2.1 - At the centre of the RJB-BM dispute is the demand voiced by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its allied organisations for the restoration of a site said to be the birth place of Sri Ram in Ayodhya. Till 6th December, 1992 this site was occupied by the structure erected in 1528 by ‘Mir Baqi’ who claimed to have built it on orders of the first Mughal Emperor Babar. This structure has been described in the old Government records as Masjid Janmasthan, It is now commonly referred to as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid.

2.2 - The VHP and its allied organisations base their demand on the assertion that this site is the birth place of Sri Ram and a Hindu temple commemorating this site stood here till it was destroyed on Babar’s command and a Masjid was erected in its place. The demand of the VHP has found support from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site, after removal or relocation of the existing structure, was a major plank in BJP’s campaign during elections held in 1989 and 1991. Other major political parties, however, had generally opposed this demand and had taken the stand that while a temple should be built, the issues in dispute should be resolved either by negotiations or by orders of the Court.

2.3 - During the negotiations aimed at finding an amicable solution to the dispute, one issue which came to the fore was whether a Hindu temple had existed on the site occupied by the disputed structure and whether it was demolished on Babar’s orders for the construction of the Masjid. It was stated on behalf of the Muslim organisations, as well as by certain eminent historians, that there was no evidence in favour of either of these two assertions. It was also stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily handover the disputed shrine to the Hindus. Naturally, this became the central issue in the negotiations between the VHP and AIBMAC.

Evidence produced during the negotiations

2.4 - The VHP has cited a number of British accounts such as gazetteers, survey reports etc. of the 19th and 20th century to support the assertion that a temple existed on the disputed spot and it was destroyed under orders of Babar. Writings of some Muslim historians of the 19th century have also been cited to support this assertion. The AIBMAC nominees have rejected this evidence by arguing that the British accounts have been motivated by their policy of ‘divide and rule’ and that the accounts of Muslim historians of 19th century are not based on any contemporary source and are tainted by a communal outlook and false bravado. AIBMAC has therefore stressed the need to look into contemporary accounts to establish the truth of the matter and has pointed out that available contemporary accounts, such as Ramcharitamanas of Tulsi Dass, make no mention of the destruction of a temple.

2.5 - VHP has cited certain 18th century documents including an account of an Austrian Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who visited Ayodhya between 1766-1771 AD. The authenticity of this account has not been challenged by historians nominated by the AIBMAC, but they have argued that the account of Tieffenthaler merely records a popular myth in its early phase of creation.

2.6 - There was a minor battle in this part of Ayodhya (Kot Ram Chandra) in 1855 in which a large number of casualties had taken place. A 3-man inquiry report of this incident is available on the records of the East India Company (and a copy is in the National Archives).

2.7 - At some stage during the history of the RJB-BM structure a portion of its compound was occupied by Hindu structures of worship, viz., Ram Chabutra and Kaushalya Rasoi. The presence of these structures is marked in court documents relating to a suit filed by Mahant Raghuvar Dass in 1885. These structures were in existencs till December 6, 1992. There are indications that these structures were considerably older but the evidence on this point is not conclusive. Some Survey records of 1807-14 have come to notice in which the disputed site has been marked as 'Yanmasthan’, i.e., Janmasthan.

2.8 - It is also established that the dispute between Hindus and Muslims over this structure led to communal riots in 1934 in which the structure suffered some damage which was later repaired.

2.9 - The structure and its appurtenant land were notified as a Sunni Muslim Wakf in 1944. The validity of this notification has been called into question in court procecdings.

2.10 - The Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure contained some architectural elements, particularly fourteen black stone pillars that were said to be part of a non-Islamic religious structure of 11th-12th century AD. The VHP argued that this constituted evidence that the disputed structure was built after destruction of a temple. The AIBMAC, however, argued that there was nothing to suggest that all these architectural elements belonged to a single structure standing at this very site. These could have belonged to different structures in other areas.

2.11 - The excavations undertaken in 1975-80 by the Archaeological Survey of India had brought out some relevant data and antiquities. The concerned photographs, section drawings, and antiquities were also shown to historians and archaeologists nominated by the AIMBAC and VHP on 23-10-1992. The two sides continued to draw diametrically opposite conclusions from the same set of evidence.

2.12 - The historical debate has thus remained inconclusive although much progress has been made in identifying the areas of agreement and difference. Conclusive findings can be obtained only by way of reference to a competent authority. However, as brought out elsewhere in this Paper the negotiations were disrupted at a crucial phase. Now, the entire evidence has disappeared along with the disputed structure. It is tragic and ironical that the Ram Chabutra and Kaushalya Rasoi, which continued as places of worship during periods of Muslim and British rule have disappeared along with the RJB-BM structure at the hands of people professing to be ‘devotees’ of Lord Ram.

