The Ram Temple Movement Redux

With 'Ram Lalla' firmly placed where he always belonged, it's surreal to look back more than 30 years. There are so many characters, so many events, so many lies, and so much politics. I recently came across a couple of good articles. The first article is by Shubhabrata Bhattacharya titled "Ayodhya - Congress's Epic Tragedy Of Errors" The authors list a litany of political missteps the Congress party had made on the topic of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Some of the Congress party's strategic decisions took even me by surprise. For example, the Congress manifesto for the 1991 general elections promises to build the Ram temple in Ayodhya! Congress wasn't always such a staunch Muslim party. The metamorphosis results from Sonia Gandhi taking over the party's reins in 1998. The Congress party of Rajiv Gandhi opened the gates of the Babri structure (funny side nugget: the District Magistrate of Ayodhya had to break the locks of the Babri structure since keys were nowhere to be found!) and allowed Hindus to pray. Subsequently, the Rajiv Gandhi-led central government also allowed VHP to perform the 'Shilanyas' at Ayodhya. The Congress party did not try to stop Karsevaks from moving towards Ayodhya in 1992, nor did they use any force to stop them from bringing down the controversial structure. Going back a few more years, before the Rajiv era, the VHP leadership was scheduled to visit a day after when Indira Gandhi was tragically killed. There is no conspiracy theory here that I am floating. It's just that a person of her stature was ready to talk and listen to VHP leadership on Ram Mandir's issue. This is entirely opposite to the view Sonia Gandhi era Congress took. For Sonia Gandhi Congress, anything remotely associated with Hindus or Hinduism was an anathema. VHP and RSS were terrorist organizations, so much so that post the 26/11 attack, Congress did their best to pin the attack as a Hindui terrorism! Though the Congress-led coalition did get elected for two consecutive terms, the party is now considered a staunch anti-Hindu party, which is reflected in their Lok Sabha seat counts. 

The second article is by Hasan Suroor titled "Why Muslims made a profound mistake over the Ayodhya dispute." I am not a big fan of this writer. But every now and then, he makes sense. This article is one such time. His point of view is Muslims should have gifted the site of Babri masjid to Hindus. There is no religious significance associated with that mosque. And no Islamic jurisprudence stops a mosque from moving to a new location. Apparently, moving Mosques from their original location happens all the time in Muslim countries due to infrastructure development. Mr. Suroor also believes that political parties playing the game of 'secularism' and Islamic bodies vying for pole position among Muslims muddled the water for their own benefit. Even though I appreciate the last point, which is true, it was apparent from the start of Shilanyas in 1986. A variety of Muslim bodies like AIMPLB, the Sunni Waqf Board, and so-called leaders like Syed Shahbuddin, a closet Islamist, never had any intention of solving this issue. The benefits of boiling this pot outweighed anything that may be gained from solving it. 

Now, the author's main point about Muslims should have given up the claim of the land for Hindus may come out quite reasonable, but I find that thought process diabolical. The land never belonged to Muslims, so they had to give up the claim. But by suggesting that Muslims should have done that, the author is conveniently trying to distract the readers from the historical fact of foreign Islamic invaders destroying the original temple. And it was not just about destruction but by building a mosque from the rubble of the original temple, the invaders sought to impose their superiority over the 'kafirs'. The moment we accept this charade of 'Muslims should have given up their claim,' the Hindus will automatically lose their claim on Kashi and Mathura mosques. The mosques in those holy places were built over the rubble of ancient Hindu temples, and unless we establish the pattern starting with Ayodhya, how do we reclaim those sites? In Sanskrit, this type of argument is called 'ku-tark'; we have seen so much of this in the last 30 years. 

These articles provide a good composite of the controversy, the reality, and the final resolution of the Ram Mandir movement. We need to be vigilant with such verbal jugglery of Hasan Suroor's of the world. Otherwise, before you know it, that becomes the narrative. 

The General Elections Are Here!

The recently concluded state elections in four states have finally brought India to the doorstep of the great General Elections of 2024. Elections have always been a discussion topic in every household in the country. The elections would have given us better outcomes if people were concerned more about the municipality elections than assembly elections and as compared to national elections that elect our Prime Minster. Municipality elections do not have any charismatic politicians and do not attract the media's attention beyond the city's borders. The politics in India are personality-driven, meaning leaders on the national stage take prominence and catch the fancy of a wider audience. That also means every local gully politician aspires to command the central stage. Another probable aspect is India has always governed in a 'maay-baap' fashion. The governance framework needs a decision-making process executed in a bureaucratic fashion per the precedence, rules, and law. This way of functioning is not to say governance does not happen. It does, and there is a framework, but then it can always be, and routinely is, circumvented. This short-circuiting leads to abuse of power since politicians gain excessive power beyond their legislative duties. This unaccounted and under-the-table power has been a bane to the administration of India, leading to inefficiencies, stalling of reforms, slow speed of modernization of governance – in tools, training, or people in management and obviously, to increase in corruption. 

