A new book examines how past governments handled the demand for a Ram Janmabhoomi temple

सबहि नचावै राम गुसाईं

Lord Ram makes everyone dance to His will.

When Vishwanath Pratap Singh quit the Rajiv Gandhi government in protest against the Bofors scandal, it was almost certain that the Congress rule would collapse. In 1989, the BJP decided to go for the polls with the Jan Morcha, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee was given the responsibility to come to a consensus about the distribution of seats. His colleague Govindacharya, the party’s chief organisational secretary, looked after the finer points of the negotiations. The government was formed. The VHP had, by then, decided the date for the karseva programme for the Ram temple construction: October 30, 1990. A meeting of all the associate organisations of the Sangh was organised for the allocation of responsibilities.

Senior journalist Ram Bahadur Rai says, “Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh could understand the politics of the Sangh Parivar and the BJP on the Ayodhya issue, and that is why he pulled out a trump card. Devi Lal was applying pressure from the other side. In such a scenario, on August 7, 1990, Singh announced the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, and he did not find it necessary to consult the coalition partners, the BJP and the Left parties.”

Govindacharya, who had been the chief secretary of the BJP, says, “The temple issue had almost reached the resolution stage during the VP Singh government. The prime minister had proposed that political parties should keep themselves away from this issue and that attempts should be made to find a solution to this matter through non-political people from both communities. The proposal suggested handing the disputed site and place to a new Hindu Trust, requiring it to build a temple without touching the disputed site, and to build a wall between the temple and the disputed site. Singh had given this responsibility to the then-governor of Andhra Pradesh, Krishan Kant, and he was told to garner support for the matter. Krishan Kant proposed that they make Jayendra Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, the head of the new Trust. Krishan Kant also had arranged for a meeting between the main petitioner, Ali Miyan, and Jayendra Saraswati. Moreover, he also had deliberations with Vishwesha Tirtha Swami.”

On the other hand, the prime minister appointed S Gurumurthy as the mediator for this discussion, and Gurumurthy put forward a three-point programme. Three days later, acting as the prime minister’s emissary, he met George Fernandes and P Upendra and informed them that the central government was ready to issue an ordinance on the Ram temple issue. That same evening, the prime minister called Govindacharya and Additional Solicitor General Arun Jaitley and discussed the consequences of accepting the three-point formula. They worked through the night and prepared the ordinance.

Singh also discussed the matter with Advani, but by the evening, the situation had shifted. A meeting was held at the prime minister’s residence, attended by Gurumurthy, Jaitley, George Fernandes, Arun Nehru, Ajit Singh and Dinesh Goswami. Along with the proposed ordinance, the central government imposed a condition: the VHP must drop its demands concerning the religious sites in Mathura and Kashi. The Muslim faction had agreed to the construction of the temple, but the VHP pulled back as its leaders were unwilling to abandon the Kashi and Mathura issues. In light of the stalemate, the decision to issue the ordinance was ultimately shelved. Bilateral talks resumed during Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar’s tenure (November 10, 1990–June 21, 1991).

On 1 December 1990, members of the Babri Masjid Action Committee and the VHP representatives held a meeting. The VHP’s delegation comprised Vishnu Hari Dalmia, Badriprasad Toshniwal, Shrish Chandra Dikshit, Moropant Pingle, Kaushal Kishore, Bhanupratap Shukla, Giriraj Kishore and Suryakrishna. A second round of discussions happened on December 4, 1990, attended by Minister of State for Home Affairs Subodh Kant Sahay, along with three leaders believed to be close to Chandra Shekhar: Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav, Maharashtra Chief Minister Sharad Pawar and Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhairon Singh Shekhawat.

The most significant achievement of Chandra Shekhar’s tenure was the attempt to resolve the conflict through rational dialogue. For the first time, the Archaeological Survey of India was brought into the discussion, allowing the matter to be approached through evidence-based inquiry. When the central government under Narasimha Rao assumed power, Subodh Kant Sahay, who was not a member of the Congress at the time, received an unexpected phone call from the prime minister. Rao asked whether he would help initiate the mediation process yet again. Sahay accepted his request. Under his guidance, a significant meeting was convened, attended by Sharad Pawar and Chimanbhai Patel from the Congress, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia from the BJP, the Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid, and leaders from Hindu organisations and other parties.

The primary objective of these meetings was to assuage the communal hysteria that was gripping the country. According to Sahay, the core issue during mediation was not whether the Ram temple should be built. Rather, the parties debated how they should build it – through consensus and mutual respect or through confrontation – and what process they should follow. On the evening of October 2, 1992, a crucial meeting was underway at Vigyan Bhavan in Lutyens’ Delhi, attended by the key stakeholders in the Ram temple issue: the chief minister, senior officers and political leaders. Subodh Kant Sahay had hoped for a concrete resolution. However, everything changed with a piece of news. Hindu organisations had announced a karseva at Ayodhya on December 6 during a meeting held at the nearby Ramlila Maidan.

