India has witnessed a major event of Bhoomipujan on 5th
of August at the erstwhile disputed site in Ayodhya. The Presence of Prime
Minister of Indian State in pivotal role during the ceremony is self-evident of
its grandeur and extravaganza.
It was the aftermath of 9-month-old judgment
of Supreme Court which came in the favor of Ram Janmbhumi (M Siddiq vs. Mahant
Suresh Das & ors). 3-decade-old struggle of BJP and other hindutva brigade
finally came to an end. But at the same time, the event has overtly or covertly
raised some questions pertaining to secularism in India, majority dominance,
injustice to minorities and many more. HERE ,in this piece of article, i am
trying to explore such aspects.
1. Immoral But Natural Intercourse Of State
& Religion:- Any Political
System can’t work in vacuum especially in Indian case where society is highly
religious. Therefore, it would be utopian to imagine a political system devoid
of social factor like religion ,caste etc. Moreover, the intercourse of state
and religion is inevitable in multi-religious country like India. Our
Constitution-makers were well aware with this fact and thus adopted the
principle of secularism which is different from western secularism as it does not
profess complete separation between church and state. So, the intercourse reflected through
this bhoomipujan may seems immoral or unethical but actually this is
natural.
2.Ram
Mandir: Political Hotspot or Religious
Centre? When 3-decade-old hope and desire of a major political party find utterance after a
long suppression, it would be futile to think about this as only
non-political or merely religious. It would not be surprising if Aug 5 marked
as ‘vijay divas’ or if govt. announces annual jamboree on this very day. The ruling party based upon the
principle of cultural hindutva will certainly try its best to encash such event
in upcoming elections.
3.Kamandal Project and
Paradigm Shift in Indian Politics.
Right wing groups have been active in
politics since freedom struggle. But, they were more or less
overshadowed by the charismatic leadership of Congress party. Congress
leadership had had a strong belief in
modern democratic values like secularism during freedom struggle and even after freedom. But, in the course of
time, this ‘state-sponsored secularism’ allegedly took the shape of appeasement
of a particular minority and sometimes at the cost of majority interest. Finally, in the early 90’s, the iconic rathyatra of L K Advani and sporadic incendiary comments
of right wing politicians that led to Babri Masjid demolition, became
successful in gaining supports of those disgruntled majority Hindus. It was a period of paradigm shift in the Indian politics where the very principle of
secularism was at stake.
After the interval of 25 years, BJP as well
as the Mandir-Masjid issue rose to power in the name of ‘Development’ with a
strong face of Narendra Modi. It is strange but beauty of Indian politics that
even to woo the majority Hindu voters or to implement the hidden hindutva
agenda, the party was forced to use the slogan of development instead of any other
religious slogan. 4.Modi
2.0 and the Hindutva Project:- BJP govt. during its
first stint(14-19) was mainly focused on the ‘change’ ,however, not in actual
or revolutionary sense but only for change in the name of institutions, schemes ,
earlier programmes, Roads etc.(NITI Aayog, Swacch Bharat, Kalaam Marg). Other
focus area was creating a ‘new normal’ by remaining neutral over the issue of
widespread lynching and provocative comments of ruling party leaders in a proper
pattern. Also, Nehru got so much space in media perhaps first time after his
death thanks to ruling party. The art of distraction from the burning issues
should also be included in Modi's Charisma. Above-mentioned hard-earned
steps along with media management and 'photoshop' during first term was sufficient
for creating the grounds for construction of Ram Mandir and other such projects
like 370 and NRC(Each has some religious connotations) which came to fruition
in 2nd term. I must say at this point that India has had never seen a
politician with such a good sense of event management as Mr. Modi.
5.TIMING:- Pronouncement
of judgment by the bench of CJI Gogoi and later his appointment as nominated
member in Rajya Sabha might be BrahmSanyog or something else for bhakts but timing
matters.