All this talk about inefficient bureaucracy and corrupt political system is not to say Indian voters are not wise. The self-styled political 'pundits,' 'activists,' and the press always insinuate that Indian voters are either wrong, misled, or simply not smart enough. They feel this way, especially when the results do not go their way, i.e., the so-called 'secular' parties lose badly. The reality is precisely the opposite. I always maintain that Indian voters are among the smartest in the world regarding electing leaders. One can always argue about who was a better-suited candidate, and to be honest, there are regular flubs and surprises along the way, but dig a bit deeper, and the reasons for voting become clear. One can furthermore question whether the pattern is not in the national interest or the interest of a more significant cause. Still, it is a natural tendency to vote for immediate gains. For example, there is always discussion on how caste still plays a critical role in electing leaders. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different topic. Check out the prospective bride and groom advertisement in any local or national newspaper; the lines are still drawn based on caste, solidifying caste identities. If one ends up marrying within the community or the caste and, thus, ultimately hanging out primarily within the same caste or community, it shouldn't take Einstein to understand how people still vote within their castes. Heck, even every fact of governance, administration, government benefits, admissions in the education system, and finally, jobs in the government sector are caste-based. In such an environment, why would a voter not vote along the caste lines?  

Returning to the general elections: It is a temporary entertainment for everyone. The politicians are acting desperate, making fools of themselves in the process. The strategies implemented are sometimes half-baked and ill-thought. Most importantly, people across the country now have something in common to talk about at home, in clubs, at parties, with relatives, with friends, and even with an unknown co-passenger. It's one of the few common topics and language that cuts across caste, religion, geography, age, and gender. "to iss baar bhi Modi aayenge?" and boom…you are in for a ride!

Another factor, the new phenomenon of the last decade, is the rise of Modi-centric politics. Modi ji has charisma and oratory skills to hold the attention of swaths of the masses. He is an outstanding administrator who understands how government machinery functions and proceeds to make it work. Modi ji also generates fierce loyalty in the political circle and among voters. The term 'Modi-bhakt' is not far from reality, and the rank and file of this club continue to proliferate. But Modi ji is also an exceptionally shrewd politician. He has mastery over caste interplay across various states in India. He also understands how regional political parties play the game and knows the antidote for that game. He knows how to use government machinery to pit regional parties against each other and unabashedly take advantage of rising rifts. Apart from Indira Gandhi, India has probably yet to see a complete combination of a shrewd politician, administrator, ideologue, and political force to reckon with. I rate Indira Gandhi relatively low in administration compared to many other Prime Ministers.

Modi government is completing its second consecutive term. It's almost 50 years since the last time India gave a complete majority for successive terms. The Modi government is gearing towards winning a complete majority for a record third term. Last time that happened? Prime Minister Nehru led the Congress party back in the 50s and 60s. India, during that period, had a much simpler electorate and elections. The emerging Bharat is a cauldron of rising aspiration, global ambition, a consumer-centric economy, rapidly reducing poverty, and a very confident electorate. In short, what Modi BJP is attempting to do is unprecedented. As I said earlier, the voters are not something to be taken lightly. Anti-incumbency is a fundamental factor since voters feel like giving the other candidate or party a chance. The setting of hubris within the BJP and the BJP leadership is also a natural progression. I still believe BJP and Modi will win the third term. The margin of victory may be lower, but it will be comfortable. BJP and Modi ji have a message, an ideology, and a philosophy of governance (with a record) to present to the voters. And they are not shy of hammering that message. And a set of goals spread across social engineering, constitutional amendments, market reforms, international geopolitics, and correcting historical wrongs. 

There is no opposition worth any salt. Shrill rhetorics is good for the next day's headline only. It cannot be an ideology, nor can it be an election strategy. It is not about just seat sharing either. There must be a counter-message or a counter-narrative to present to the voters. All they have is a dead horse of 'secularism is in danger' to beat. And none of the opposition parties are in any hurry to fix the issue either. In the long term, having such morally and ideologically bankrupt opposition will ultimately hurt Indian democracy.

 

For now, though, 'Aayega to Modi hi"