The hype and hoopla surrounding the inauguration of Ram Temple being built at the demolished Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya has been rising with every passing day. The ruling BJP can be expected to milk the temple’s inauguration to the maximum for electoral gains as it is set to be inaugurated on January 22, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the helm of the elaborate ceremony.
As the date for the temple “consecration” function approaches , invitations sent to political leaders have set the cat among the pigeons. The opposition’s INDIA bloc is caught in a severe political quandary. The alliance with rainbow ideologies is finding it difficult to put out a unified stand.
Given the many opposition parties’ weak commitment to secularism and reluctance to take head on the government and the ruling party’s anti-constitutional omission and commission, they werecaught in a bind on the issue.
The Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, formed to oversee the construction of the Ram temple, is sending out invitation letters to nearly 6,000 people for the ‘Pran Pratistha’ (consecration ceremony) on January 22.
CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury was the first politician to turn down the invitation to attend the ceremony at Ayodhya.
“What is happening in this inauguration ceremony is that it has been converted into a state-sponsored event with the Prime Minister, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, and others holding constitutional positions [being involved]. This is a straightforward politicization of the religious beliefs of the people, which does not align with the Constitution,” Sitaram Yechury said.
According to sources, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) will probably take the CPM stance as well. TMC leader Mamata Banerjee is expected to skip the Ram Mandir event, as the party was wary of being drawn into the BJP’s political narrative. Trinamool’s doubts about going to the Ram Mandir event stem from the realization that the BJP may use the construction of the temple as a platform for the general election of 2024.
TMC and CPM are political and ideological rivals in West Bengal, but they are both part of the INDIA bloc.
Another constituent of INDIA, the Shiv Sena (UBT), said it wouldn’t be attending the January 22 event.
“This is all politics. Who wants to attend an event by the BJP? This is not a national event. This is the BJP’s program; this is the BJP’s rally. We will visit Ayodhya after the BJP program is over,” Sanjay Raut, the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader, said.
The Congress, which is the largest member of the INDIA bloc, appears to be in a worse situation than any other party. It hasn’t made any announcements on whether its leaders will attend the event. Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Mallikarjun Kharge, and Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury got the invitations for the consecration ceremony. The party was caught in a dilemma because it was equally responsible for the demolition of the over 400-year-old historic Babri Masjid. The Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (Samastha), which is inextricably tied to the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), a Congresspartner in Kerala, has lambasted the Congress for its ambivalence.
According to the Samastha, the Congress was in an awkward spot because it was concerned that if it skipped the Ram Mandir function, its support would dwindle in the North.
The party has been adopting a moderate Hindutva posture to counter the BJP. Participating in the event will help the BJP’s cause. Congressman Shashi Tharoor provided the clearest explanation of this conundrum.
“Individuals have been invited; let individuals decide if they wish to go. I do not think of the temple as a political stage. Not going to a political event doesn’t make you an anti-Hindu,” Shashi Tharoor said.
Undoubtedly, the event has seemingly been orchestrated to lay the groundwork and set the stage for the impending April–May 2024 general elections.
There was a belief that the long-standing disputes between Muslims and Hindus would now come to an end when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of building a temple at the location where the historic Babri Masjid stood for four centuries. However,this dream has remained elusive. Every other day, litigation processes targeting mosques are reported to only serve to deepen communal divisions.
Even though a section of Hindu society is celebrating the construction of Ram Temple,the way the matter has been handled politically and legally has disappointed the Muslim community. For them, the memories of the bloodshed that followed the demolition of the mosque in front of security forces, the subsequent court ruling, and the ordeal serve as distressing reminders of the injustices they had to endure.
The Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi movement, at its core, was more political than religious, leaving an indelible mark on the political landscape of the country while exacerbating societal rifts. The highly anticipated inaugural ceremony itself bears the unmistakable stamp of politics.
The root of the discontent among the Muslim community lies in the Supreme Court’s decision, which many viewed as politically charged from the outset. The attempt to place idols beneath the Babri Masjid’s central dome, followed by the mosque’s classification as disputed property by the Faizabad district court, further intensified the polarization. The mosque’s locks were opened, brick worshipping rituals commenced, and the mosque was ultimately demolished in 1992. It wasn’t until 2019 that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the construction of Ram Temple at the contentious location. The BJP’s Rath Yatra culminated in the mosque’s destruction in 1992, a moment of infamy witnessed by the public.
The dispute spanned decades, with both Hindus and Muslims staking their claims. Ultimately, in November 2019, the apex court’s five judges unanimously ruled in favor of Ram Lalla Virajman, the infant deity, who had become a litigant in 1989, paving the way for the temple’s construction. Simultaneously, the court allotted five acres of land at an alternative location to the Muslim litigants.
The Muslim side, represented by the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), voiced dissatisfaction, arguing that the Supreme Court had failed to deliver justice. In Islam, it is a firmly established principle that constructing a mosque by demolishing any religious structure or encroaching on land is strictly prohibited. This principle is so strong that even utilizing anything, no matter how small, that is illegally occupied is not allowed at all, as in that case prayer won’t be accepted.
While the court considered the evidence presented by the Muslim party, it ultimately reversed its stance and awarded the land to Hindus using “exceptional discretionary powers.” This shift in the court’s position was deemed “painful” by Zafaryab Jilani, who represented the Muslim body. Legal experts and retired judges have also criticized the verdict, characterizing it as a reflection of a majoritarian belief. The court called the demolition of the mosque a criminal act, but all criminal actors were let off, and many of them supervised the destiny of this country.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice AK Ganguli questioned whether the court would have ordered the demolition of the Babri Masjid, a historic mosque from the Mughal era, if Hindus had claimed Lord Rama’s birthplace there. He asserted that the mosque’s demolition was a gross violation of the rule of law and an act of vandalism, ultimately wronging the minority community.
To comprehend the Ayodhya verdict fully, it is essential to view it through a political lens rather than relying solely on legal interpretations. The BJP’s rise to prominence on the national stage in the 1980s, fueled by the temple movement, reshaped the political discourse. With Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emergence, the saffron party and various Hindu right-wing organizations have solidified their presence. Even ostensibly secular parties, including the Congress, have embraced the construction of Ram Temple, emphasizing their alignment with Hindu values. These parties, in practice, steer clear of overtly endorsing secularism and instead aim to establish themselves as devout Hindus.
The inauguration of Ram Temple symbolizes a triumph for some and a source of discontent for others. While the legal battles may be over, the social divisions and communal tensions spawned by the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi movement endure, casting a long shadow over the nation’s political landscape.
Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan suggested to Opposition leaders not to join the opening function of the Mandir.
He tweeted on X:
There are many good reasons for Opp leaders not to respond to the invite for the Ayodhya temple inauguration.
- It is built on a scene of crime by people involved in it.
- The BJP & the govt is seeking to use it purely for political & electoral gain.
- Official Role of Govts & ministers in Temples goes against our secular Constitution.