Ayodhya Beckons

IN MY LAST COLUMN (‘Restoring Civilisation’, January 15, 2024), I argued that the reconstruction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was an epochal civilisational moment as well as a great achievement of the secular Indian republic. Never before, anywhere in the world, has a major Hindu religious site, devastated and converted into a mosque, been reclaimed, that, too, following constitutional and legal means.

The mosque was brought down by a popular upsurge on December 6, 1992, despite the barbed wires and the armed constabulary. The ease with which the domes came crumbling down indicated how decrepit the structure was, not to mention how much it was in desuetude as a place of worship. Even if its demolition was illegal, its restoration was fully sanctioned by the highest courts of the land after examining all the relevant evidence.

In other parts of the world, major mosques were reconverted into cathedrals after Christians reoccupied lands once conquered by Muslim invaders. The massive and historic Mesquita or Cathedral de Córdoba, dedicated to Our Lady of the Assumption, readily comes to mind. Córdoba was the seat of the Umayyad Caliphate from 929 to 1031. It was after King Ferdinand III of Castile reconquered Córdoba in 1236 that the mosque was restored into a Christian cathedral, and the first mass was solemnly observed on June 29. The world has forgotten that day, but January 22, 2024, may well remind us of it almost 800 years later.

Mosques in Toledo, Saville, and Zaragoza in Spain, Mértola, Loulé, and Tavira in Portugal, Pécs in Hungary, Sophia in Bulgaria, Brăila in Romania, Kavala in Greece, and elsewhere have been reclaimed. In India, too, after Partition, several mosques became temples or gurdwaras. But none of them is anywhere close to Ayodhya in terms of its cultural, religious, historic, or political significance.

During the Portuguese conquest and inquisition in Goa, most of the major temples were also destroyed. But they were relocated and re-established in other parts of the state, where they have flourished uninterrupted for hundreds of years. Somnath, on the Western coast of India’s state of Gujarat, was also destroyed and rebuilt many times.

But nowhere else has the temple come up right on top of a mosque built to commemorate its desecration and destruction. Nowhere else has the restoration been turned into a grand theatre of the restoration and reestablishment of Sanatana Dharma. Ayodhya itself has seen a total makeover, with a brand-new international airport, refurbished railway station, an array of impressive infrastructure projects, including roads and highways, plus hotels and other amenities for tourists to come. The city of Lord Rama is on the brink of becoming an international tourist hub.

The slogan of the Ramjanmabhoomi Movement was “mandir wahi banega”—the temple will be built right there, that is where the masjid had stood over its earlier avatar. Now, that promise has been fulfilled. Hinduism has been known for shifting its own preferences and priorities to accommodate and adjust to others’ demands and dominance. No more. This reclamation is about healing the wounds of history and the mutilations of hundreds of years of conquest and subjugation.

Ayodhya is also about to be restored in the sacred geography of the land as one of the seven cities that confer liberation upon those who are fortunate enough to visit them. As the Garuda Purana puts it, the seven cities that bestow release are Ayodhya, Mathura, Maya (Haridwar), Kashi, Kanchi (Kanchipuram), and Avantika (Ujjain). Imagine the scar on the Hindu psyche when the first on the list, Ayodhya, was despoiled and destroyed. Would we not consider it a human rights violation, not to speak of an insult to our spiritual rights, when an invader closes a portal that promises release to a transmigrating soul?

In my earlier column, I proposed that Lord Rama was not only a Hindu deity, but a national hero, a quintessentially Indian icon. That is because, apart from whatever religious or spiritual greatness that came to be attributed to him, he embodies supremely secular virtues too. No wonder even after converting en masse to Islam or Buddhism, hundreds of millions in Southeast Asia revere and worship Sri Rama for the virtues and qualities that he embodies.

The Ramayana is one of the world’s most popular performative texts across dozens of countries. In modern times, it also came poignantly to represent the distress and trauma of diaspora. Sri Rama’s fortitude, courage, and, ultimate triumph through the long years in exile became the solace and succour of lakhs of girmitias. These so-called agreement-bound indentured labourers left India with the barest minimum of the Hindu toolkit for survival. A battered copy of Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas or even less, a few verses memorised and stored in their mind-by-heart. The story of Lord Rama became the Ur-narrative of even a contemporary classic such as A House for Mr Biswas by Nobel laureate and girmitia descendant VS Naipaul.

