4.1 - The Prime Minister held a meeting with the religious leaders on the 23rd of July and was able to persuade them to stop the construction work. In this meeting the Prime Minister assured them that the efforts initiated by the previous Government for a negotiated settlement of the dispute would be revived and, if necessary, the pending litigation on this issue would be consolidated and considered by a single judicial authority whose decision would be binding on all parties. Prime Minister pointed out that this would require a fairly elaborate exercise oa the part of Government and indicated that it could be completed in about four months’ time.

4.2 - Consequent on the meeting between the Prime Minister and the religious leaders the construction activity at the site stopped on the 26th of July. Separately the Supreme Court also took notice of the construction work in its proceedings on 22nd and 23rd of July and reiterated that the existing orders of the High Court and Supreme Court had the effect of restraining the parties from undertaking any construction on this land.

Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament

4.3 - Prime Minister made a statement in both Houses of Parliament on the 27th of July, 1992 covering these developments. A copy of the statement is at Appendix IX.

Constitution of Ayodhya Cell

4.4 - In terms of an announcement made by the Prime Minister a special Cell on Ayodhya was setup in the Prime Minister's Office. One of the major tasks before this Cell was to collect all documents relating to the previous negotiations, to authenticate them and to examine them to cull out the points made by either side. These documents, running into several hundred pages, were collected by the Cell, authenticated by comparison with the originals to the extent possible and analysed. Based on this analysis summaries of the cases sought to be established by the two sides were prepared.

4.5 - The other major task before the Cell was to ootain copies of plaints, petitions, replies, affidavits, orders and other documents of suits, writs and other petitions pending bofore the High Court and Supreme Court. This was not easy as the Union of India was not a party to most of these proceedings. Special
arrangements were therefore necessary to obtain copies of all the relevant records. Arrangements were also made for obtaining day to day information of current proceedings in the courts.

Consultations with different individuals and groups

4.6 - The Prime Minister followed up his meeting of July 23rd with the religious leaders with over one hundred consultations with different individuals and groups in the months of August and September. These included representatives of the parties directly involved in the dispute as well as political, religious and social organisations interested in finding a solution of the problem. These consultations were exploratory in nature and were aimed at obtaining an assessment of the spectrum of views held by different people, their positions on the dispute and their proposals for a solution. This assessment, coupled with the spade work done by the Ayodhya Cell went a long way in setting the stage for the resumption of the negotiations.

4.7 - As the solution of a problem like this needed a national effort by all, the Prime Minister addressed letters to heads of all recognised political parties informing them of the proposed resumption of negotiations and seeking their support and cooperation. Text of the letter it at Appendix-IX.

Resumption of negotiations

4.8 - The negotiations between the AIBMAC and the VIP, resumed with the first meeting on 3rd October, 1992 which was held under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Minister. Both the organisations responded favourably to the invitation. The meeting were attended by the office bearers and representatives of these organisations as well as by historical and archaeological experts nominated by them.

4.9 - This meeting picked up the thread of the negotiations where it was let off in February, 1991. The statement of case of the VHP presented on 24th February, 1991 and the report of historians by the AIBMAC presented in May, 1991 were exchanged between the two sides and it was decided that they would respond to them. A questionnaire was addressed by the VHP to the AIBMAC. A resolution was unanimously adopted in this meeting urging the continuation of the negotiations and calling upon the two sides to furnish further evidence and written appraisal of the evidence presented by the other side. The date for the next meeting was fixed and it was agreed that the two sides would maintain peace while the negotiations were on.

Second meeting between VHP and AIBMAC on 16th October, 1992

4.10 - In the second meeting on 16th October, 1992 the AIBMAC presented a questionnaire addressed to the VHP. Several decisions aimed at making the negotiations more purposeful were taken in this meeting. The cut-off date of October 23, 1992 was fixed for giving written opinions on the material and the evidence presented upto 16th October to the Government. The same cut-off date was made applicable to the submission of fresh evidence. It was agreed that copies of material and evidence furnished
by either side by this date would be made available to the other side by 24th October, 1992. The final cut-off date of 29th October, 1992 was fixed for furnishing of comments on the evidence submitted by 23rd October. The date for the next meeting was not fixed, but it was accepted that there would be another meeting, the date for which would be announced by the Government.

4.11 - Two controversies relating to archaeology and history were raised in this meeting. The VHP objected to the historians nominated by the AIBMAC describing themselves as “independent”. The VHP historians struck to their stand that the report given by the nominees of the AIBMAC in May, 1991 could not, therefore, be considered as the statement of case by AIBMAC and hence VHP was not bound to respond to it. The other controversy related to the excavations conducted by Prof. BB Lal at Ayodhya. in 1975-1980. According to VHP he had discovered a series of pillar bases in the vicinity of the RJB-BM structure; a finding which, according to VHP, supported its claim. The AIBMAC, however, challenged the authenticity of this finding as the historians nominated by it had not been allowed to verify the original
record and material relating to this excavation.

4.12 - The first controversy was settled when AIBMAC formally adopted the report of May, 1991 by the historians nominated by it and VHP agreed that it would respond to it.

4.13 - The second controversy was settled by giving experts of both sides an opportunity to examine the original record as decided in this netting. The material relating to the excavations conducted by Prof. Lal including photographs, drawings, pottery, register of antiquities etc. was made available to the experts of both sides in the offices of ASI on 23rd October, 1992. The experts of both sides examined the material aand gave their comment to the Government by 29th of October.

Developments between 23rd October and 8th November, 1992

4.14 - As decided in the meeting of 16th October, both sides furnished their statement of case and comments on the evidence furnished by the other side to the Government by 29th of October.

4.15 - Government, in consultation with the two sides, fixed the date of the next meeting as 8th November, 1992. Crucial decisions were expected from this meeting as the work of presentation of evidence and offering comments on it was over. Meanwhile, however, a meeting of the Kendriya Margdarshak Mandal of the VHP was held in New Delhi on 29th of October followed by a Dharma Sansad on the 30th and 31st of October, 1992. An announcement was made on behalf of VHP calling for the resumption of the kar seva with effect from 6th of December, 1992.

Meeting on 8th November, 1992

4.16 - Both the AIBMAC and VHP delegations attended the meeting on 8th November, 1992. AIBMAC circulated a letter protesting against the announcement of kar seva from 6th December and said that the negotiations would be meaningless unless this announcement was withdrawn. The VHP was not willing to consider any change in its programme of resumption of kar seva. Because of the rigidity exhibited at this meeting, it was considered advisable to adjourn the meeting and pursue the matter in separate meetings with both groups.

Consultations after 8th November, 1992

4.17 A series of meetings were held with representatives of the VHP, AIBMAC, the leaders of BJP and the CM of UP to narrow down the differences. When these failed, attempts were made to get an agreement on a reference to Supreme Court on the contentious issues. Alternatives of making this reference under article 138(2) of the Constitution as well as under article 143 were put forth by the Government. Adjudication of the dispute by the Supreme Court under articles 139 and 142 of the Constitution was also suggested. There was no agreement even on these suggestions. The Government of UP, in particular, refused to give its consent under article 13 (2) for enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Meeting of NIC on 23rd November, 1992

4.18 A meeting of the National Integration Council was held on 3rd November, 1992. The BJP and the VHP boycotted this meeting. The members of the NIC passed a resolution supporting the Government in the action to be taken by it for upholding the Constitution and the rule of law and in preventing the contempt of the Court's order. A copy of this resolution is at Appendix-XI.