Ayodhya Chronicles: From Struggle To Triumph

In what is widely considered as one of the most (if not the most) impactful Budgets of independent India, in 1991, the then Finance Minister and future Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh used Victor Hugo's famous quote, "No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come," in his speech.

On 22 January 2024, it will be an unstoppable idea that will come to fruition, with the inauguration of a grand temple dedicated to Lord Ram, at his birthplace, Ayodhya.  This momentous occasion will hopefully bring to conclusion a struggle that, as per a number of  scholars, had been going on for centuries. 

Many would be wondering why a simple temple construction became a centuries-long struggle? Dr Manmohan Singh’s use of a poetic couplet in the 1991 budget speech can give the answer:

Lamhon ne khataa ki thi, sadiyon ne sazaa paayee.

Translation: Mistakes made in moments created trouble for centuries. 

This couplet was both appropriate and peculiarly prescient for the then ruling Congress government which had to deal with the hugely popular Ram Janmabhoomi Movement which by that time had gained an unstoppable momentum.

Most readers will know the history of the movement and the yearning of its participants for the rebuilding of a grand Ram Temple in the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya, where at the the time stood the Babri Mosque named after the first Mughal emperor Babur. And it was regarding the fate of the 'mosque' that devotees of Lord Ram and the Muslims of the country witnessed a hostile confrontation.

The Babri structure's fate was sealed on 6 December, 1992, when a large group of Hindu activists brought it down.

On the topic of the destruction of a temple in Ayodhya and its replacement with a mosque, it is necessary that the couplet quoted in Dr Singh’s budget speech be given a historical context by this extended extract from Koenraad Elst’s work Ayodhya ,The Case Against the Temple:

"The Hindu temple at the contentious site was devastated either by the armies of Mahmud of Ghazni or the Delhi Sultans who captured the place and established here their provincial seat. It is quite probable, and possible too, that a mosque was first raised during the Sultanate period (1001-1030; 1192-1526) on the site of the most important temple associated with the life of Rama, and Mir Baqi just restored that mosque during his occupation of Ayodhya. Sushil Srivastava likewise opines: Mir Baqi might have had the mosque renovated and then re-dedicated it to Babur……. 

Amidst all the discussions on the history, the Muslim claimants insisted on the principle: once a mosque, always a mosque.

Ayodhya is believed to be the birth place of Lord Ram, with several scriptures extolling its virtues as being one of the most auspicious tirtha kshetras providing the devotees access to approach divinity, and in certain cases bestowing moksha upon them. Hence, in addition to the historical debates, any kind of dispute in Ayodhya constitutes an infringement on the devotees’ religious obligations.

The Ayodhya dispute was also an issue of cultural resurgence, an expression of the collective consciousness of the Hindu ethos, so to speak. 

However, a large section of the country’s intelligentsia who were driving the national narrative on the left side took a rather belligerent stance on the issue, taunting the very idea behind the construction of a grand Ram Temple at Ayodhya besides questioning the historicity of Lord Rama, calling it nothing beyond local folklore; some going as far as claiming that if there was an Ayodhya, it would be in Afghanistan.

They all shared a political philosophy that saw history as a tool to define their hold on what they called the “Idea of India”.

Their taunts managed in creating a sturdy barrier between what these intellectuals considered ‘modern Indians’ and more traditional-minded Hindus. However, this same group of intellectuals had no qualms in openly aligning themselves with Islamist organisations opposing the building of the temple. 

The Ram Mandir movement gained a lot of momentum during the 1980’s which can be correctly described as the ‘make or break’ decade for the Indian republic:

1. Secessionist movements had ripped through the country cutting across Punjab, Kashmir, North-East. They took the lives of thousands including a sitting Prime Minister; the plant of ‘bleeding India with a thousand cuts’ was bearing its poisonous fruits. 

At this juncture the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement presented the countrymen with a unifying cause that would prevent Hindu society from fracturing along regional and caste lines with its central theme of Lord Ram, the great unifier. That various segments of the Hindu society saw the movement as an organic one can be gleaned from the following famed scene belonging to Anant Patwardhan’s documentary:

A poetic allegory, interestingly drawn by Sir Muhammad Iqbal in an earlier era, touched upon the nation's sentiments regarding Shri Ram.

Hai Ram ke wajood pe Hindustaan ko naaz,
Ahle-e-nazar samajhte hain usko imam-e-Hind.

India is mighty proud of Rama’s sacred name,

Discerning minds respect his word as the voice of God.

The mighty pride in Rama’s sacred name in Iqbal’s words was palpable on 9 November 1989, when scores of Hindu devotees assembled at Ayodhya laying the foundation stone of the prospective temple. The date was coincidentally significant as it was on that very day the Berlin Wall was torn down.

Following this incident, the largely secular political class of the day became excessively combative towards the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement, taking certain measures to debilitate it, including arresting its chief leaders, and in coming days fortifying the otherwise quaint town of Ayodhya with armed security officials.

Then UP chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav had declared: “Parinda bhi par nahi maar payega” (Even a bird cannot fly in).

But as the song dedicated to the fall of the Berlin wall went:

The wind of change blows straight into the face of time

Like a storm wind that will ring the freedom bell for peace of mind

Though chided as anti-modern, the Ayodhya movement also saw many ‘modern’ Indians attempt to understand the concerns of the ‘folksy’ Hindus; in many cases the modern side had a better appreciation of the ‘folksy’ kind and decided not to remain mere spectators but actively participate in navigating the movement. 

An alliance was also formed between the scholars of history, religion and most importantly law, since the movement and its leaders were heavily reliant on the legal process of the land to achieve its aims. 

The alliances and the understandings helped clear several political and legal hurdles, the result of which was the famed Ayodhya Verdict pronounced on 9 November, 2019 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, that legally sanctioning the construction of a grand Ram Temple on the site. 

Many from the aforementioned belligerent intelligentsia see the verdict as a blot on the secular fabric of India which in their eyes will lead the Indian republic to a doomed end.

One cannot predict the future but to allay their woes we would end where we started—Dr Manmohan Singh’s 1991 budget speech where he quoted Mohammed Iqbal: 

Yunan-o-Misr-o-Roma sab mit gaye jahan se
Ab tak magar hai baki naam-o-nishan hamara,
Kuchh baat hai ki hasti mitti nahin hamari
Sadiyon raha hai dushman daur-e-zaman hamara

Greek, Egyptians, and Romans have all vanished,

but we are still here.

There must be something special that we,

still exist despite the whole world being against us.