar’s will has been found to be a forged document.

“Then he dealt with revenue records at length. He said that when khasra, khata, khatauni records are scrutinized and maps of all the four bandobasts are examined, it is clear the proprietary rights are in the names of the Bairagis and their disciples. Though many of these records have already been tampered, no further tampering should take place. The question of this land belonging to the waqf arose from 1935 onwards. Earlier it was not the waqf property. The grant had been given to an individual by the Britishers for helping them. The testimony of Md. Asraf proves this point.”

No one disputed the points presented by Prof. Grover, except that in regard to tampering which also was not denied.
 

The minutes admits that the Masjid groups’ experts did not turn up for dialogue on 24 / 25th January, 1991

6.6 The minutes of the next meetings 24.1.91 and 25.1.91 shows that two sub-committees were set up. The conduct of the Masjid group at the sub-committee is relevant. The extract of the minutes in this regard is given below:

Sub-committee of Historians and Archaeologists

Historians and archaeologists formed one group to discuss the historical and archaeological evidences. This sub-group consisted of the following experts:

i.     Prof. R.S. Sharma
ii.    Prof. Athar Ali
iii.   Prof. Suraj Bhan
iv.   Prof. D.N. Jha
v.    Shri Jawed Habeeb
vi.   Prof. B.P. Sinha
vii.  Shri S.P. Gupta
viii. Shri Harsh Narain
ix.   Prof. K.S. Lal
x.    Prof. Devendra Swaroop
xi.   Shri B.R. Grover

Prof. B.P. Sinha left for Patna in the middle of the session because of the death of his mother.

This sub-group discussed the matter in a very cordial manner. But on the question of the time-frame there was a difference of opinion between the two groups of historians. ‘Me historians representing the A.I.B.M.A.C. gave it in writing that they required at least six weeks time to examine the evidences and visit Ayodhya. Prof. M. Athar Ali, Prof. D.N. Jha, Prof. R.S. Sharma and Shri Jawed Habeed submitted a note. The group representing the V.H.P observed in a written note- “The experts nominated by the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee expressed their inability to give their opinion because they had not come prepared for it and had not examined the evidence earlier. We are ready for further discussion, while they want considerable time, which may lead to inordinate delay in the submission of the Report.”

It was further agreed upon that Prof. Suraj Bhan and Shri S.P. Gupta would meet on the next day i.e. Friday 25-01-1991 in Gujarat Bhawan and then would visit Archaeological Survey of India and see the documents on the dispute, if arrangements are made for the same.

Shri S.P. Gupta turned up in Gujarat Bhawan but Prof. Suraj Bhan did not come. So the meeting could not take place. There is no information why Shri Suraj Bhan did not come - he might have some urgent work or might have talked to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India and then changed his programme. But he did not inform. Sub Committee on Legal matters

Another sub-group consisting of the following experts discussed the revenue records and legal documents:

i.      Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha
ii.     Justice Deowki Nandan Aggrawal
iii.    Justice D.V. Sehgal
iv.   Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary
v.    Shri Zafaryab Jilani
vi.   Shri M.A. Siddiqui
vii.  Shri S.A. Syed
viii. Shri Zafar Ali Siddiqui

They tried to find points of agreements and disagreements in the entire evidence submitted by both parties. But on the A Group of evidences submitted by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, it took the stand that they are beyond the purview of discussion because many contained derogatory remarks against Lord Ram. Ultimately it was agreed upon that Shri Z.A. Siddiqui would read all the evidences belonging to A group and if he felt that any set of writing was derogatory or irrelevant, he would withdraw that. Both parties were to talk to each other at night on the same day.

But on account of some communication gap, they could not exchange their views. On 25-01-1991 the following experts representing the Vishwa Hindu Parishad came to Gujarat Bhawan to attend the meeting:

i.    Justice G. Lodha
ii.   Justice Deowki Nandan Aggrawal
iii.  Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary
iv.  Shri B.R. Grover
v.   Shri Devendra Swaroop
vi.  Prof. Harsh Narain
vii. Dr. S.P. Gupta

Shri Z.A. Siddiqui reported on telephone that All India Babri Masjid Action Committee would not withdraw any evidence of Group A. When it was communicated to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad experts whether they would like to continue discussion, they replied that they had come for discussion and would welcome the Babri Masjid Action Committee experts, if they came. This was communicated to Shri Z.A. Siddiqui who informed that some members had gone out. However, he assured that he would try his best to bring them by 12-00 hrs. The experts of Vishwa Hindu Parishad waited till 12-30 hrs and then dictated a note and left at 1.00 P.M.

