Ramjanmabhumi: Hinduizing Politics and Militarizing Hindudom 135temples allegedly destroyed under the Mughal rule or the 3,000 temples
on which mosques were built, but wanted only the three shrines in Ayod-
hya, Kashi, and Mathura. The RSS stated publicly on June 17, 2003, that
they backed the VHP stand of not giving up claims on Kashi and Mathura
and opposing the opening up of 1,000 mosques protected by the ASI for
Muslims to offer namaaz.
In a fresh bid to resolve the Ayodhya tangle, Kanchi sankaracharya Sri
Jayendra Saraswati sent new proposals to the AIMPLB through a letter
dated June 16, 2003. The board chairman, Maulana Rabey Hasni Nadwi,
said that the two-page formula was positive in nature to an extent and he
would place it before the 51-member working committee of the board on
July 6, 2003. The proposal had five points, including the AIMPLB giving
a no-objection statement for the construction of a temple on the undis-
puted land and a discussion on an amicable settlement over the disputed
area that could be given to the court for a final verdict. When the board
sought some clarifications, the sankaracharya sent another letter dated July
1, 2003.
Fearing that the VHP would be sidelined in the temple issue, the RSS
insisted that the VHP would have to be taken on board and that legislation
was the only way out. At the end of the two-day (July 5-6, 2003) national-
executive meeting, the RSS said that the construction of Ram temple at
Ayodhya was a matter of national self-respect and honor and that the
three temples at Ayodhya, Mathura, and Kashi should be restored on the
lines of the Somnath temple. Even as the RSS called the Muslim leaders to
respect Hindu sentiments, hardliners in the BMAC warned the AIMPLB
not to bargain over the original site of the mosque. The AIMPLB rejected
the Kanchi sankaracharya''s proposal, saying that the site of the Babri Mas-
jid was the property of Allah and could not be alienated by sale, gift, or
otherwise. The core of the proposal was an appeal to Indian Muslims to
"donate the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya" combined with veiled threats to
"prepare themselves for giving up the mosques at Kashi and Mathura."^90
In the meantime, the ASI said in its fresh progress report submitted to
the special bench of the Allahabad High Court that it had found "struc-
tural anomalies" in 46 of the 84 trenches dug near the disputed site at a
considerable depth. The Hindutva forces, however, were bent on bringing
in parliamentary legislation. In a meeting at the prime minister's residence
on July 12, 2003, the BJP leadership conveyed to RSS chief K.S. Sudar-
shan its inability to bring in any legislation because both its allies and the
opposition parties would be opposed to that. With elections round the cor-
ner, the party did not want to do anything that would unravel the NDA.
Moreover, both the National Agenda of Governance (NAG) adopted by
the coalition government in 1998 and the common NDA manifesto of 1999
were silent on the Ram-temple issue. Although the BJP had rejected judi-
cial verdict as a possible solution in its 1989 Palampur resolution, the party