The Hindutva parivar has adopted a strikingly moderate tone ahead of the court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit.
A curious “low phase” has followed the announcement of September 24, 2010 as the date for the Allahabad (Lucknow bench) High Court decision on the consolidated Ayodhya title suit. While Muslims have consistently favoured judicial adjudication of the title dispute, the difference this time is the strikingly moderate tone adopted by the Hindutva parivar. Forget ratcheting up passions or revving into an overdrive on agitational or celebratory programmes, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its ideological mentor have consciously eschewed provocative postures.
The parivar could have used the run-up to the verdict to resurrect the fire-and-brimstone imagery of Ayodhya. The BJP has been in desperate need of something, anything, to stir up its dormant workforce. The party has been hankering for an issue that would sharpen its fighting reflexes and revive its electoral fortunes. It could have seized the upcoming verdict as just that issue.
And yet the responses of the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh suggest a definite shying away from the kind of reckless, fire-spewing politics that has been their hallmark up until now. The decision as of now is that any programme that follows from the verdict will be spearheaded by the sants and mahants, with the BJP conspicuously taking a backseat. The BJP has refused to be rushed into making comments or announcements. Sushma Swaraj's single refrain thus far has been “all comments after the judgment.”
The RSS has similarly avoided inflammatory rhetoric. At a recent meet with Delhi-based women journalists, the Sangh chief, Mohan Bhagwat, went through the motions, said the expected things about a “grand temple” at the Ram Janmabhoomi and so forth but, very significantly, added that either way the aggrieved party would appeal to the Supreme Court. As the countdown to the verdict began, the parivar further softened its stand. “There will be no knee-jerk reaction if the decision goes against us. We will decide on the future course of action while respecting the court judgment,” said a senior RSS functionary.
The phrases and words used here — “no knee-jerk reaction,” “respect for court verdict,” etc. — would be unfamiliar to those who have tracked the parivar's evocative vocabulary through the tortuous course of the Ayodhya movement. Indeed, in the past, if anyone so much as uttered the word “court”, parivar affiliates, including the BJP, would erupt in rage, arguing that there was no question of the court deciding on the whys and wherefores of the Ram temple. This, despite the contrarian position held by parties to the dispute.
Reacting to applications in the High Court for the deferment of the verdict, the Hindu Mahasabaha, one of the parties to the dispute, said earlier this week: “It appears that the present application [for deferment] has been filed by some disgruntled elements who do not believe in the majesty of law for their personal gains.”
No longer a political weapon
To the Sangh, it did not matter that other Hindu organisations held a different view. It held steadfastly to the “no-interference-by-the-court” position, which only suggests that within the larger parivar, there has been a more realistic re-appraisal of the pros and cons of taking the Ayodhya movement forward. The decision to go easy on the melodrama appears to be rooted in the following reasons. With the protagonists of the Ayodhya cause badly dispersed and some going into virtual oblivion, the movement has lost its fire. Secondly, while Ayodhya may still have a certain resonance with the Sangh rank and file, it has long since ceased to be a political weapon that the BJP can exploit. Finally, the BJP has to reckon with allies who are increasingly impatient with its temple pro-activism. It just cannot lose more members from the already haemorrhaging National Democratic Alliance.
Consider the current status of the Ayodhya warriors. At age 83, Lal Krishna Advani, who flagged off the movement with his rousing “do or die” speeches from atop the Ram rath is a shadow of his fiery Ayodhya persona. His authority and powers have drastically diminished after he led the BJP to defeat in 2009. Kalyan Singh, the “hero” of December 6, 1992, is a parody of himself, having waltzed in and out of the BJP, and repeatedly altered and re-altered his position on the temple. There cannot be a more clinching evidence of his irrelevance than the monumental flopping of his September 16 “show of strength” in the temple town.