At 2.30 P.M. Mr. Z. Jilani, the convener of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee informed on telephone that since the Vishwa Hindu Parishad did not contact on the previous night, the A.I.B.M.A.C. experts did not turn up. He thereafter sent a letter to the Minister narrating the circumstances leading to the deadlock in the dialogue with the following observation - “It would therefore be in the fitness of things that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders be asked to clarify their stand on the aforesaid point at the earliest so that further continuance of the talks may not be hampered. We hope that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders and its nominees would mend their ways and will participate in further talks without any reservations for which the A.I.B.M.A.C. nominees will remain available at any reasonable time, they are called for.”

Here it is to be decided whether the Government is supposed to take such clarification from the V.H.P. or not, particularly in view of the fact that it is a bipartite talk and the Government is playing the role of a co-ordinator only.

Similarly the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, too, has sent a letter narrating the details of the non-participation of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee experts and seeking some certification. Despite these letters both V.H.P. and A.I.B.M.A.C. have confirmed on telephone that they would be participating in the meeting scheduled on 5-2-1991. However, both parties have got certain internal problems, apart from the stands taken by them in their letters. It is reliably learnt that there was a difference of opinion amongst the members of the A.I.B.M.A.C. over the question of continuing the dialogue, despite the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s unilateral declaration of its future programmes and intransigent postures. Shri Ahmed Bukhari, Naib-Imam of Jama Masjid and Shri Afzal, M.P. were against any dialogue in future. So the A.I.B.M.A.C. is trying to rind excuses to discontinue the dialogue. Similarly, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is under tremendous pressure from its hardliners to put an end to the negotiation after February 5, 1991. However, the leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad are meeting at Udaipur from 25th January to 27th January, 1991 to discuss the situation and decide the future course of action.

6.7. The Narasimha Rao Government’s summary of the evidence presented by VHP and AIBMAC

The summary of the evidence prepared by the officials of the Government is extremely relevant because it clinches the case in favour of the VHP. The relevant extracts of the summary are given below:

The summary of the VHP case ran as under:

A summary of the evidence (of VHP) is now presented. The relevant paras of the main note and the annexures have been suitably referred. For example (P.3.5, A-VI) indicates reference para 3.5 of the Main Note and Annexure VI.

Muslim Testimony:

Extract from Ain-i-Akbari of Abul Fazal (late 16th century) has been given (P 3.1 ; A-I) to show that Awadh was associated with the residential place of Sri Ram Chandra of Treta age. The Holiness of Ayodhya and the celebration of Ram Navmi festival in a big way are also supported by the writings of Abul Fazal.

Excerpts from Safiha Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Ibn Alamgir during the 17th 118th Century have been given (A-II) to show that “the place of the birth of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman..... were all demolished on the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed.”

The following excerpt has been quoted from Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856): “... the temple of Janmasthan was the original birth place of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at this site, a lofty mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Mir Ashikan.......” (P 3.4 ; A-III)

Several other references dating from early nineteenth century have also been quoted to support the same point, i.e., the Babri Mosque was constructed after demolishing the existing temple/private apartments of Raja Ram Chander/Sita Ki Rasoi in paras 3.5 to 3.11 of the main note and Annexures V to X.

A petition from one Muhammad Asghar (1858), Muazzin of Babri Masjid, against Hindu Bairagis who had occupied the mosque, constructed an earthen mound therein and started puja has also been mentioned. The petition mentions that Hindus had been worshipping a Jammasthan lying desolate in the outer space of the constructed Babri Masjid for hundreds of years (P 3.4; A-IV). Mention of Bairagis offering worship in Babri Mosque and their struggle to recapture the places of worship including Babri mosque, is found in other documents also (P 3.5, 3.7 ; A-V).

The summary, particularly the emphasised lines, contain the appreciation of VHP’s evidence by the Narasimha Rao Government officials.

European Accounts:

William Finch, a European traveller who visited Ayodhya in 1608-11 has confirmed the existence of the ruins of Ramkot, die castle of Ram. (P 4.1; A-XI). A more detailed account is, however, found in ‘History and Geography of India’ by Joseph Tieffenthaler, an Austrian Jesuit priest, who stayed in Ayodhya in 1766-71. The following extracts are particularly relevant (P.4.2 ; A-XII):

“The Emperor Aurangzeb destroyed the fortress called Ramkot and built at the same place a Mohammedan temple with three domes. Others say it has been built by Babar. One can see 14 columns made of black stones 5 spans in height which occupy the site of the fortress. 12 of these columns now support the inside arcade of the mosque.

