Ramjanmabhumi: Hinduizing Politics and Militarizing Hindudom 131letter, RSS chief K. S. Sudarshan said, "There is no denying the fact that in
a democratic society we all have to accept the judicial verdict. But at the
same time, for the present and future amicable relations between the two
communities, it is most desirable to arrive at a mutual settlement on the
basis of any of the options offered by me in the earlier statement."^78 Con-
tradicting this spirit of supremacy of judicial verdict, the VHP declared
that the Ram-temple construction would commence after March 2001.
Later, the Margdarshak Mandal, the highest decision-making body of the
VHP, met on October 18-19, 2000, at Goa and adopted a resolution that
the date to start the Ram-temple construction would be announced by
the Dharma Sansad (religious leaders congregation) at the Maha Kumbh
to be held at Allahabad in January 2001. The VHP also decided to send its
activists to three lakh villages in the country to establish Ram Sankeertan
Mandals and collect letters in favor of temple construction.
Even as the special judge hearing the Babri Masjid demolition cases
fixed December 15, 2000, for further proceedings, the BJP compared the
"people's movement" led by L.K. Advani for building a Ram temple
that caused the demolition of the Babri Masjid and widespread death
and destruction to the "freedom movement led by Mahatma Gandhi and
other leaders like Lokmanya Tilak and Subhas Chandra Bose." Two BJP
members of Parliament (MPs), Swami Chinmayanand and Swami Aditya
Nath, commented in early December 2000 that the "only relevant issue
about Ayodhya that remains to be discussed is whether a temple should
be built at the disputed site or a mosque" and went on to claim that "there
was always a temple there, there is a temple there, and only a temple can
come up there." They argued "it was the responsibility of Parliament to
enact the law to allow building of the Ram temple."^79
Prime Minister Vajpayee himself said in an informal chat with reporters
on December 7, 2000, that there were two ways of resolving the Ayod-
hya issue: everyone accepting the possible court verdict, or Hindus and
Muslims arriving at a common decision. Articulating his party's age-old
formula, he added, "The mandir can be built where it already exists, the
masjid can be built on an alternative site."^80 On December 15, 2000, the
Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed in 1993 seeking direc-
tion to the central government and the UP government to permit Hindus
to perform worship and other religious rites at the disputed site. The court
rejected the petition, as the matter was sub judice before the Lucknow
bench of the court. As proof for the BJP-led government's undermining
and communalizing every section of the Indian society as well as the state,
the director of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) claimed
that the Babri Masjid had no religious significance and hence Muslims
should hand over the disputed site as a goodwill gesture to Hindus. If
that was not acceptable, the mosque could be relocated. However, "since
the location of Rama's birthplace cannot be changed, the temple cannot be
moved."^81