Placing of Ido!s in the disputed structure

2.13 - As has been mentioned above, Hindu structures of worship already existed in the outer courtyard of the RJB-BM structure. On the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949, however, Hindu idols were placed under the central dome of the main structure. Worship of these idols was started on a big scale from the next morning. As this was likely to disturb the public peace, the civil administration attached the premises under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was the starting point of aa whole chain of events which ultimately led to the demolition of the structure. The main events of this chain have been summarised in Appendix-I.

2.14 - Soon after the installation of the idols two civil suits were filed by Hindu plaintiffs seeking to restrain the Administration from removing the idols from the disputed structure or placing any restrictions in the way of devotees intending to offer worship. Interim injunctions were issued by the civil court tothis effect. These injunctions were confirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 1955.

2.15 - The Hindu idols thus continued inside the disputed structure since 1949. Worship of these idols by Hindus also continued without interruption since 1949 and the structure was not used by the Muslims for offering prayers since then. The controversy remained at a low ebb till 1986 when the District Court of Faizabad ordered opening of the lock placed on a grill leading to the sanctum-sanctorum of the shrine. An organisation called the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC), seeking restoration of the disputed shrine to the Muslims came into being and launched a protest movement. The Hindu organisations, on the ocher hand, stepped un their activities to mobilise public opinion for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site.

2.16 - In 1989, the VHP started a country-wide movement for collection of consecrated bricks (Ram Shilas) in Ayodhya from all over the country. In November, 1989, the VHP laid the foundation stone of the proposed temple at a spot in front of the disputed structure. According to report of local officers and legal opinion available at that time this spot did not form part of the land involved in litigation. Earlier to that, an agreement was also signed (on 27-9-1989) in which the VHP undertook “to abide by the directive of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court given on 14-8-1989 to the effect that the parties to the suits shall maintain the status quo and shall not change the nature of the property in question..” A copy of this agreement is at Appeadix-II.

2.17 - The communal situation in the country deteriorated considerably in 1990 because of the tension generated from this dispute. Towards Octcber, 1990, a programme of construction of the temple through kar seva was announced by the VHP. It was apprehended that this programme would cause damage to the disputed structure and elaborate arrangements for its security were made. Despite these arrangements, some volunteers of VHP managed to cause minor damage to the domes of the shrine on 30th October, 1990. Police and para-military forces had to open fire to control the crowd of Kar Sevaks seeking to storm the disputed shrine on 30th Oct. and 2nd Nov. 1990. As per official records, 16 persons died in the firing.

2.18 - Following an initiative by the then Prime Minister Shri Chandrashekhar, the VHP and the AIBMAC met across the table in December, 1990 for talks. These negotiations were chaired by Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, the then Minister of State for Home Affairs. Shri Sharad Pawar (the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra), Shri B.S. Shekhawat (the then Chief Minister of Rajasthan) and Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav (the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) also participated in the meetings.

The following meetings were held :

(i) The first meeting between the VHP and the AIBMAC was held at Maharashtra Sadan on 1 December 1990. Though inconclusive, the meeting decided to continue the dialogue.

(ii) On 4 December 1990, the two sides met again in the Maharashtra Sadan and agreed to exchange papers on 22 December 1990 in support of their respective claims.

(iii) After the exchange of papers, the third meeting was held on 10 January 1991 where the papers were discussed. It was agreed that the papers submitted by tho VHP and the AIBMAC may be divided into four groups as follows :

(a) Historical;

(b) Archaeological;

(c) Revenue; and

(d) Legal.

It was also resolved that these papers should be examined by experts on the subject whose names would be submitted by both parties by 17 January 1991 and the meeting of the experts would start work from 24 January 1991. Both sides, accordingly, nominated their panel of experts.

(iv) The nominated experts met on 24 January 1991 under the Chairmanship of Shri Subodh Kant Sahay. At the outset, almost all the experts clarified that though they had been nominated by a particular group they would be true to their knowledge and profession without taking any sides. The experts were divided into four sub-groups as resolved in the previous meeting. The sub-groups discussed the matters in a most cordial atmosphere but they could not reach any mutually agreed conclusions. The discussions were to continue the next day but on account of some communication gap, the meeting could not take place.

(v) The next meeting was held on 6th February, 1991 and a resolution was adopted requesting the Government to attest the documents submitted by both sides by comparing them against the originals. Both sides also accepted that they would give written comments on the material presented upto that stage to the Government.

No further talks took place between the parties as the situation changed with the announcement of General Elections to the Lok Sabha (House of the People).

2.19 - At a later date, i.e. 13 May 1991, a group of four historians submitted a report to the Government. These four historians were the ones who had participated in the negotiations as nominees of the AIBMAC.

2.20 - List of the papers exchanged between the two sides is at Appendix-III.