“The reason is that here existed formerly a house in which Beschan (Vishnu) took birth in the form of Rama and where it is said his three brothers were also born. Subsequently Aurangzeb and some say Babar destroyed the place in order to prevent the heathens from practising their ceremonies. However, they have continued to practice their religious ceremonies in both the places knowing this to have been the birth place of Rama by going around it three times and prostrating on the ground.”

The following documents also support that the Babri Masjid was believed to have been constructed after demolition of apartments of Ram or a Ram temple and that the Hindus had continued to offer worship there:

i.     Report by Montgomery Martin, British Surveyor (1838) (P.4.3; A-XIII).
ii.    East India Company Gazetteer, by Edmond Thornton (1854) (P.4.4 ; A-XIV). In this an explicit mention of Ram Chabootra is found.
iii.   Encyclopaedia of India by Surgeon General Edward Balfour (1858) (P. 4.5; A-XV).
iv.   Historical Sketch of Faizabad by P. Carnegy (1870) (P.4.6; A-XVI).
v.   Gazetteer of the Province Oudh (1877) (P.4.7) ; A-XVII).
vi.   Faizabad settlement report (1880) (P 4.8).
vii.  Imperial Gazetteer of Faizabad (1981) (P 4.9 ; A-XVIII).
viii. Archaeological Survey of India (1891) (P 4.11 ; A XX).
ix.   Barabanki District Gazetteer (1902) (P 4.12.; A-XXI).
x.    Faizabad District Gazetteer (1905) (P 4.13 ; A-XXII).

The main note of VHP also mentions a court verdict by Col. F.E.A. Chamier, District Judge, Faizabad (1886) in which he has observed: “It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have been built on land specially held sacred by Hindus, but as that event occurred 356 years ago, it is too late now to remedy the grievance.” A copy of the judgement has been attached. (P 4.10, A-XIX).

Some of the recent documents that have been mentioned by VHP in support of its case are:

i.   Babar Nama in English by Annette Beveridge (1920) (P 4.14; A-XXIII). 
ii.  Archaeological Survey of India (1934) (P 4.15).
iii. Revised Faizabad District Gazetteer (1960) (P 4.16 ; A-XXIV).
iv. Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1978) (P 4.17 ; A-XXV).

VHP then quote. two books by foreign scholars viz. “Ayodhya” by Hans Bakker (1984) and “Ram Janmabhoomi Vs. Babri Masjid” by Koenraad Elst (1990), both of whom have come to the conclusion, after examining the evidence, that the Babri Mosque has been built after demolishing a Hindu temple. (Paras 4.18 and 4.19 of the main note of VHP). Evidence from Revenue Records

The revenue records show that Kot Ram Chandra was a separate village (mauza) from the time of the earliest settlement in 1861 A.D. The term Janmasthan has been used for a large complex situated in Kot Ram Chandra of which Sita Ki Rasoi forms a part.

Archaeological Evidence

The Babri Masjid structure contains 14 pillars of black stone (Kasauti) on which Hindu motifs are carved. Art historical evidence identifies these pillars as belonging to a Hindu temple structure dating back to 11th century A.D. Excavations conducted by Archaeological Survey of India from 1975 to 1980 have revealed the existence of a series of burnt brick pillar-bases at regular intervals in the vicinity of the RJB-BM site. These are found arranged in the directional alignment of the black stone pillars used on the RJB-BM structure (P 1.3: A-XXVIII & A-XXIX).

Two pillars of black stone, similar to the ones found in the RJB-BM structure, are found buried up-side down by the side of the grave of one Muslim saint, Fazal Abbas alias Musa Ashikan who has been mentioned in the documents (some of them referred above) as having motivated the destruction of the temple and construction of the mosque.

Other archaeological evidence, as mentioned in the report of Dr. S.P. Gupta, (A-XXVIII) establishes that Ayodhya was inhabited at least as far back as 7th Century B.C and there had been continuous habitation upto 3rd century A.D. The pillar bases mentioned above also date back to 11th century A.D.

Here too the emphasised part of the extract constitute the way the Narasimha Rao Government has appreciated the value of the evidence of VHP.

Dealing with objections

The VHP’s main note discusses the alternative hypothesis that a temple known as Janmasthan to the north of the Babri structure is itself the original Janmasthan shrine and declares it to be untenable because this is a new structure which is not more than 250 years old. Historical evidence is stated to be available to show that it was started in 1704 A.D. by a sadhu called Ram Dasji. Moreover if this were the original shrine, one would be at a loss to explain why a controversy has continued about the Babri structure for hundreds of years (P. 7.1).

