AYODHYA RAM TEMPLE MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE: Secularism can’t be reverse discrimination against Majority

The Ram Temple at Ayodhya could mean different things to different people.
Hindus have been looking for an opportunity to retaliate – not necessarily in terms of violence or physical intimidation and the Modi government seemed to have given them that ‘opportunity’.

Late Arun Jaitley had pointed out in a blog piece that parties like the Samajwadi Party, the BSP, the RJD and of course Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress thrived in the politics of ‘polarisation’ of Muslim votes towards them. Thus these parties created fear in the minds of minorities and especially Muslims.

In the words of some experts and not without good reasons, Advani had found his “political roots” in Ayodhya.

I would go a bit beyond that – in Ayodhya – the BJP found a platform to articulate Hindu sentiments – those remained dormant largely due to overwhelming influence of the Left Liberal ideology – essentially a monopolistic theory – that never encouraged the ‘other’ or the right wing views.

In 2009 – Jaitley had summed it very aptly.

“Civilized secular polity certainly requires the protection of every minority. But the basis of secularism also can’t be a reverse discrimination against the majority sentiment,” the former Defence and Finance Minister under Modi 1.0(Jaitley) had said in a Rajya Sabha debate on December 9,  2009.

A large part of India has now started seeing the real intent of these parties and hence Uttar Pradesh is today BJP’s strongpoint. The message is same in West Bengal where Hindu assertion has given BJP as many as 18 Lok Sabha seats in 2019 polls. Jaitley had analysed it well. “The Congress never understood the power of this sleeping giant. Shah Bano legislation brought by Shri Rajiv Gandhi was a result of his inability to gauge the reaction. This mistake continued even through the UPA Government where instead of treating the poor as a class, the then Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, announced that the minorities have a first right on the national exchequer”.


Well, it goes without stating some prices for blunders are paid in instalment.

The RSS and its affiliate organisations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have been at the forefront of the Ram Temple movement since 1990s. BJP patriarch L K Advani undertook the Rath Yatra. The construction of a grand Ram Temple has been one of the big promises of the BJP always – but kept on back burner whenever they came to power.

But in 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls, though the BJP swept to power at the Centre, the Ram Temple was not highlighted much in the election manifestoes.

In 2014 Election Manifesto – prepared under the chairmanship of senior leader Murli Manohor Joshi, the ‘Ram Mandir’ was highlighted (or rather dumped) in Page 41 under broad categorisation of Cultural Heritage.

It said: “BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of the constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya”. There was a deliberate attempt to downplay the hardcore Hindutva issues including Ram Temple and Article 370. In a preface note, Dr Joshi, a former BJP president wrote: “For BJP, the goal of the policies and practices would be – Ek Bharat, Sreshtha Bharat. The path would be Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas. This is our commitment to the nation and the people”.

Dr Joshi is of course – one of the leaders – who faced trial in the Babri Masjid case even till 2020.

In 2019 also, Ram Mandir again figured in BJP’s Sankalp Patra which merely had said: “We reiterate our stand on Ram Mandir”. It also said – “Since inception, the philosophy of the BJP is anchored in the civilisational ethos of India. As we build ‘New India’, we intend to actively invest in strengthening our cultural roots and preserving civilisational continuity. Far from seeing our cultural values as hurdles to progress, we see them as essential ingredients of our future”.

Jaitley and Modi

In its November 9, 2019 verdict, the Supreme Court awarded the title over the site at Ayodhya in its entirety to the deity of the infant Lord Rama, who is also considered a “juridical person”. In fact, the Modi government has been directed to set up a trust to build the temple. While the court, based on an Archaeological Survey of India report, acknowledged that a “non-Islamic structure” lay beneath the disputed land, importantly it also said “Hindu origin” of the structure could not be disputed.


Notwithstanding the coronavirus crisis, the Hindu society’s commitment for Ram Mandir remained firm. The Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust chairman on May 26, 2020 announced the beginning of construction of the Temple. A religious ceremony was performed to mark commencement of the construction work.

After a 27 year long period, the idol of Ram Lalla was shifted out of the makeshift temple in a palanquin in Ayodhya and erected in Manas Bhawan. The makeshift temple structure made of fibre was erected after December 6, 1992.

Looking back, L K Advani’s Rath Yatra was a watershed moment. 

Advani himself wrote many years later: “Just as the struggle against Emergency opened my eyes to the Indian people’s unflinching faith in democracy, the Ayodhya movement opened my eyes to the deep rooted influence of religion in the lives of all castes and sects across the country”.

On this backdrop, it is perhaps imperative to note what Atal Bihari Vajpayee had said: “There was no plan to demolish the Babri structure. Yes, everyone felt a temple should be built. Kaise banega, is par behas thi (There were arguments and differences about how this would be achieved).”

A lot has been written about the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and BJP patriarch L K Advani’s Rath Yatra. But it is important to note that besides Advani, there were other protagonists and controversies too. 

On page 942 in its voluminous report, the Justice M S Liberhan Commission that probed for 17 long years on Babri Masjid demolition said, "It cannot be assumed even for a moment that L K Advani, A B Vajpayee or M M Joshi did not know the designs of Sangh Parivar..... These people, who may be called pseudo-moderates, could not have defied the mandate of the Sangh Parivar, and more specifically the diktat of the RSS, without having bowed out of public life as leaders of BJP." 

ends