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.