Sadhvi Rithambhara of the ek dhakka aur do (give another push to the Babri Masjid) fame is languishing in an ashram somewhere. Uma Bharti whose joyous pose with Murli Manohar Joshi became the piece-de-resistance of December 6, 1992, has to be hunted with a microscope. Vinay Katiyar, the irrepressible founding chief of the “forever-in-battle mode” Bajrang Dal, has moved to a senior position in the BJP and has acquired an elegant facebook profile. His last entry in this unrecognisable avatar was an earnest appeal for a negotiated settlement outside the court, with “respect for the court judgment” added as a bonus. “We would respect the court judgment. The party in whose favour the verdict comes would sit quiet while the other moves the Supreme Court,” he said.
An entire generation has grown up since the Babri Masjid was brutally torn down in 1992. This generation has no institutional memory of the movement, its muscular build-up and its cataclysmic end. Liberalisation and high-tech have sharpened the entrepreneurial instincts of the merchant class that formed the BJP's core vote. It would want a grand Ram temple but not at the cost of its flourishing businesses. At the Haridwar Khumbh Mela in January-February this year, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad drew up a blue-print for a programme of mass participation ahead of the title suit verdict. Under the plan, VHP and RSS workers were to drum up support for the Ram Mandir through signature collection, visits to individual homes and recitation of the Hanuman chalisa at 8,000 selected temples across the country.
Muted support
This writer visited a sample temple in Delhi's Shalimar Bagh to find almost no interest in the VHP's programme. Devotees were at prayer as usual, most of them unaware that there was a sub-text to the Hanuman chalisa they were chanting. A gentleman introduced by a VHP office-bearer ended up praising Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. There was broad support for the mandir but it was muted and it was clear enough that nobody had the stomach for another “fight to the finish” war.
Even assuming there is a re-awakening of Hindu passions post the verdict, the question arises: Who will lead the mass movement? Ms Swaraj and Arun Jaitley are superb parliamentarians, with an unmatched ability to argue their case and demolish their opponents. But it is difficult to see either of them wade through the slush in Ayodhya and recreate the heady days of the rath yatra. It is even more difficult to picture the gregarious Nitin Gadkari in the role of a Ram champion waging a righteous war.
This is besides the waning political appeal of Ayodhya, demonstrated in election after election. The BJP won its last State election in Uttar Pradesh in 1991 — 19 years ago. Within a year of the homicidal 1992 attack on the Babri Masjid, the BJP had lost power to resurgent caste interests represented by the Samajwadi Party-Bahujan Samaj Party combine. The BJP did form governments subsequently in collaboration with the BSP but each time it aligned with Mayawati's party, its graph plunged.
Ayodhya continued to matter in the Lok Sabha elections until 1998 — when the BJP reached its peak. However, 1998 was a watershed year for the party in another respect too. It formed a government at the Centre with a dozen or so allies who insisted that the BJP put Ayodhya on the back burner. With Ayodhya gone into hibernation, the BJP took a further tumble in U.P. In the 2009 general election, it finished last in its favourite State.
Passions can get out of hand, and one would have to be very brave to predict with any certainty that the parivar cadre will restrain their emotions when the verdict is actually delivered. Violence on that day cannot be ruled out. But equally the BJP must be aware that each time it experiments with sectarianism, it gains a few hardline supporters but loses far more of the electorally crucial middle ground.
The party was badly isolated in December 1992. It watched half of the NDA walk out in the years after Gujarat 2002. And post Kandhamal, it lost the support of the valued Biju Janata Dal, and came close to losing the Nitish Kumar-led Janata Dal (United), currently its largest partner. The JD(U) and the BJP are jointly fighting the Bihar elections scheduled to start next month. And if there is one thing Mr. Kumar will absolutely not have, it is any kind of adventurism on Ayodhya. He said as much to Mr. Jaitley: “The court verdict must be accepted. Any aggrieved party can move the higher court.”
Since the BJP and the RSS are talking the same language today, they have an added responsibility to keep Ayodhya and India trouble free in the coming days.
