The inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, which is believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, brings to a closure a long-fought religious battle between the Hindus and Muslims that pulverised India for more than a century. Or does it?
In 1940, Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his weekly publication Harijan: “India is a big country, a big nation, composed of different cultures which are tending to blend with one another, each complementing the rest. If I must wait for the completion of this process, I must wait. It may not be completed in my day. I shall love to die in the faith that it must come in the fullness of time.”
This is a federalist notion of the Indian nation. Gandhi considered India as a federation of autonomous religious communities, and hence emphasised Hindu-Muslim unity as the bedrock of national unity. The founding of the modern Republic of India in 1950 was a milestone, but not a culmination for any section of Indians who thought of a modern nation. Constitutional scholar Mohan Gopal notes that the making of the nation is conceived in the Constitution as a dynamic, continuing process. “The Preamble to the Constitution says, ‘We, the people of India…. solemnly resolved to constitute India,’” he said. “It did not say, India ‘has been constituted’, but said it was ‘resolved to constitute.’”
Radical thinkers of the right, left, and subalternism considered independence from the British only a step in the real freedom of the people. Federalists continue to make that point about India. For instance, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who is a strident opponent of Hindutva, insists that India is an ongoing conversation, echoing Mahatma Gandhi. The BJP considers such provisionality not merely problematic, but even anti-national. The Ram Temple in Ayodhya is about drawing the curtain on the conversation that Mr. Gandhi mentioned. It is the claim of a finality.
Nationalism is always premised on a singular certitude, and the concessions given to constituent groups would never breach a tolerance threshold. Pluralism, when it is tolerated, is largely for tactical reasons. The singularity of nationalism is the truth to which all paths must converge. Multiple interpretations of Indian nationalism — scholars have used nationalisms, in plural, often — have to be viewed within this overarching logic of homogenisation without which nationalism has no leg to stand on. Note that Mahatma Gandhi was willing to wait until that day when everything is blended as one. There was no ambiguity over the objective, the destination.
The paradox of Hindutva’s claim of certitude about the Hindu nation, and the finality represented by the construction of the temple in Ayodhya is a problem of nationalism itself. Nationalism needs new frontiers of advancement; if static, it will collapse. Expansionism is essential for its survival. Nationalism is often the product of a yearning for freedom, paradoxically again, it also denies that same yearning in others. All this makes this moment of culmination also the beginning of new battles.
Federalism Tract - Notes on Indian Diversity
Accord and Discord
There is a Hindu-Muslim dispute over the place in Mathura that the Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Interestingly enough, there was an agreement that Hindus and Muslims had reached in 1965 over the land. An ongoing legal battle now questions the legitimacy of that agreement. The Hindu petitioners want the entire property in question to be given to the temple. The Supreme Court has for now halted the functioning of a commission constituted by the Allahabad High Court to inspect the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura after finding it was sought on vague grounds.
Politics of faith
Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik is trying to claim a slice of temple votes at state expense. The Jagannath Temple corridor in Puri has been spruced up. The government will also facilitate the visit of at least 10,000 villagers to the temple a day and spread awareness about the Jagannath culture, for which ₹177 crore has been earmarked.
Reservation and Resentment
The BJP-led Centre has directed the Manipur government to examine the demand for the de-listing of certain Kuki-Zo tribes from the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list of Manipur. The State has been witnessing ethnic strife between the non-tribal Meitei and the tribal Kuki-Zo populations at least since May 3 last year. The conflict is said to have been triggered by an order from the Manipur High Court recommending the inclusion of the Meiteis in the ST list. The members of the community have claimed inclusion in the list to be able to own lands in hill districts occupied predominantly by the Kuki-Zo tribes. The representation claimed that certain tribes are not “indigenous” to Manipur as they were not listed originally in the pre-independence census. Additionally, the ambiguity in the tribal list has been alleged to have aided illegal migration from Myanmar and Bangladesh. But what do the first Backward Class Commission (1955) and the successive Lokur Commission report (1965) say about tribal classification in Manipur?