The VHP note lists various attempts made by Hindus to claim back the shrine (P. 7.2) to show that the Hindus never reconciled themselves to the loss of their shrine. The note gives instances where Muslim testimony, some of which has been mentioned above, has been suppressed in subsequent editions. For example the reference to demolition of the temple has been suppressed in the second edition of Gumgashte Halat-i-Ayodhya Awadh (P 7.3).

The objection that Babar’s memoirs do not mention this mosque has been answered by pointing out (P.1.2) that the relevant pages of Babar’s diary are missing.

Another objection that the entire controversy was created by the British as another instance of their divide and rule policy has been addressed by VHP in the concluding part of Para 7.4 of its main note. The following extract is relevant:

“A simple test whether the anti-Mandir hypothesis deserves any consideration at all, is the element for which the evidence should be the most easy to find: the British concoction hypothesis. In the plentiful and well kept archives which the British have left us, it should not be too difficult for genuine historians to find some piece of evidence. But, so far, no proof whatsoever has been given either for such an actual course of events or even for similar British tactics at another time and place. If the anti-Mandir polemists cannot even come up with that, their whole hypothesis stands exposed as a highly implausible and purely theoretical construction.”

Rejoinder of VHP to evidence given by BMAC

VHP has dismissed the material given by BMAC by saying that it does not contain evidence on the germane issues. A lot of documents have been given by BMAC to show that Ram was not a historical but mythical character. But this, according to VHP, is not the issue. The newspaper articles given by BMAC to challenge the archaeological and historical evidence of VHP contain nothing but vituperative personal attacks without going into the issues or presenting alternate evidence. The court documents prove nothing but continuous possession of Muslims which, again, is not in dispute.

The lines in emphasis again indicate how the VHP’s evidence has been appreciated and evaluated by the Special Group headed by Shri Naresh Chandra.

6.8. The summary of the case of VHP as made by the Government from the evidence given was as under:

It is proved by scriptural and inscriptional evidence that worship of Shri Ram is an ancient tradition.

It is also proved, particularly by Ayodhya Mahatmya, that Ayodhya was identified as a holy city and birth place of Shri Ram as far back as 12 century A.D.

The Ain-i-Akbari of Abul Fazal established that the identification of Ayodhya, the legendary birth place of Shri Ram, as the present day Ayodhya, a part of Awadh province, is at least as old as late 16th century.

‘The accounts of Tieffenthaler and contemporary Muslim authors prove that the belief of Babri Masjid having been built after demolition of Hindu structures associated with Shri Ram is at least as old as 1771 (Tieffenthaler stayed in Ayodhya from 1766 to 1771). Tieffanthaler’s account also proves that Hindus continued to venerate this site despite the presence of the mosque.

Subsequent writings of Muslims and Europeans alike confirm the continuity of the belief about demolition of a Hindu Temple to construct Babri Masjid and the continued attachment of Hindus to this site.

It is not possible to explain why the Hindus should have continued to be drawn to this site, thereby incurring the wrath of Muslim rulers, except on account of a deep and abiding faith. 

‘The fourteen black stone pillars used in Babri Masjid are proved to be from a Hindu temple constructed in 11th Century A.D. The most plausible explanation is that this temple stood on this very site. Two such pillars are also buried by the side of the grave of Musa Ashikan, who according to Muslim historians, was instrumental in motivating the destruction of the temple and the construction of the mosque. 

Archaeological excavations conducted in 1975-80 reveal a series of pillar bases, also dating back to 11th century A.D., that are in the same directional alignment as the pillars used in the mosque.

‘The VHP evidence, thus, presents a coherent and self-consistent picture. The burden of proving any alternate hypothesis is on the other side. The BMAC evidence, on the other hand, does not address the specific issues and is nothing but a disjointed collection of wild hypothesis, conjectures and personal attacks without any solid evidence.

6.9. The summary of the Muslim case as made by the Government shows that their case is not clear

The summary of the Government on Muslim case reads as under: 

No consolidated presentation of the Muslim case is available in the records. A comprehensive collection of documents had been submitted by the AIBMAC during the negotiations held in December 1990-February 1992. These documents also are not accompanied by a resume of the Muslim case, although in the case of some documents there are annotations indicating the relevance of the documents to the Muslim case. Therefore, in the case of most documents, it is possible only to draw an inference regarding support for the Muslim case. These documents had been submitted in two stages, and the corresponding lists are at Appendices I & II. In addition, four historians (who had at one stage participated in the above negotiations as part of the AIBMAC team) had also submitted a report. Further, there is a letter dated 6 October 1988 written by Shri Syed Shahabuddin to the Home Minister giving his response to a set of 13 documents sent to him by the Home Ministry. From all the documents mentioned above, as well as other sources where a definite stand on the Muslim side had come to notice, an attempt has been made to cull out the Muslim case in respect of the RJB-BM dispute.

