In an amazingly bizarre twist to the seemingly endless and tortuous judicial process to decide ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya that has been the subject of much controversy since the mid-1980s, the Supreme Court has suggested a "negotiated" resolution of the problem that has vexed successive Governments and well-intentioned individuals.Hindus believe Sri Ram was born, and a temple stood commemorating his birth, on this plot of land in the holy town of Ayodhya before being destroyed in 1527 by the marauding army of the Mughal invader Babur, and the building of a mosque, Babri Masjid, at the site with the ruins of the mandir. Muslims fiercely contest this claim.The dispute has played out over centuries in the realm of courts, politics and society -- at the local, regional and national levels. Given the sentiments and sensitivities attached to the contesting claims, politicians, administrators and judges have simply passed on the proverbial 'hot potato' to their successors.The first communal clashes, as per extant records, over the ownership of what was later to be referred as Plot Number 583 in land records, was in 1853. Three years later, Awadh was annexed by the East India Company. In 1859, British administrators installed fences at the disputed site, demarcating areas for Hindus to worship and Muslims to pray.That arrangement came to an end nearly a hundred years later in 1949 when an idol of Ram Lalla, baby Ram, 'miraculously' appeared under the central dome of Babri Masjid. Hindus insisted this was the sanctum sanctorum of the temple that once stood there; it was Ram Janmasthan, the very spot where Sri Ram was born. Muslims vehemently refuted it.Civil suits staking claim and counter-claim to the land were swiftly filed in the local court. The district administration responded by putting locks on the doors and ordering status quo to be maintained. Meanwhile, in 1961 a case was filed against the "forcible occupation of Babri Masjid". With that, the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara became the main litigants. Later, the Hindu Maha Sabha was to implead itself on behalf of Sri Ram, the presiding deity.In 1986 the district court ordered the locks to be removed. That spurred the ongoing VHP agitation to 'liberate' Ram Janmasthan; this became the Ram Janmabhumi Movement of the late-1980s with the BJP, then led by LK Advani, joining in. Like everything else that preceded the Somnath to Ayodhya Yatra and the Shilanyas ceremonies, the destruction of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992, by a large crowd of kar sevaks is now history.Before 'Sixth December' several attempts were made by the governments of the day to ward off the looming flashpoint through a negotiated settlement. The efforts continued after 'Sixth December' -- a makeshift plastic sheet Ram Mandir was clearly not an option, nor was rebuilding the Babri Masjid, as was promised by then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao.More important, a negotiated settlement on Ayodhya would pave the way for an amicable resolution to the festering disputes in Kashi and Mathura. All these efforts were in vain. As Murli Manohar Joshi, then BJP president, told me in an interview in the summer of 1992, "A negotiated settlement is like the Vienna Congress -- dancing, dancing, but not advancing."The BJP formulated its post-'Sixth December' position by keeping all options open. Masterful at penning political text, LK Advani put it down as "The BJP will explore all possibilities, including negotiations and judicial proceedings, to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya." In the party's 2014 Manifesto, that position was modified to "The BJP will explore all possibilities within the purview of the Constitution to construct a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya". This sentence was replicated in the BJP's Manifesto for the just-concluded 2017 Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh which the party swept, winning 325 of the 403 seats.For a moment, let's step back in time. In 2010, after more than 50 years of the filing of the first civil suits in the dispute and nearly 500 years of the original Ram Janmasthan Mandir's destruction, the Allahabad High Court gave its verdict, carefully crafted and, as some commentators pointed out, politically weighed. A third of the property went to Sri Ram, a third to the Nirmohi Akhara and a third to the Sunni Waqf Board.On the face of it, the verdict was acceptable to all. Everybody cautiously welcomed it. There was even boastful talk that Muslims could be persuaded, through 'amicable negotiations', to give up their share of a third of the property and adequately compensated. That's how long-running property disputes are settled in India, partly by courts, partly by discussing a full and final settlement through 'adjustment'.But the parties to the litigation, the claimants of Plot Number 583 in Ayodhya, knew better than others to walk down the road of negotiation to nowhere. They had been down that road before. So they filed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court's verdict in the Supreme Court, rejecting their share of a third of the property and claiming all of it. It was either a mandir or a masjid; it was either Sri Ram's Janmasthan or a monument to Babur. To concede a third was akin to owning two-thirds of faith. It was and remains unacceptable to Hindus -- there's no way the title holders could sell it to the faithful. To concede two-thirds was owning a third of faith. It was and remains unacceptable to Muslims -- there's no way the Sunni Waqf Board could sell this settlement; it would stand accused of a sellout.This elaborate backdrop is necessary to understand the near impossibility of resolving the Ayodhya dispute through negotiations, amicable or otherwise. Even a court-determined settlement would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.But had the Supreme Court done what was expected of it -- determine the ownership of the disputed land on the basis of law and indisputable claim, apart from the fact that Hindus have been in constant occupation of the property since 1949 -- there would have been a sort of final acceptance, even if grudgingly so. It would have also reiterated the supremacy of law over an entitled minority's sentiments and a bruised majority's sensitivities.Instead, the Supreme Court, after sitting on the appeal for nearly seven years, has chosen to respond to BJP MP and all-purpose interventionist Subramanian Swamy's 'urgent petition' seeking immediate construction of the Ram Mandir. A bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar on Tuesday said that such religious issues can be solved through negotiations and also offered to mediate to arrive at an amicable settlement."These are issues of religion and sentiments. These are issues where all the parties can sit together and arrive at a consensual decision to end the dispute. All of you may sit together and hold a cordial meeting," the bench also comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan​ Kaul said.Swamy bas been cautious in his response, suggesting Muslims can build a masjid across or along Saryu river. Zafaryab Jilani of the Babri Masjid Action Committee has rejected an out-of-court privately negotiated settlement. He wants the Supreme Court to mediate. A more clear view will emerge by March 31. How that would help boggles the mind since third party mediated negotiations have routinely foundered on the rock of obstinacy in the past.As of Tuesday, it is a terrible idea to try and go back to sitting across the table to untangle the Ayodhya dispute. The same points will meander their way through pointless chatter. Tethering the proposed talks and their presumed outcome to the BJP's majority in New Delhi and Lucknow would be both politically and strategically wrong. This may be a cynic's view, but it is not an invalid view.Had former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar been alive, he would have endorsed this view. Somewhere, wherever he is, I can quite visualise him smiling sardonically as do-gooders prepare to journey once again on the road to nowhere.Kanchan Gupta is Commissioning Editor & Commentator, ABP News. Columnist. Blogger.The writer tweets @ KanchanGupta Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.