NEW DELHI: The process of a negotiated settlement of the Ayodhya tangle suffered a serious setback on Nov.8 when the third round of talks between the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) abruptly ended with the latter urging the Government to clarify its stand on the December 6 kar seva.

Though both sides went for the meeting along with their respective experts the discussion could not start as the AIBMAC leaders registered a strong protest with the Government over the purpose of continuing the dialogue in view of the VHP determination to go ahead with the kar seva program.

Defence Minister Sharad Pawar who represented the Government side admitted that the talks had “derailed.” He however suggested that the both sides meet the Prime Minister separately to find a way out.

Taking a tough posture on the proposed kar seva at Ayodhya the Government on the other hand expressed its determination to protect the Constitution and prevent any violation of the rule of law. After the tripartite talks abruptly ended Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs P.R.Kumaramangalan told reporters that it had already been conveyed to AIBMAC leadership that no group or organization would be allowed to violate the law.

“Any Government is bound to protect the Constitution and the Government will do its best” he said. The minister sought to dismiss the notion that the Government was approaching the problem without a clear direction.

With both parties to the dispute refusing to budge from their respective positions an uncertainty is now hanging over the negotiation process Commenting on the future of the dialogue AIBMAC leader Zafaryab Dilani said “negotiations are possible only if they (VHP) agree to call off the kar seva.”

The AIBMAC demanded that the restart of the kar seva be postponed as it was “in clear defiance of the orders of the high court.” The AIBMAC note to the Government stated that unless the kar seva was postponed “there remains no utility and purpose of the negotiations between the AIBMAC and VHP.”

VHP secretary general Ashok Singhal however accused the Government of “connivance” with AIBMAC to discontinue the talks. He said that it had been made clear to the Government at the beginning of the negotiation process that the kar seva and talks were two different processes independent of each other.

Singhal said that the talks “solely aimed at collection and evaluation of evidence adduced by either party on the central issue whether there had existed a Hindu structure at the site where the mosque was constructed in 1528.” He however denied that the talks had broken down. But he emphasized that the decision to resume kar seva on December 6 is irrevocable.

Kumaramangalam said the Government was optimistic that the dialogue would continue. The Prime Minister is likely to meet both sides separately in the next few days to end the deadlock.

Asked about the AIBMAC options if the VHP refused to postpone kar seva Jilani said that in that case they would appeal to all the secular parties including the Congress to “face the challenge which is more to the nation than to the Muslims.”

Singhal said that the talks provided the Muslim leadership “a golden opportunity” to withdraw their claim to the disputed structure on the basis of the evidence submitted by the VHP.

Four historians associated with the tripartite talks on the Ayodhya issue on Sunday expressed “shock and dismay” over the abrupt postponement of the deliberations on the Ayodhya issue and said the recent announcement of kar seva from December 6 was “designed to scuttle the talks.”

“Although we have been trying our best to persuade the VHP to see reason and the reality of history they are not prepared to reside from their position even if the absence of the temple at the Babri Masjid site is proved to the satisfaction of competent historians archaeologists and others” they said

Although the Babri Committee was prepared to withdraw its claim to the mosque it was proved that it was constructed after the demolition of the temple the VHP was not prepared to change its position in the reverse case the historians said in a joint statement.

They said they had already exposed the myth of the “new archaeological discoveries as publicized by the VHP.

Article extracted from this publication >> November 20, 1992