Very briefly, the Muslim case seems to be that the Ramayana is a mythological epic and not a historical account of events; the present day Ayodhya is not the Ayodhya of the Ramayana because of discrepancies in the age and geographical location of Rama’s Ayodhya; the Babri Masjid was never built by destroying any temple or other construction and, in fact, there is no evidence of a Ram Temple having existed at that site; and the Muslims have been in continuous possession of the Babri Masjid right until 1949 when the idols were placed.

The lines in emphasis shows the way the evidence of AIBMAC has been evaluated by the Narasimha Rao Government officials led by Shri Naresh Chandra. The contrast is obvious - while the VHP evidence is complete to support its case, in the case of AIBMAC, difficult to understand as to what its case is.

6.10. Negotiating position taken by the Muslim side as summarised by the Rao Government shows that the Muslims would be ready for shifting or demolition, if temple had existed whether demolished or not

The summary states:

It is understood that at the start of the negotiations in December 1990 - February 1991, the AIBMAC had taken the position that if it was proved that a temple had been destroyed for the construction of the Babri Masjid, the Muslims would agree to its demolition/shifting. Subsequently, however, this was modified to state that only if a Ram Temple had been destroyed, would they so agree.

On the other hand, the Shahi Imam had expressed himself against any reference to the Supreme Court on the ground that such questions should be decided amicably through negotiations in the interest of long term harmony between the communities.

The Muslim side had also objected to the Land Acquisition Ordinance promulgated by the Centre in October 1990 on the grounds, inter aria, that this had extinguished the Court cases in which the Muslims had sought to establish their rights. They had also reiterated the stand of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that mosques, places of worship and mausolea should be kept outside the purview of the acquisition law. The English translation of the memorandum submitted by the Muslim religious leaders on 21.10.1990 is at Appendix-III.

In the last few days, there have been reports that a section of the Ulema is of the view that if any temple had existed at the site (whether or not it had been demolished for the construction of the Babri Masjid) the Muslim side would be prepared for the demolition/shifting of the Masjid. There are further reports that a section of the Muslims might accept the position that since Hindu worship has been going on in the disputed structure, it may not he regarded as a Masjid at all (thereby facilitating Muslim consent for the demolition/shifting of the Masjid).

The summary of the Special Cell also sets out the Government’s view that the Muslims might consent to the demolition/shifting of the mosque.

The Special Cell held the VHP evidence overwhelming and also had irrefutable evidence that under Islamic practices mosques can be shifted and are being shifted in other countries

6.11. This compilation and summary by the Government was made at the re-start of the negotiations in October 1992. Further evidence that came to light as the result of new excavations in June and July 1992 does not form part of this compilation and summary. However, the Special Cell headed by Shri Naresh Chandra did not limit its investigation to the facts and evidence presented by VHP and AIBMAC. It extended its search further to collect evidence on the Islamic practices regarding demolition and removal of mosques. But the assessment of the core group about the relative worth of the evidence of VHP and AIBMAC and the material collected by them about Islamic practices on removal of mosques, have been held back from the public by the Government. The situation would have been entirely different if the Government had been candid enough to confront the AIBMAC with their assessment of evidence and material collected on Islamic practices on shifting of mosques, or if the Government had chosen to take the public into confidence. The Government did neither. But it is not that no one was aware of the inside story. The Special Cell had come to three conclusions.

* First, the evidence regarding the existence of the temple was “overwhelming”.

* Second, the abandonment, demolition and removal of mosques was in accordance with several schools of the Shariat.

* Third, the abandonment, demolition and removal of mosques was a frequent occurence in several Islamic countries.

The Special Cell had expressed these views to many eminent persons who had met the officials.

The officials stop talking, even in private

6.12. A report in the Indian Express, from Delhi published on 3.10.1992 indicated that the AIBMAC had taken note of the statements made by the Special Cell and protested. The report reads:

“In their meeting with the Prime Minister, the AIBMAC also expressed misgivings about the statements made by some officials of the cell set up by the Prime Minister.”

The AIBMAC had given sufficient indication as to what the Government was not to do - it asked the Government not to disclose its view in the matter. And the Government did not disclose it, not even in private.

Thus, evidence that could solve the issue which was collected and which was available for decision making, was not used, as the Narasimha Rao Government lacked the will to govern by truth, and instead pursued the line of appeasement and electoral designs in dealing with the Ayodhya issue.