Restoring Civilisation

THE CONSTRUCTION OF the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is undoubtedly an epochal event, a turning point in the life of a nation. The return of Shri Rama to Ayodhya, his capital in the kingdom of peace, is a red-letter day not only in the history of Indian civilisation, which is famously considered timeless and eternal—or sanatana—but also in the journey of our young republic, not yet 75 years of age.

Most might consider the rebuilding of the Ram Janmabhoomi shrine the triumph of Hindutva politics, more specifically of its leading energiser and champion, Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In an alternative assessment, although not quite contrarily, I would argue that it represents the resilience, adaptability, and robustness of the Indian secular state. To what degree Indian secularism can be stretched further, especially after the upcoming 2024 General Election, is, of course, an entirely different question.

The Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is almost complete. In record time too, under the able aegis of the 78-year-old chairman of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust construction committee, Nripendra Misra. The 1967 batch former IAS officer was recalled from retirement to serve as Modi’s principal secretary in the PMO from 2014 to 2019. Thereafter, he became chairman of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML) executive council. In that capacity, he brought the new Prime Minister’s Museum to a swift and successful fruition. NMML has now been rechristened the Prime Ministers’ Museum and Library (PMML), not only signifying its total makeover, but also its removal from what some might call the clutches of the erstwhile ruling family of India, the Nehru-Gandhis (see my columns ‘All in a Name’, January 16, 2023, and ‘Modi and the Museum’, January 30, 2023 in Open on this topic). Of course, as in PMML, the driving force behind the Ram Mandir is the prime minister himself, with Misra implementing the project with remarkable efficiency and alacrity.

The numerous record-breaking data points in the Mandir’s nirman or fabrication—the design itself, the solid foundation, the nature of building materials, the number of pillars, the carvings, and other architectural and sculptural marvels— will remain an interesting side-story to be rehearsed and vaunted for centuries to come. For it has been built to last another 500 years. After lying in ruins for almost five centuries, 496 years to be precise. Since Baqi Tashqandi or Mir Baqi, Mughal conqueror Babur’s commander of 1,000 horses, destroyed it in 1528. How do we know? That is what the Baburnama says. Baqi built a mosque on the desecrated and vandalised site, which came to be known as the Babri Masjid.

The disputed structure has posed a great challenge to Indian secularism. Especially since the popular movement to restore it, led by BJP leader and later Home Minister LK Advani. That eventually led to the felling of the mosque by a large crowd of Hindu volunteers or kar sevaks on December 6, 1992. The demolition of this one mosque was somehow painted by the left-liberal champions as the most heinous crime and assault on our state by lawless Hindu mobs. Scores of books and hundreds of articles were written on this supposed catastrophe in an attempt to demonise both Hindus and Hindutva. The truth is that the mosque was of little architectural or artistic, let alone religious, value despite its huge symbolic import as a reminder of the conquerors’ creed and credo.

The entire history of the theologically sanctioned and politically expedient looting and ravaging of thousands of Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain temples, including the major shrines at Kashi (Varanasi) dedicated to Shiva, Ayodhya dedicated to Rama, and Mathura dedicated to Krishna, was whitewashed, airbrushed, and papered over. Even when mosques were built on visible and extant Hindu temples as in Kashi, our eminent historians and journalists tried to cover up the brutality with egregious and ingenious lies and inventions. Entire cities such as Hampi, the capital of the Vijayanagara Empire, still show the extent of the deliberate defacement and wanton pillage that was carried out century after century. Until another colonial power, the British, who ruled India for almost 200 years, put a stop to it.

When practically every surviving religious image, icon, or building, since times before the Muslim conquest of India, is broken, damaged, or defiled, one would have expected even halfway intelligent people to understand what happened not only to India but to all so-called pagan civilisations conquered and colonised by Christian conquistadors in Latin America and Muslim invaders in much the rest of the classical world. India, as VS Naipaul famously put it, was indeed a wounded civilisation.

Instead of seeking repair, restoration, and reconciliation, our so-called secularist intelligentsia was bent on masking, distorting, and denying the gory past. Denialism and negationism were its watchwords. Politically powerful because they were backed by the ruling Congress, this culture-defining elite managed to control the narrative with an iron grip and iron fist for the first 50 years of our independence. That is why the bringing down of the Babri Masjid, as the outcome of a mass movement, was so important. It sent a signal to a recalcitrant, some would even say Hindu-hostile, state and its judiciary.

The success of the secular state in the Ayodhya case is in the reliance on evidence-based decision-making. The courts meticulously examined historical documents, archaeological findings, etc

Share this on

No doubt Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid became a flashpoint in Indian secularism, sparking unprecedented debates at the intersection of religion, politics, and the idea of India. Most would argue that the construction of the Ram temple is a triumph of Hindutva, emphasising the dominance of Hindu nationalism. But this is only true partially. A mob may have broken the Babri Masjid, but the institutions and apparatus of the secular state have sanctioned the building of the Ram Mandir in its place. Let us not forget that the decisions made by the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, both secular institutions, were pivotal in resolving the Ayodhya dispute.

The non-religious nature of these institutions and their impartial adjudication process actually demonstrate the strength of Indian secularism in overcoming significant challenges. From the point of view of law, the destruction of the Babri Masjid, which was a protected monument, may have been illegal. But the construction of the Ram Mandir is in accordance with the highest laws of the land.

The Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 verdict, divided the disputed site into three parts, allocating one-third to the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third to the Nirmohi Akhara, and one-third to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. The decision aimed at accommodating the interests of both Hindu and Muslim parties involved in the dispute. However, this verdict was later challenged, leading to the case reaching the Supreme Court. In November 2019, the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment, unanimously ruling in favour of the construction of the Ram Mandir. The court acknowledged the historical and archaeological evidence presented and concluded that the Hindus had established their right to the disputed land. Importantly, the Supreme Court’s decision was based on legal and constitutional principles, demonstrating the triumph of the secular state over any sectarian influence. One proof of this is that the apex court also awarded the Muslim litigants a five-acre plot elsewhere to rebuild the Babri Masjid.

The decisions of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court were crucial in settling the Ayodhya dispute and ensuring that justice prevailed. These institutions, as part of the secular state, maintained their independence from religious biases and undertook a thorough examination of historical, archaeological, and legal evidence. The Supreme Court, in particular, showcased its commitment to upholding the principles of justice, secularism, and the rule of law. This demonstrated the resilience of Indian secularism in the face of immense pressure and religious fervour.

One of the key aspects that highlight the success of the secular state in the Ayodhya case is the reliance on evidence-based decision-making. The courts meticulously examined historical documents, archaeological findings, and legal arguments to arrive at a reasoned judgment. This emphasis on evidence rather than religious sentiments or popular beliefs is a testament to the strength of the Indian legal system and its commitment to impartiality, demonstrating a commitment to truth and justice, transcending religious considerations. By relying on facts, rather than emotions, India’s constitutional institutions ensured that the resolution of the Ayodhya dispute was grounded in a rational and fair assessment of the available information.

The restoration of a civilisation is no laughing matter. It needs patience, forbearance, and healing. The Babri Masjid was a scar on India’s face. The Ram Mandir will be one step in the direction of the much-needed healing, as a prelude to more lasting peace and reconciliation. For, Ayodhya itself signifies the absence or rejection of violence, killing, and hatred. Shri Ramachandra, the avataric purusha, belongs to all of humanity, not just to Hindus or Rambhaktas. He embodies the values precious to the human species itself, not just to Hindus or Indians.

About The Author

Makarand R Paranjape

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

•