‘Independence’ on January 22? The Noise Generated Around It Bears More Resemblance to Force a Divide 

The hydra-headed Sangh Parivar is projecting the formal inauguration, or the consecration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, as the most epochal and joyous event since India became independent.

However, if the Pran Prathistha ceremony at Ayodhya’s half-complete temple has to be compared with any event in history, especially from the page of 1947, it should be with the symbiotic occurrence of Partition, for making August 15 intensely apocalyptic at the same time.

It must be recalled that the nascent Indian state excluded no Indian, on the basis of faith, identity, resources and belief, even though the simultaneous tragic separation of people and territories was done solely on the basis of these.

A section of politicians and their supporters on either side of the arbitrary ‘line’, drawn with no prior understanding of this nation, its people, and their cultures, by Cyril Radcliffe, contended that ‘their culture’ (which included religious belief) was different.

Likewise, Hindu rightwing leaders who brazenly pursued the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation firmly believe that everyone must accept their hypothesis of oneness, as opposed to diversity on the basis of languages, cultures, castes, communities, and religion.

Despite Sangh Parivar’s claim that everyone has a ‘Hindu’ shared heritage, the almost four decades-long movement was never inclusive.

Quite like the blood and gore which Partition heaped upon Indians by turning friends and neighbours turned against each other, the Babri Masjid-Ram temple conflict too, extracted a heavy price in flesh and blood, as well as by weakening the material and emblematic institutions and symbols. The situation is worse now, for the divide does not spare families too.

The political leadership of India in 1947 and subsequent years was in the hands of leaders committed to equality, equity, and empathy. They doused embers of Partition and convinced people that this nation’s compositeness was its hallmark and that growth and development were possible only if people were united.

In stark contrast, leaders of the Ram temple agitation created the notion of the ‘other’ and deployed the ‘appeasement’ card against those who believed in taking care of the discriminated and vilified.

Have no illusions, the event on January 22 will not signal the closure of issues used to target people on lines of identity and beliefs. Instead, it will herald the beginning of a new era of repeats shows in other cities, towns and villages.

The inauguration and performance of the contentious religious ceremony must be labeled apocalyptic, despite the risk of possible fury of the advocates of the agitation. It must be juxtaposed with Partition because just as innumerable people suffered the inestimable loss of loved ones and properties back then, the true nature of devastation in the course of Ram temple agitation shall never be known.

Just as religion per se was inconsequential for those who pressed for partition, the Ram temple too had little to do with religiosity. Like partition, this too was pursued for securing and strengthening hold over political power.

This is underlined once again by the decision of leading Hindu priests, including the Shankaracharyas, to stay away from the function.

The impending event has been timed to maximise support for the BJP and boost the Prime Minister’s personal popularity on the eve of the Lok Sabha elections.

This popularity, however, is not raised for his role in reducing social estrangement. Contrarily, it is completely dependent on deepening cleavages and widening cracks.

Unlike the pledge to govern the nation democratically, now the very idea has been hollowed out. The world’s ‘largest democracy’ is now merely a title.

The event, questionably labeled as the Pran Prathistha, must be seen at par with the two dissimilar, yet concurrent, events of 1947.

Can we ignore that although large sections of people were euphoric at the attainment of independence, a significant section of Indians, led by a person of no less stature than the revered Bapu or Father of the Nation, shed tears of atonement over the division of land and peoples’ hearts?

It must be recalled that innumerable citizens stayed away from turning out at the defining moment, the midnight session of the Constituent Assembly- or the events through the next day.  They also mildly expressed remorse at the decision to not leave the Red Fort in Delhi as the historical monument that it was.

They were sorrowed because it was decided to convert its ramparts into a proscenium for subsequent Prime Ministers to deliver sermons. These speeches aimed at boosting personal glory have often not been guided by the objective of jointly marching towards common goals.

Indians took the right path in 1947 as leaders of that time, chose to pursue an inclusive path.

But, on this occasion, there is no certainty that this would be attempted by those who have attained electoral supremacy by frequently falsifying matters from history to science, and minimalising numerous institutions, from courts to universities.

The tragically conflicting events of 1947 meant differently to diverse groups of Indians. Likewise, divergent realities of the present hold a variety of inferences for various groups.

Before listing these out, it is best to put out a reminder: The Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya imbroglio, despite awarding the site to Hindu parties where the Babri Masjid was egregiously demolished, also asked the State to allot land to the Muslim parties within the limits of Ayodhya to construct a mosque.

Significantly, it was planned as not just a place of worship, but one where relief and cure from other sufferings would be provided.

On January 22, when the consecration of the Ram temple would be raucously cheered by lakhs in the temple town and millions of Indians within the country and abroad while watching the proceedings ‘live’ on TV, a sizeable section would also want to dwell thoughts or turn the camera, on the desolate tract of land on the outskirts of the district, once named Faizabad.

Would this be an example of the pledge of providing “justice for all”, that members of this government habitually take whenever they ascend the podium?

Undeniably, this is a moment of triumph for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his brand of politics. The real purpose of this ‘event’ is unambiguous: Emboss his stamp on the ‘throne’ and ‘birthplace’ of Lord Ram, eternally taking credit for ‘liberating’ God’s birthplace and citadel.

But this event – for which he has the daring to assert that he was divinely chosen – would resonate in multiple ways for different Indians.

Undeniably, for those Hindus who also chant slogans of the Hindutva idea and are members of the Sangh Parivar, this would be a day of great glory and satisfaction.

Yet, can one deny that within this group, there exists a section which grudges the event being upstaged for the personal deification of one? It is worth recalling a crucial article of faith in the RSS credo: The individual is always subordinate to the organisation and vyakti pujan must be shunned at all times.

Among Hindus, there are millions of God-fearing believers who disagree with the idea of Hindutva and are opponents of the RSS and all its affiliates, most importantly the BJP.

For them, the inauguration of the temple will be a joyous occasion, but this sentiment would not spill over into the political domain. In their view no one needs to be given kudos for making the temple a reality. Instead, it is the result of social pressure emerging from collective aspiration and action.

And, how can one forget, however numerically small they might be, that India is also the land of animists, non-believers or atheists, and of course, agnostics too? For them, the consecration of the Ram temple will mean proof of the perilous influence of religion over politics, an unfortunate turn when religion became the primary basis of social identity.

Like always, on this occasion too, Muslims shall not have a common sentiment – but will lamentably be, united only by fear.

Although for long considered a homogenous community, they are in actuality as heterogeneous as Hindus, or other religious communities. Their response too, would be as varied as among others.

As the current regime nation leads the march to one of the most rigorously choreographed moments, it is important for them to respect those who are not equally euphoric and grant them their due space which is assured in democracies. This after all, is the era when government policies are publicized as the leader’s guarantee.

Will the jubilant merely overlook the not so overjoyed, or would they force upon them the chant of reordered social hierarchy and hegemony?

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a journalist and author. His books include The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. It is being reissued as The Demolition, The Verdict and The Temple: The definitive book on the Ram Mandir Project.