Was Aug 5, 2020 event actually laid down only a 'foundation' for Hindutva dominance ?
Questions cropped up and predictably so, should the Prime Minister of a 'secular nation' attend such a purely religious function?
One version is - "The secularism - we have known was dead".
But equally important is the 'other version'. And here it is - Experts blame 'minority appeasement' for the 'backlash'
"The temple development has helped Hindus to realise that they were politically marginalised even in their own majority country. Therefore, I feel this Hindu awakening is very good," said American scholar David Frawley, who also has penned a book 'What Is Hinduism?: A Guide for the Global Mind'.
India on August 5 (Wednesday) kept its tryst with the 'Hindutva moment' and led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and participated at the brick laying ceremony at a specific spot at Ayodhya - where Hindus believe God Ram was born.
For the Hindu majority, the historic event seeks to undo the five-century-old humiliation Hindus suffered after Muslim invader Babar destroyed the temple and built a mosque in 1528 in Ayodhya town.
At a ceremony televised nationwide, Modi, a devout Hindu and right-wing leader, prostrated before an idol of Ram Lalla or the infant Ram. He joined prayers and rituals before laying a silver brick weighing 40 kilograms and performing rituals at the controversial site.
Some intellectuals including David Frawley say the building of the Ram temple is a "defeat for Marxists, China supporters, and the media and academia that tried to deny history and archaeology and denigrate Bhakti, finding Sri Ram to be a threat to their "arrogant pursuit of power".
Some other neutral observers say the big victory for Hindutva champions is that the principal opposition Congress party, which stood by Muslims and Christians in the name of 'secularism' in most part of last six decades, had to surrender to the "demands of the changed political scenario" - where Hindu majoritarianism seems to be the new order of the day.
Yogendra Yadav of 'Swaraj India' said what India "witnessed was not the celebration of the spiritual values of Lord Ram. We rather witnessed the fusion of multiple layers of power. There was state power represented by the prime minister, the power of the BJP as a political party, and there was the religious authority of Hindus."
Of course, he added: "The secularism we have known was dead today."
However, such strong views did not have many takers even among opposition parties, including the Congress, the principal opposition.
Congress leaders including Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi approved of the great occasion.
Another Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh chief minister, Kamal Nath, organized a recitation of religious discourse in Bhopal. "We are sending 11 silver bricks to Ayodhya from the people of Madhya Pradesh," he said.
Rahul also tweeted: "Ram is love, he can never appear in hatred. Ram is compassion, he can never appear in cruelty". 
But his party has wished 'good luck' to the country for the grand bricklaying ceremony.
Ironically, in a role reversal in 1992 the Congress party had vehemently opposed the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
Priyanka Gandhi, in her statement, said that "this programme, with blessings of Lord Ram and his teachings, should become a symbol of national unity, brotherhood and cultural amalgamation".
Congress ally in Kerala, the Muslim League was predictably upset with such a volte face. In 2019 parliamentary polls, Rahul Gandhi wooed Muslims to such an extent that he contested from a Muslim-dominated Wayanad constituency.
The dispute over a temple-mosque structure in Ayodhya was aggravated in 1992 when Hindu zealots
demolished the structure. It also triggered nationwide Hindu-Muslim riots, killing at least 2,000 people.
PM Modi, a devout Hindu and a renowned radical right wing leader, was wary of political criticism for attending a purely religious function and thus in his speech sought to carry forward the message of unity in a country of multiple faiths and over 200 linguistic communities.
"Social harmony was the core principle of Lord Ram's governance," the prime minister recalled in his 35-minute speech. He further said -"We have to join stones for the construction of Ram temple with mutual love and brotherhood".
However, there was sharp criticism of the Prime Minister's decision to attend the purely Hindu function in presence of radical RSS leaders and over one hundred Hindu Sadhus (saints).
Asaduddin Owaisi, AIMIM leader and a lawmaker from Hyderabad, said: "The Prime Minister has violated the oath of office of a secular country by laying the foundation stone of a Ram temple. This is the day of the defeat of secularism and democracy and a day of success of Hindutva".
Another secular intellectual and president of a newly floated party, Swaraj India, Yogendra Yadav went a step further and said: "More than religiosity, it was a day of ritual and that also a ritual of conquest (by Hindus)".
The temple construction was part of the 'election promises' of Modi's BJP since 1980 but was delayed because of court cases over land ownership. In November 2019, India's Supreme Court ruled in favour of a Ram temple.
Pavan Varma, a former diplomat and a leader of Janata Dal-United countered those who say Indian secularism is dead.
"The whole idea of secularism being dead after years of litigation and pursuant of a Supreme Court judgement is an inference which is not warranted by facts," he told 'India Today' TV.
He also clarified that Secularism in India has never been defined in the constitution as a "protestant European sense where there is complete separation of religion and the state".
"When secularists kept silence when lakhs of Kashmiri Hindus were chased out of their homes in Kashmir in 1990s by Muslim militants, secularism did not die. Therefore, today we need to revisit the notion of secularism (in India)," said Varma endorsing the BJP views that minority appeasement by Congress, Communists and other parties have only provoked and left Hindus 'hurt'.
He said instead there is a "phobia" in the word Hindu in the "name of secularism".
Many others say such open 'anti-Hindu' stance by political parties have sharpened "aggressiveness of the Hindus".
It is in this context, what we see is only a 'backlash' among a section of Hindus who find fault with Left liberal historians and parties like Congress who have always tried to present Hindu school of thought in poor light".
There is yet another critical opinion. A friend of mine from Assam, social worker Meenakshi Kakoty, says, "The BJP and its machinations have pushed a line that majoritanism is right and thus others have to follow that line".
But, there is also David Frawley, an American Hindu scholar, who also blames the Leftists 'political orientation' of India since its independence from British colonial masters in 1947.
Frawley said, more often Chinese communists "admire" their own (Chinese) past than the Indian communists admire India.
"Somehow, the far Left in India are anti nationals and also anti-Indian heritage. They are more at home with the Marxist ideas that are of the west than they are with the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagawad Gita and Ramayana," Frawley said.
"The temple development has helped Hindus to realise that they were politically marginalised even in their own majority country. Therefore, I feel this Hindu awakening is very good," said Frawley who also has penned a book 'What Is Hinduism?: A Guide for the Global Mind'.
He also tweeted saying: "The building of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple is a defeat for Nehruvians, Marxists, Maoists, China supporters, and the media and academia that tried to deny history and archaeology and denigrate bhakti, finding Sri Ram to be a threat to their arrogant pursuit of power".
The big victory for the Hindutva champions is that the Congress led by Italy-born Sonia Gandhi has been forced to join the pro-temple bogey. The Congress had slammed BJP for destruction of Babri Masjid. Sonia Gandhi even had said had her husband Late Rajiv Gandhi been prime minister of India in 1992, the mosque would not have been grounded.
It is sheer opportunism of the Congress leaders. And the party has been "compelled" to shed its tightrope walking and ultimately surrendered to the "demands of the changed political scenario" at least on the face value! 
No comments:
Post a Comment