About a month ago, the country witnessed a celebration aimed for all the history books to come. On January 22nd of the new year (2024), the Ram Mandir was inaugurated in Ayodhya. Now, be it the spotting of Bollywood’s rising, risen and setting stars at the Pran Prathishta ceremony or the idol of Lord Ram mystically changing after the Alankaran/ornamentation ceremony or vague Instagram postings of the constitution’s edited preamble; what this 54,700 sq. ft structure costing about 1,800 crore has accomplished is perhaps much more than just a statement, a deafening buzz or a place in history. The monumental feat of this temple is that it leaves us, the one’s living through this ‘history’, with unanswered questions about history and memory. How does your history come in the way of my memory?…or vice versa.
So what is Ram Mandir? How and where was it built? What is the history of this, perhaps too innocently termed, ‘temple’?
The origins of the Ram Mandir movement can be traced back to 1949. But before that, let us look at the construction of the Babri Masjid. The Babri Masjid was constructed in Ayodhya by Mir Baqi, upon the instructions of the Mughal emperor Babur. At about 1855, The temple town of Ayodhya witnessed clashes between Sunni Muslims and Bairais over the temple of Hanumangarhi, with the former claiming the temple was built at the site of a demolished mosque. Apparently, Nawab Wajid Ali Shah intervened on behalf of the temple and held the peace. Around 1859, a local belief about the Babri Masjid being the birthplace of Rama gathered currency, so the British colonial administration erected a fence at the site. While Muslims could use the mosque's inner court to pray, Hindus were allowed to use the outer court.
Jumping to the 1940s, The BJP and various Hindu right-wing organizations, alleges that Mughal emperor Babar had demolished a Hindu temple to erect the mosque, and turned the Ram Mandir into a cornerstone of their political agenda. On 22nd December, 1949, Idols of Lord Ram are planted by Hindu Mahasabha activists inside the mosque. The mosque is then locked. District magistrate K.K. Nayar refuses to remove the idol on the premise that this would lead to large-scale rioting. He later joined the Jan Sangh, the precursor to the BJP, and was also elected as an MP. 4 days after this locking of the mosque, Nehru sends a telegram to the chief minister of the United Province, Govind Ballabh Pant, expressing concern over the developments in Ayodhya.
Fast forwarding to 1984, Hindu groups form a committee to spearhead the construction of the Ram temple as the Ram Janmabhoomi movement gathers momentum. BJP leader L.K. Advani assumes leadership of the movement. On February 1st of 1986, A district judge directs that the Babri Masjid gates be unlocked and Hindus be allowed to worship there. In protest, Muslims set up the Babri Masjid Action Committee. Ramachandra Guha comments on this, saying, "the judge's order was widely believed to have been directed from Delhi, from the Prime Minister's Office, no less. The local administration seemed to know of the judgment beforehand, for the locks were opened within an hour of the verdict".
With L.K Advani becoming the president of the BJP in 1986, things start moving faster. The contentious 'shilanyas' or foundation stone-laying ceremony in 1989, conducted with the blessings of then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, further catalyzes communal tensions and sets the stage for subsequent events.
It can perhaps be said that the The Ram Mandir movement gained real momentum with LK Advani's Rath Yatra in 1990, a political and religious campaign that increased the BJP's vote bank and led to communal violence in various states. In 1992, the culmination of these tensions manifested in the demolition of the Babri Masjid by right-wing Hindu kar-sevaks, an act that reverberated nationally and sparked a series of legal battles. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, on the evening of December 6, 1992, kar sevaks started attacking Muslim residents of Ayodhya, ransacking and demolishing their houses. Eighteen Muslims were murdered, almost all their houses and shops were torched and destroyed, including 23 local mosques. Additionally, riots broke out in different parts of the country, including Mumbai, and around 2,000 people were killed.
The Liberhan Commission, formed in 1992 to investigate the demolition, pointed fingers at top leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, and the BJP for orchestrating the event. However, in 2020, a special CBI court acquitted all 32 accused, including BJP veterans Advani, Joshi, and Uma Bharti, in a move that stirred controversy and debate. Legal battles continued, culminating in the Allahabad High Court's 2010 judgment, dividing the disputed site into three parts: a two-thirds portion is to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs and one-third will be given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board. Plaintiffs representing Lord Ram (i.e. VHP), the Nirmohi Akhara and the Waqf Board were declared joint title-holders of the property.
Then on November 9th, 2019, The Supreme Court pronounced its "unanimous" verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute case, saying that the Hindu parties will be given the disputed land where the Babri Masjid once stood. The Sunni Waqf Board, the biggest Muslim litigant in the case, will be given five acres at a separate "prominent" location in Ayodhya. All of this led to the events of August 2020, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the Ram Mandir and then January 2022, where the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple took place in Ayodhya.
But the lingering question that still remains in all this is that, can and should religious disputes be allowed to take such frontal precedence that destroying places of worship and faith, standing in the 21st century, becomes acceptable and a cause for celebration?
The destruction of places of worship, regardless of religious affiliation, has been a recurring historical phenomenon and absolutely not limited to any particular faith. Instances of Hindu kings destroying temples as part of conquests have also been widely documented showing that such acts were more than often politically motivated. For example, In A.D. 642, the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I allegedly looted the image of Ganesha from the Chalukyan capital of Vatapi or In the early tenth century, the Rashtrakuta king Indra III destroyed the temple of Kalapriya, which was patronized by the Rashtrakutas' enemies, the Pratiharas. More famously, in the mid-eleventh century, the Chola king Rajadhiraja defeated the Chalukyas and plundered Kalyani, taking a large black stone door guardian to his capital in Thanjavu. So it is perhaps crucial and in spite of being obvious, necessary to recognize that temple destructions were orchestrated by rulers and kings and are definitely not reflective of the beliefs of ordinary Hindus or Muslims.
The Places of Worship Act, which restricts legal challenges related to the status of religious sites, serves as a means to prevent prolonged conflicts over historical grievances. The Act acknowledges that places of worship may have changed hands between different faiths over time, reflecting the fluidity of religious dynamics. So It's essential to consider that religious structures may undergo changes in character due to various reasons, such as shifts in populations, syncretism, or conquests. A fair and just approach, especially standing in times that we call ‘modern’ and ‘civilised’, should recognize the layered nature of historical and religious structures, avoiding privileging one kind of restoration over others.
If we are to really use history as a permit of convenient violence in the name of faith and religion, then why not also use it in closing even a little of the gaping vacuum that exists in the name of communal harmony? As Nandini Sundar writes beautifully in The Wire, “But perhaps all is not lost in this country. In the last few years, the Sikhs of Punjab have restored mosques which were abandoned after Muslims migrated to Pakistan. It is this model that we need to emulate – one that seeks to promote communal harmony in the present – rather than the revanchist and illiterate model promoted by the RSS. But for this, the courts must respect the faith of all Indians, and above all, respect the constitution in which all Indians have faith”.
In this chilly buzz of saffron and oranges, let us take a minute. Let us think about how far we have really come. Let us remember the Syed Ikhlaq Latifis of Ayodhya. Let us decide which side of history we are going to be on.
Comments