Its efforts at negotiating a solution to the temple-mosque dispute have been rebuffed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which accuses it of "betraying" Hindus to Muslims! The temple issue, which once united Hindutva streams, now divides them.

Archaeological excavation at Ayodhya hasn't produced evidence that a Hindu temple existed where the Babri mosque stood.

The Archaeological Survey of India -- which reports to a government led by Hindutva zealots like Messrs L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, themselves charged in the Babri demolition case -- has submitted two new "status reports".

These too show no evidence of a pre-existing temple. If there was one, its structural remains would have been found beneath the mosque's floor. The only pre-Babri structures found are brick walls and lime (chuna)-plastered floors, characteristic of medieval Islamic practices.

According to leading historian Irfan Habib and eminent archaeologist Suraj Bhan, "matters have become definitively clear" with the ASI's latest reports. Its 55 new trenches cover the entire mosque complex and much of the surrounding area, including spots next to the Ramlalla canopy.

Yet, say the experts and associates like Supriya Verma and Jaya Menon, who closely observed the excavation as litigants' nominees: "In trench after trench, no structural remains below the mosque's floor level have been found...

[Those] found in some trenches are all related to construction associated with the [Babri] mosque."

Much fuss was made about "pillar bases" of a hypothetical temple. But only seven were found in six (of 100-plus) trenches, without alignment. They are not load-bearing or associated with any Hindu architectural tradition. They couldn't have been a temple's components.

The experts quoted above say the Devanagari inscription, about which Outlook magazine (June 2) made a hullabaloo, was made in was a computer-manipulated image, which is "quite modern. [The letters] read napala du rabh, with no resemblance to the word swaahom followed by word Ram, as alleged."

The pervasive presence of animal bones with cut-marks, glazed ware, and finds with "Arabic inscriptions of holy verses", and the "absence of even a trace of anything" indicating a temple's remains, suggest that no temple pre-dated the Babri mosque at the site.

There is powerful evidence that underneath the Babri lay another mosque from the (pre-Mughal) Sultanate period. "The Babri Masjid structure was superimposed on a pre-existing mosque constructed out of stones and plastered over with lime mortar, plastering being an art brought in by Muslims," says Professor Bhan.

Also found under the Babri structure was graves. Underlying the Ram chabutra was a hauz (water-reservoir) with a lime-plastered floor. Most other "antiquities" were glazed pottery, pestles, bones, etc., which point to a temple's non-existence.

The ASI's excavation was excessive: professional archaeologists would have dug just four trenches around the Babri structure, in place of the 100-plus. In archaeology, more isn't better. The sole evidence of a pre-existing temple has to be its structure -- plinth, base, walls, etc. This is absent.

The VHP's temple claim is based neither on facts nor any scriptural authority. It's based on invented, irrational faith.

Millions of people were taken for a ride by Hindutva fanatics -- like medieval mobs who would hunt witches on mere suspicion. The entire Ayodhya movement was driven by revenge for "past wrongs". Its divisive politics was meant to spread hatred and lynch people.

The VHP, true to type, says Ayodhya is a matter of faith. It demands a grand temple must be built at Ayodhya; a mosque can only be built 10 km away. But the Jama Masjid already exists, 1.5 km away, as do other mosques!

The VHP rejects the Kanchi Shankaracharya's "compromise" formula because he is a Shaivite whereas Rama belongs to the Vaishnavite tradition. The formula envisages building a temple and mosque close to each other, and dropping the Mathura-and-Kashi issue altogether.

The Shankaracharya is acting on behalf of the government, as he did in March 2002. The compromise's timing is no coincidence; it comes just when an adverse court verdict is likely.

However, the VHP is bent upon dictating terms: the temple must be built where we demand it -- courts, facts, historians, can go to hell. It's arrogating to itself the right to speak for 820 million Hindus.

This has soured BJP-VHP relations. VHP working president Ashok Singhal says it won't give up claims on Mathura and Kashi -- although Parliament in 1991 froze the 1947 status of all religious monuments (barring the Babri mosque).

The VHP has no respect for the law of the land, leave alone tolerance. However, it couldn't have become the monster it has without the BJP's active support and collusion.

It's a bit late in the day for Mr Vajpayee to say that the temple issue should be free from party politics. It's the BJP which politicised it first. Mr Vajpayee himself declared the Ayodhya campaign a "national movement". The various forces involved in the Babri demolition are indulging in finger-pointing, while evading responsibility.

The time has come for a clean, principled approach to Ayodhya. No single spiritual-religious organisation has the authority to decide this complex issue.

An honourable, equitable compromise on Ayodhya alone can win Muslim confidence. If Hindutva forces remain intransigent, the courts alone must be left to deal with it.

Eightyfive percent of Muslims, according to an Outlook survey, don't want to gift the Ayodhya land to the Hindus, without an assurance on the mosque's rebuilding. An unfair settlement shouldn't be imposed on them.

When social negotiation breaks down, and political leaders fail, the law alone can resolve disputes. Parliament legislation is no substitute for judicial determination.

There must be no humiliating, dishonourable, unjust compromise, which erases the crime committed against Indian people in December 1992.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.