"BJP stops at temples and uses law to destroy mosques."

It seems that BJP has a historical moment that determines today's legal ownership.

Logically, yes—that is the structure of the argument.

The argument is:

There once existed a temple at site X.

The temple was replaced by a mosque.

The earlier temple creates a legally relevant historical claim.

Therefore the present legal status should be altered.

Notice something important.

The key step is not (1) or (2).

The key step is (3):

The earlier historical state should determine present legal rights.

That is not a historical fact.

It is a normative legal principle.

History can investigate whether there was an earlier temple.

History alone cannot answer whether that earlier temple should determine today's legal ownership.

That is why historians distinguish between historical evidence and legal conclusions.