MENDING FENCES: Singhal (left) is wooing the difficult allies in the NDA

Like so much else in India, understanding the Ayodhya dispute has become a convoluted geography lesson (see graphic). Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has sought the Law Ministry's opinion on the demand of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) that some of the 67 acres of land in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid environs be handed over to it to begin construction of a Ram temple.

The 67 acres of land was acquired by the Union government in January 1993. A 40 ft by 60 ft plot within this area constitutes the disputed spot on which the Babri masjid structure stood till December 6, 1992. Two-thirds of the rest of the 67 acres was owned by VHP-affiliated bodies and sundry individuals.

As per the VHP's blueprint for a grand 268.5 ft by 140 ft temple, the sanctum sanctorum will be at the disputed spot. The rest of the temple will obviously occupy part of the remaining 67 acres. While the title suit in regard to the disputed site is pending before the Allahabad High Court-the case dates back to 1950-the VHP says it may as well begin construction in the adjoining areas. It wants to do this from March 12, Shivratri.

AYODHYA

POSSIBLE SOPS > Allow 'meaningful' darshan of the deity > Hand over nearby shrines to the VHP > Expedite the judicial process and request the Allahabad HC to have daily hearings ayodhya complexities

On January 27, when the VHP and the sants who give it its direction came to Delhi for the culmination of their Chetavni Yatra (Warning March), they met Vajpayee, who wanted to ensure that the meeting was not seen as merely a BJP-VHP exchange. So he sought clearance from the nda Steering Committee for the meeting and asked the ruling coalition's convener, Defence Minister George Fernandes, to be there too.

Vajpayee talked tough with the VHP, telling it its demands were ill-timed given the threat of war with Pakistan. At Home Minister L.K. Advani's suggestion he agreed to refer the matter to Law Minister Arun Jaitley. Not quite satisfied, the VHP delegates roundly abused the Government at their public meeting a few hours later.

VHP chief Ashok Singhal changed tenor slightly by the middle of the week. On January 31, he told a press conference he was satisfied with what the prime minister was doing and helpfully pointed out that the court ruling stated "the adjacent area acquired vested absolutely in (the) Central government and there is no inhibition in transfer". He even praised NDA partners and non-BJP politicians like Mamata Banerjee and J. Jayalalithaa. There is also talk of mollifying N. Chandrababu Naidu, whose Telugu Desam Party is the most intractable NDA ally. Naidu is being spoken to "through religious figures close to him".

While it can be safely assumed that Jaitley's opinion will not be public knowledge until the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections conclude on February 21, legal circles are already debating whether the Government can hand over the land if it wants to.

The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, was deemed necessary, as per the statement of S.B. Chavan, then home minister, in the Lok Sabha "to maintain communal harmony" and "for setting up a complex which could be developed in a planned manner wherein a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library, museum and other suitable facilities can be set up".

The acquisition was challenged by several petitions. These were set aside by the Supreme Court in its "Ayodhya judgment" of October 1994. The apex court had said, "At a later stage when the exact area acquired which is needed, for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition, can be determined, it would not merely be permissible but also desirable that the superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner". The VHP argues there is nothing here to prevent the transfer of land.

Others argue the court had also said that, "The justification given for acquisition of the larger area including the property ... not disputed is that the same is necessary to ensure that the final outcome of adjudication should not be rendered meaningless by the existence of properties belonging to Hindus in the vicinity of the disputed structure in case Muslims are found entitled to the disputed site." Perhaps this is what Rajeev Dhawan, who appeared for the Babri Masjid Action Committee before the Supreme Court, meant when he termed any transfer as "against the spirit of the judgment".

The VHP's point is the Government need not define "vicinity" as 67 acres. It may have a legal point, though probably not a political one. As Abhishek Singhvi, lawyer and Congress spokesman puts it, "Neither the statute nor the Supreme Court verdict obliges any transfer of land. The conditions precedent to the transfer are more important because the Government has to make a comprehensive scheme of safeguards. The question is not legality but timing and whether it is at all apposite to do so given the past record of the potential transferee."

So what can the Government offer the VHP, which has threatened to start packing Ayodhya with Ram sevaks from February 23? A Government source hints that Singhal's demand for at least "a meaningful darshan of the deity" may be conceded. The Ram idol is worshipped from a distance and only designated priests have access to it. The Government may improve upon this.

Adjoining buildings like the Sakshi Gopal temple and Sita ki Rasoi-undisputedly Hindu shrines-could also be handed over to the VHP and its Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (Trust). Further, there is talk of expediting the painfully slow judicial proceedings in the title suit and requesting the Allahabad High Court to have daily hearings. "In seven years," as Singhal said, "only 22 witnesses have been examined."

That in a nutshell is the appeasement policy Vajpayee has worked out. The question: does the VHP want to be appeased? Wait for the Ides of March.