Keywords: Ayodhya judgment, Babri Masjid issue
Comments:
Looks like the media are already uneasy over the restraint shown by all sides to the dispute ahead of the verdict! I wish they adopt the same restraint and not rehash all the forgettable insanity of the past; instead they might try to give voice and space to saner elements.
These are vital points you have made.BJP should shed the far-too-right skin(and I think it is trying to do that). It would be too simplistic for me to say "what's done is done", and even though they are responsible for the December '92 event, but then they should move out of the right wing tagging. I mean Congress is not sheep either and they are not even anywhere near perfect. So BJP should give a chance to the people and to itself also, to try to come back to power. By this I do not endorse any of their sins, but who hasn't sinned.
Responsibilities of the national parties to be seen on 24th September 2010.
A very reassuring presentation of the situation. Let us hope that the people of India treat peace as more important than anything else.
Restraint,restricted provocations,respecting secular attitude is much needed social behaviour, which India needs ,if at all India has to prove itself a superpower.No defacing of secular fabric, after court's verdict will be much appreciated by everybody.
There should not have any place of worship, rather the government should construct a school and a hospital,which is common for all citizen of the country.
The article is a patronising appreciation by Vidya Subrahmaniam of the tone of the public statements, ahead of the court verdict on the Ayodhya title suit,of what the media mockingly calls the Hindutva parivar. She perhaps finds it difficult to avoid taking a dig at those whom she generally disagrees with. In a democracy there may be groups which may have views different from what the government or the media holds on various issues. As long as these are not against the law or public morality as is widely accepted, scoffing at such dissenters should be avoided. Violence in the name of Hindu religion is definitely unacceptable. Does the word "hindutva" connote violence?
This author in particular always attributes motives for actions of BJP and RSS.
A young growing India needs to fulfil its aspirations of development and prosperity, for this we need a stable peaceful air around us. Things have changed a lot since 92, nearly two decades later people are busy trying to fulfil their affluent dreams out of the present booming economic structure. Growing economy has also brought in basic intelligence, compassion and tolerance through education, interaction with developed world and desire to be like them. Any judgment will not engage that much volume of people as it did in 1992. It's evident that any group trying for political mileage will lose electoral ground. History says it all.
Dear Sir
While the superb and in-depth analysis of the author, which predicts that court verdict will most likely not throw our country in to inferno similar to 1992, is mildly comforting, reading between the lines still makes me worried about the general health of our polity.
I think common man is just thinking about his livelyhood rather than about such so-called issues like "Ram janam bhumi-Babri mahjid". Some political parties like BJP want a political gains from this issue. Already we are fighting with lots of problems like terrorism, naxalism, Jammu & Kashmir current situation, mining mafia, corruption, dangerous neighbours, natural calamities such as tsunami,earthquake,cloud burst,flood situation,climate change,global warming and lots of more and more, we can't count.
So please tell me my beloved brothers & sister have we sufficient time for such issues?
Don't we want a prosporus,developed India?
So how to tackle such issues? Central govt,state govt should play an active role ,tighten security in disputed area,ban on rallies,media should not cover such controversial issue much more.
Why can't you make your point in fewer words? Dont get me wrong The Hindu does adhere to comparable standards and the content is good generally, but when compared with editorials of other newspapers - editorials here are lengthy, less captivating and with less impact.
What these journalist have problems? All are in tension of why BJP is not doing something interesting for them. Parties like BSP,SP are not criticized for their biased culture then why BJP? Others are also using religious or caste issues for their politics.
Please follow these guidelines without writing any provocative articles judging or givng opinion about the judgement. Please avoid writing articles on this.
As the Ayodhya title suit verdict date nears, the News Broadcasters Association has set guidelines for electronic media asking them not to speculate about the judgement and not to show the footage of 1992 Babri Masjid demolition.
The guidelines say that the Ayodhya issue is a matter in which "extra care" is necessary to ensure that the telecast of any news relating to it should not be sensational, provocative or inflammatory.
It's only politics. The temple movement has nothing to do with faith. It is absolutely clear for the masses now that whosoever led the agitation did that in order to get power and money. What people want today is a peaceful, moderate and progressive country.