Apart from whatever religious or spiritual greatness that came to be attributed to Lord Rama, he embodies supremely secular virtues too

Share this on

Adikavi Valmiki, after whom the new airport in Ayodhya has been named, lists 16 of Lord Rama’s great qualities right at the start of his Ramayana. The poet asks the sage Narada, “kōnvasminsāmprataṅ lōkē guṇavānkaśca vīryavān/ dharmajñaśca kṛtajñaśca satyavākyō dṛḍhavrata?” (1.1.2)— “Who in this world lives today endowed with excellent qualities, prowess, righteousness, gratitude, truthfulness and firmness in his vows?”

Rama is known as Maryada Purushottam, the person best endowed with both spiritual and social qualities. Why? Because of his “steady nature, possessing incomprehensible prowess, self-effulgent, self-commanding and subjecting his senses”; he is also “of great intellect, adherent to rules, eloquent, handsome, destroyer of foes (or sins)”; “pious, firm in his vows, he is ever intent on doing good to his subjects. He is illustrious, wise, and pure at heart. He is obedient to elders, ever-vigilant to protect those who take refuge in him” (Valmiki Ramayana 1.1.8-1.1.18). Sri Rama is worthy of reverence by all; he is not a sectarian god, but a national exemplar.

Most of Sri Rama’s great qualities are actually this—rather than other-worldly. That is what makes him someone worthy of emulation. An obedient son, a loving husband, a fearless warrior, a fighter against injustice and oppression, and a fair and selfless king, who put the welfare of his subjects and his duty toward them over his own personal needs and interests. What of the banishing of Sita then? Many argue that it is an interpolation, a later addition. In the Tulsi Ramayana, mentioned above, it is totally absent. But those who disagree may actually consider not following his example in this and one or two other matters. Both the text and the tradition permit multiple readings, renderings, and interpretations.

In fact, when it comes to the invitation to participate in the pran pratishthapana or the infusing of breath in the deity to turn the temple into the shrine of a living deity, many political leaders and parties, beside a few Hindu pontiffs too, have refused to participate. Again, we see Sanatani pluralism in action.

When it comes to the ruling dynasty of Congress, one might only wonder what they were thinking. Have they forgotten that the doors to the temple inside the Babri Masjid were opened during late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure in 1986? Or that three years later, he permitted the shilanyas or the consecration of the foundation by the Vishva Hindu Parishad? Or that in 1991, the construction of the Ram Mandir was a part of the Congress manifesto? Or that the demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992 happened under the watch of Congress Prime Minister Narasimha Rao? It was the latter who summed up the Congress dilemma most succinctly when he reportedly said, “I can fight the BJP but how can I fight Lord Rama?”

Apparently, Congress has learnt very little from past mistakes. They are continuing to dither and vacillate instead of seizing the occasion to make Lord Rama their own, as much of the rest of the country is doing. In 2017, two years before it awarded the site to the Hindus, the Supreme Court favoured an amicable settlement of the dispute. KK Muhammed, the archaeologist who was part of the team that discovered remains of a Hindu temple beneath the disputed shrine, proposed that a mosque could be in Faizabad, just five kilometres away. But the Muslim disputants, backed by Indian secularists, decided not to yield an inch, and preferred to fight tooth and nail. They were, whether unwittingly or deliberately, justifying conquest, vandalism, and destruction of Hindu temples as permanent and irrevocable.

Today, Iqbal Ansari, one of the main petitioners for the Babri Masjid, like his father before him, says that there is no need for a mosque in Ayodhya. He wants the five-acre plot awarded to the Muslims to build a mosque to be turned into a farm whose produce should be distributed among both Muslims and Hindus. He will also attend the pran pratishthapana on January 22.

The wheel has turned full circle. It is time all of India, as well as millions round the world, said in one voice, “Jai Sri Ram.”

About The Author

Makarand R Paranjape

Makarand R Paranjape is an author and columnist. Views are personal.

•