From: bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar)
Subject: Re: BM-RJB issue (more developments)
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:36:35 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.232704@IASTATE.EDU> jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed Ahmed Khan) writes:
>
>I found this in misc.news.southasia. 
>
>From	: S.Ramani 
>Source	: The Times of India (Bombay), Date Oct 5, 1992
>Country	: India 

>* Neutral Experts Flay Govt, VHP (Talks on Shrine)
>
>  Prasun Sonwalkar
>  Times of India News Service (TOINS)
>  New Delhi, Oct 4
>
>The four independent historians and archaeologists who participated
>in yesterday's talks on the Ayodhya issue have reiterated their 
>demand for permission to scrutinise the primary records relating 
>to excavations carried in Ayodhya by Dr B B Lal in the late 70s. 

Dinesh, in his response to the above posting, has told us about
the fallacious "neutrality" and "independence" of these so-called
historians and archeologists.

I think the point of planting this story in the press is to
pre-emptively shift the blame for the impending failure of 
the continuing VHP-BMAC talks on the VHP.

According to a knowledgeable source, the current status is still in
square one, and can be summarised as follows:

PVN Rao, hoping to be able to get something out of the VHP-BMAC
talks had asked the VHP for three months' time and had worked to
energize the talks initiated by Chandrashekhar when he was the
PM. But the BMAC's attitude is evident from a statement attributed
to Shahabuddin in which he had said that there is no point in 
continuing with the talks since both sides know each other's stand.

The talks are doomed to fail and VHP has announced that it will 
continue with the construction at the end of the three month period.
PVN appears to be serious in getting the dispute resolved but seems
to have run out of ideas. He is reported to have had a meeting with Mr. 
Sompura, the famous architect who had designed the plans for the
new RJB temple. The speculation is that PVN has asked him to examine
the possibility of modifying the design such that the old Babri
structure does not need to be demolished. According to Ashok Singhal,
the Babri structure has got to go. The Congress is party is divided 
into two strong camps on this issue. One led by Arjun Singh
has alligned its position completely with that of the BMAC. This
seems to be guided by Arjun Singh's plans to keep the Muslim vote 
bank in *his* pocket. The other group is of UP Congressmen and is
insisting that if Hindu sentiment is not respected at this time
on this issue, Congress may as well write off the important UP 
state for many many years to come.

Javed Habib of BMAC had said that the Muslims should seek a 
negotiated settlement of the RJB issue and had criticized Pakistan
for passing a resolution on this issue. Most of the Urdu press,
apparently under pressure from the fundamentalist section, has
criticized Javed Habib for being weak in negotitaing with the
VHP. According to this press, the Muslims of India have the right
to criticize Israeli occupation of Al-Aksa mosque and the Muslims
of any other country have the right to interfere in the RJB issue.


Well, thats all for now.


---raj