Secondly, UP govt. has
fixed and PM Modi has attended the ceremony of bhoomipujan amid the
dangerous COVID-19 pandemic. PM Modi should have been given opportunity to recite his ‘own’ “tryst with destiny” as “In the stroke of this adverse hour when the world is
fighting COVID-19 and Indian healthcare system is itself in shambles... I am
fighting for much bigger cause which can’t be postponed after this pandemic or
after upcoming Bihar election". Thirdly, COVID 19 also helped the ruling
party to justify the conspicuous absence
of chief architect of Ram Janmbhumi movement like Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi,
Uma Bharti etc. This phenomenon proves that any photographer could learn ‘focus
adjustment’ skill from PM Modi. 6.Bhoomipujan: the end of
politico-religious conflict or is the beginning itself:- Many liberals are
of the view that completion of RAM Mandir will stall the communal politics in
India. However, It would be mere daydreaming if ‘Ayodhya to sirf jhanki hai ,
Mathura-Kashi baki hai’ strikes in
the mind of quarantined Chanakya-lite Amit Shah. I don’t think it is going to be the end of
the conflict rather bhoomipujan
is actually the attempt to start it afresh.
7.Majority response:- Majority Hindu community came up with the
natural response of happiness and joy. But, the sense of victory against
minorities is more palpable in the happiness of most of the Hindus. Some fanatics
are thinking that it is the first step in the path of ‘Hindu rashtra project’.
Whatsapp status and forwards full of hatred and Hindu chauvinism testify the
same. However, world is not so dark as many
followers of Hinduism took up the matter with tolerance and in no mood to let
the politician reap the benefit of this event. 8.Minority response:- Leaders
of minority Muslim community came up with hue & cry and they reportedly felt cheated by the judgment of SC. Some of them opined
that secular India is no more secular to protect the interest of minority. Why the onus should always be on majority
to prove secularism? The dispute , I think , should have been settled much earlier
at the instance of Muslim community itself. One can say that, had it happened as surrender then the
majority Hindus would have inflicted more suppression to minority Muslims. But, in my opinion, the present Hindu-Muslim debate and the prevailing polarisation politics
would not have been so prominent in
Indian politics had they shunned their adamant position over Babri Masjid
site. It could have been a gift to majority who had rendered their support for
secular state during and after freedom
struggle. The point is that the
ultimate loss caused by this Mandir-Masjid
debate is to be borne by the Muslims themselves especially in terms of their
reduction from status of citizen to mere
vote bank and also in terms of underdevelopment due to polarization politics.
9.Impact of politico-religious debate:- Due to the new normal
created by ruling dispensation, drawing room having TV attached has now become the
spot of heated discussion over those issues which is not so directly connected
with the betterment of family or society at large. Citizens are now becoming
more and more concerned with their religious identity because of the propaganda
facilitated by the nexus of govt. and media houses. Bhoomipujan has supplied
politico-religious content to media for next 2 or 3 days(at least). Such debates
in recent past somehow managed to eclipse the real issues which urgently need
to be addressed. Poor Healthcare System(exposed vividly during COVID 19), Starvation,
Economic Slowdown, Unemployment, Urban and Rural Planning etc. are no more
serious issues for so called ‘New India’.(‘New India’ is actually a misnomer
for ‘India afraid of 20 crore vulnerable Muslims’.) 10.Conclusion:- Penetration of
religion into politics in country like India is obvious and inevitable. Ram
Mandir is going to be a reality in
upcoming years. A Mosque on that 5-acre land is also bound to be a reality. No
party is so liberal to grant the land for other welfare purposes. In such
circumstances, it would be more ethical and just to treat the Ram Mandir as a
‘Temple of Peace’ instead of ‘War-stone’ by both parties as well as government.
Display of chauvinism in the name of valour and the display of vengeance in the
name of minority rights should be jettisoned by both Hindus and Muslims
respectively at this point of time in ultimate interest of the nation.
Moreover, the role of government is too crucial to undermine at this particular
point of time because the charisma of PM Modi can even turn error to account.