Attendees questioned the utility of their efforts given the unilateral announcements. Consequently, an official meeting held on December 9 decided that all related parties should submit their opinions in writing to the home ministry. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Congress government introduced an ordinance in January 1993, which the BJP had opposed. President Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma assented to the ordinance that same month. Home Minister SB Chavan then presented the ordinance in the Lok Sabha, and the “Ayodhya Act” was passed. This legislation allowed the central government to acquire the 67.7 acres of land surrounding the disputed site.

The Rao government, under Article 143 of the Constitution, sought the Supreme Court’s counsel on whether a pre-existing Hindu temple or structure stood at the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid disputed site. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices MN Venkatachaliah, JS Verma, AM Ahmadi, and SP Bharucha, deliberated on it but declined to offer an opinion. On January 7, 1993, the erstwhile president specifically asked the Supreme Court: Was there a Hindu religious structure or a temple that was demolished before Babur constructed the mosque in 1528 in Ayodhya? The Supreme Court sought clarification from the central government regarding the president’s question.

In September 1994, the Solicitor General stated in his affidavit: “If the answer to the president’s question comes out to be positive, that the disputed structure was built after destroying a Hindu temple or a Hindu structure, then the Government of India will act according to the feelings of the Hindu community. If the answer is negative – that is, there was no Hindu temple or structure before 1528 – the Government of India’s actions would be in line with the emotions of the Muslim community.”

A senior Sangh leader affirmed, “The President’s question is the central point of the entire controversy. This is the only way the ownership of the disputed site can be decided.” To find an answer to the president’s question, the Allahabad High Court in 2003 commissioned radar photography of the land near the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya. A Canadian expert executed the assignment, reporting that the remains of a building were visible deep under the ground.

The matter resurfaced during the NDA government in 2001. VHP leader Ashok Singhal and Mahant Ramchandra Das Paramhans of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas renewed pressure again on the Vajpayee government. Prime Minister Vajpayee responded by creating a dedicated cell within the PMO for the assignment, with Ashok Saikia appointed to lead it. Shatrughna Singh, a retired IAS officer of the UP cadre, headed the unit, which had a space in the PMO and Vigyan Bhavan. This cell prepared a proposal for the prime minister, outlining three potential avenues of resolving this conflict:

1. Hindus should be allowed to build the temple, and the mosque should be built at a designated spot a few kilometres away where the commander of Babur’s army had camped. However, this was contingent on giving up the demands for the temples in Kashi and Mathura.

2. The land of the disputed site should be divided into two equal parts.

3. A mosque should be built at Ara Ghar, at a short distance from the disputed site on land that had already been acquired by the government.

Vajpayee received all the information about this in February 2002, but offered no reaction during the meeting. The organisations associated with the Babri Masjid did not pursue the matter further, and no progress was made on the issue.

In further investigating the photography report, the Allahabad High Court, in 2003, ordered the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the site. The excavation report confirmed the presence of a Hindu temple in the Uttar Pradesh style. Based on these scientific reports, the Allahabad High Court delivered its judgment on September 30, 2010. The three-judge bench comprising Justice D.V. Sharma, Justice SU Khan and Justice S Agarwal was split, with two in favour and one against. The bench determined that in the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit, Triloki Nath Pandey, who represented Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara, and the Sunni Waqf Board, should each be granted one-third of the disputed land and that all three should hold the title jointly. Justice Sharma was against awarding one-third of the land for the construction of the mosque.

The court dismissed the Waqf Board’s petition seeking permission to build the mosque on the disputed site, stating that the Ram Lalla Virajman should receive the land in the central part of the Babri Masjid, but ensuring that it would not inconvenience the other two sides. Furthermore, the land of the Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and the Bhandara was to be given to Nirmohi Akhara, implying that the outer parts of the land should go to the Hindus, as they had historically used that land for worship. The Waqf board should receive the remaining, but the portion must be no less than one-third the total area. To facilitate this, a portion of the land acquired by the government could also be utilised if necessary.

The key aspect of this judgment is the court’s acceptance of the Hindus’ claim that Lord Ram was born there. Justice Agarwal and Justice Sharma accepted that the original temple at the site had been demolished to build the Babri Masjid. Justice Khan, however, argued that the mosque was built on the site of a dilapidated temple that was in ruins, and some stones of that temple were used in its construction of the mosque. Justices Agarwal and Khan affirmed the existence of a mosque at the site until 1992, but Sharma disagreed that the disputed structure qualified as a mosque because he posited the construction violated Islamic traditions and beliefs, thus one could not consider it a mosque. The Supreme Court dismissed this judgment in its ruling on 9 November 2019.

Excerpted with permission from The RSS: 100 Years of the Indian Right, Vijai Trivedi, translated from the Hindi by Subha Pande, Westland.