The Opposition's stand on the Ayodhya consecration is puzzling.
Their only objection seems to be that the BJP has hijacked a religious event for political benefit.
In saying this, the Opposition is either being naive or hypocritical, argues Jyoti Punwani.
Does one have to be a Mumbaikar to associate the new Ram temple in Ayodhya with blood on the streets?
Wasn't the demolition of the Babri Masjid the foundation of this grand temple? What followed that demolition?
A generation may have grown up after December 6, 1992, which has no memory of the communal violence that broke out in Mumbai hours after the Babri Masjid fell. But even if one counts only those directly affected by the violence which claimed 900 lives, there would be at least 10,000 Mumbaikars for whom Ayodhya will forever be associated with bloodshed and ruin.
The RSS and Opindia have been visiting the families of those (the number varies from 16 to 28) who died in the police firing in 1990, when BJP/RSS supporters had gathered in Ayodhya to damage the Babri Masjid, in defiance of prohibitory orders.
What of the families of those who were killed by fellow Indians for no other reason than religious hatred? Not just in Mumbai, the December 6 demolition sparked riots in Surat, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, Delhi, Bhopal, and Ayodhya itself where 17 persons were killed on that very day.
What of those killed earlier, in the wake of L K Advani's rath yatra in 1990? Aimed at whipping up Hindu sentiments in favour of building the Ram temple at the very spot where stood the Babri Masjid, the yatra left a trail of blood through Uttar Pradesh, as well as in cities such as Indore, Hyderabad.
These lives wouldn't matter to the RSS, but surely they should to the Opposition? Why has no party bothered to visit these families and find out how the violent Ram Mandir campaign changed their lives?
***
Indeed, the Opposition's stand on the Ayodhya consecration is puzzling. Their only objection seems to be that the BJP has hijacked a religious event for political benefit.
In saying this, the Opposition is either being naive or hypocritical. When was the Ram Mandir project not political? L K Advani decided to go on his rath yatra with a political aim: to counter the political upheaval caused by reservations for OBCs introduced by then prime minister V P Singh, in accordance with the Mandal Commission recommendations.
The character of the campaign was political. L K Advani linked Ram to nationalism; a Ram drohi was automatically a desh drohi.
The country was declared categorically and exclusively for Hindus: 'Yeh desh Hinduon ka/na kisi ke baap ka.' Musalmans were called gaddars (traitors) and given just two places to go to: Kabristan ya Pakistan. Not one of the slogans that emerged from the Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi movement that spanned six years, was religious.
It was during this movement that the greeting 'Jai Siya Ram' became the war cry 'Jai Sri Ram'. In January 1993, during the second phase of the Mumbai post-demolition riots, Muslims were lynched to chants of 'Jai Sri Ram'.
The initial phase of the Ayodhya campaign took the BJP from two seats in 1984 to 86 seats in the 1989 Lok Sabha. Since then, the BJP has blatantly milked the Ayodhya Ram Mandir for electoral purposes. A more critical press than what exists today invariably wrote edits on this cynical use of religious feelings.
Given this background, how can we expect the consecration of this temple to be religious, and not political?
***
The Opposition could well have given another reason for not attending the consecration. The new temple has been built after demolishing another's place of worship, at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. How can such a structure be a place of worship?
By making no reference to the violence at the heart of the Ayodhya project, the Opposition has shown that Muslims, killed for no reason other than their faith during this long campaign, barely feature in their consciousness. It seems the constituents of INDIA simply take Muslim votes for granted.
***
Muslims certainly are nowhere in the grand national celebration that the government, with the full throated support of a fawning media, is conducting on January 22. Or maybe they are.
This State-backed national event is also being projected as a kind of triumph, the 'beginning of India's cultural revival and national pride', to quote Defence Minister Rajnath Singh.
If a nation's pride depends on building a temple after destroying a mosque, implicit in that pride is the humiliation of those who held the mosque in reverence. Also implicit is the exclusion of other faiths from the nation's pride.
With the Government of India backing this event, India can now boast of joining the company of theocratic nations. For those who prided themselves for being citizens of a secular country, where all communities are equally valued, at least officially, January 22, 2024 can only be a day of mortification.
Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff.com
