Mandir and the mandate

The movement for a temple for Lord Ram at his birthplace, Ayodhya, is somewhat reflective of the ‘Ram Kahani’, signifying the woes in one’s life. The first phase of the over five centuries of this movement ended on December 6, 1992, when karsevaks brought down the domes of the Babri Masjid. The Liberhan Commission took 17 years, 48 extensions, and spent about Rs 8 crore to hold nearly 68 people ‘intellectually and ideologically’ responsible for the demolition.

It took five prime ministers, 30 years, an inquiry commission, and intense political manoeuvring for the temple to come up during the term of the second Narendra Modi government, formalised with the pran pratishtha on January 22, 2024. This could have been a movement by the people supported by the political establishment, but it played out like an extended game of chess, with political parties leveraging the demolition to mobilise and consolidate vote banks. Three decades later, it is interesting to note that the Ayodhya movement has been truly people-led, with no political party being able to translate its outcomes into certain electoral gains.

When the Ayodhya agitation peaked, the then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao tried to politicise the issue by employing two strategies – one, to try solve the issue on apparent consensus, by involving the saints and the seers, and the other, to derive as much political mileage as possible for the Congress by keeping the RSS, VHP, and BJP out of the resolution meetings. Rao was very confident that a government-supported trust consisting of the saints and the seers to oversee the situation would be politically beneficial for the Congress – a move that backfired after several seers objected to the construction of a mosque along with the temple.

The Hindu groups and the smaller but significant Vaishnavite institutions made concerted efforts to wean the Shankaracharyas away from the government and suggested that an independent Dharma Sansad (a parliament of religions) be formed, which would go into the various aspects of the temple.

The BJP had kept its options open but did not join the movement directly. The party leadership also wanted a stamp of approval from the Supreme Court over the ownership of the temple land and its precincts. In 1980, the party adopted Gandhian Socialism as its core economic guide and positive secularism as one of the five core principles. The philosophy of Integral Humanism, as propounded by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, the ideologue of the erstwhile Bhartiya Jana Sangh (BJS), was missing from the vision, leading to a significant section of the disillusioned cadre moving away from the new party.

In a strategic course correction after winning just two seats in the Lok Sabha, the BJP at the Palampur meeting decided to support the Ayodhya movement spearheaded by the seers, united under the banner of Dharma Sansad, stating that the political support to the anti-temple movement necessitated a counter force that backed the mobilisation for the temple. The subsequent Rath Yatra by Lal Krishna Advani and the huge support it drew among the people did result in the BJP gaining in the Lok Sabha election, but it also went to polls on the planks of economic and social issues.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government led by the BJP under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee continued to struggle in balancing between the religious groups amid a protracted legal battle. The next United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government under Manmohan Singh went to the extent of writing to the apex court that Ram never existed and that the Valmiki Ramayan and the Ram Setu did not have scientific evidence of existence. The second UPA government was voted out on the issue of corruption and bad governance, with the BJP romping home on the promise of a corruption-free regime built on more governance and less government. It is ironic that while the BJP government under Narendra Modi made the Ram Mandir a reality, the party lost in Faizabad, which includes Ayodhya, in 2024.

Beyond politics and social stratifications, the Ayodhya movement has also been about the identity of the nation. India’s idea of society, politics, and nationhood has never been theocratic; it is rooted in a unique form of perfect secularism with respect for contrary views and belief systems, going far beyond mere tolerance.

The construction of the temple can signal a fresh start, heralding a new and contemporary interpretation of Ram Rajya. It can also help set an agenda towards that elusive political consensus to ensure inclusive development of the nation.

The writer reads between the lines on big national and international developments from his vantage point in the BJP and the RSS.