The nation will certainly heave a sigh of relief at the changed mood of Mr. Advani and others.
This is a one-eyed view of the age-old Ayodhya issue. Poor conclusions based on weak analysis.
There is no way other than accepting the court's verdict. In a case like this two religious groups are fighting for decades and led the Nation into worst crisis of its history, and amicable solutions or off court settlements are not found, then only way left is depend on Court verdict. Most important thing is that the law and order of the country should be respected, no 92 repeated. It is a good stand both parties taken so far, fireband and instigative rhetorics to be controlled further. In case the verdict goes against any party they can challenge in higher court, so, for the best interest of the country, everyone should work to avoid communal tension.
With all due respect mam don't you think that your article is itself a provocative one? Now when whole of India is silent over the issue and is waiting for the judgement revisting 1992 and bringing out all the details once again will not create an anger in the youth of either community. As a journalist I think it's your responsibility also to let this event pass peacefully.
The turn over from a hardliner party on the hindutva subject, to one with a motive for the secular movement and for upholding of the Legal course of action on the Ayodhya - symbolises the maturity of the thought process within the party and their focus for the future. The Future generation insists on a society where all religions & communities are considered equal. Whether a Great Ram Temple or a shrine of other belief is built, future generation will secure its sanctity. The common sight of people of different religions visiting shrines of other religions shows the gradual maturity of the thought process developing in the minds of the future generations to come.
This kind of a thought process should be inculcated in the cadres of all the parties by their responsible leaders who can lead this nation to one of a secular nature, where the scenes of Godhra & kandhamal are still haunting the minds of the people.
What is this "Ayodhya movement" at its most powerful, most vocal, most vociferous? It's a movement to build a building over a broken one. Everything else attached to it is well beneath the rational mind. With more and more of India and its people becoming practical and rational, the fringes of religious and faith based collectives will fade into insignificance. But since the law of the land puts an importance to protecting historical buildings, it is imperative that the elements involved in breaking one be brought to justice. That is all there is to it.
VIDYA SUBRAHMANIAM Ji,
BJP is not congress which creates issues out of even trivial things like onions. You journalists tend to categorize all political parties on equal stands.
Whatever actions BJP and VHP are taking before the verdict are just for the sake of their political image. The imprudent decisions lead them to a colossal loss in the subsequent elections. If at all the 'religious victory' was their aim they had already lost it. I support BJP but not for its religious insight to shed the country's progress overall.
Though the articles in The Hindu undoubtedly reflect its secular spirit in journalism, but this article seems biased and only shows one side of the coin.
It is a welcome sign that all political parties and outfits now appear to be more mature in dealing with this problem. Let us hope that the same matured approach will continue even after the Court's verdict thus putting an end to antisocial and anti national elements to utilize this opportunity to unleash violence and sow seeds of disharmony and hatred.
Why is it so that it always depends on Political parties to disturb the harmony of our nation?This time BJP and RSS are in no mood to instigate fire on this religion issue.what if some months later they or some other party start showing their colours?
People should know themself,what is good and what is bad for them.
Vidhya, I have seen other opinion columns by you and it was in-depth and fearless analysis. However, this piece is typical main stream media timid approach. It would be appreciative if you take a balanced approach and see 2 sides of the equation-- fearlessly, its a free society after all.
Let's wait for the verdict. Everything will be clear.
The single reason why BJP et all are following restraint is because they have learnt valuable lessons on how you media are using them against them. Hence the measured approach. If afterall government cannot give up kashmir as it is part of its identity and a piece of land, for hinduism Ram is an identity which they wouldn't give up.
Just let the verdict come on Sep 24, then we will see which issue has how much importance in the minds of the people of india. <
One should have a balanced approach towards the situation. Definately things would be clear by the 24 Sept verdict. The government has a great role to play controlling situation.
what a superb piece of first rate rhetoric ! totally demolishes the hindu fundamentalist who has caused much trouble to indians.