Ayodhya victory is BJP’s. Shankaracharyas should focus on divisions in Hindu society instead

Seers can't overlook Ayodhya's significance in galvanising and uniting the Hindu society. They should play a leading role in future events or risk losing support of their devotees.

The four current Shankaracharyas. From left: Sadanand Sarasvati, Avimukteshvaranand Saraswati, Nishchalananda Saraswati and Bharati Tirtha | Illustration: Soham Sen | ThePrint

Ram Kahani’ is a popular Hindi adage, which literally means the story of Ram. But as many adages go, it also refers to the melancholic rendition of someone’s unending miseries in life. The long and chequered history of the struggle for a temple for Ram in his birthplace Ayodhya seems to be somewhat reflective of this adage even as some seers are opposing the manner in which the “Pran Pratishtha” ceremony is being held.

22 January 2024 will be etched in golden letters in history as it marks the culmination of a long struggle for the restoration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, replacing the dilapidated structure that goes by the name of Babri Masjid. The first phase of the over five centuries of the struggle ended on 6 December 1992, when kar sevaks brought down the three domes of the dilapidated structure. The Liberhan Commission took 17 years, 48 extensions and spent about Rs 8 crore to hold nearly 68 people intellectually and ideologically responsible for the demolition, including Uma Bharti, Govindacharya, Kalyan Singh, Shanker Singh Vaghela, LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi.

Then-prime minister PV Narasimha Rao, who was said to believe that ‘India is a Hindu country’, was even accused of having connived with those responsible for the demolition of the structure. Whatever the truth, it lay buried deep in the rubbles of the structure and the rest gone with the pyre of Rao whose silence and secrecy are now proverbial. Even though there is no evidence to conclusively prove this connivance, Rao certainly tried two important strategies; one was to try and solve the issue by consensus by involving saints and seers, and the other, to derive as much political mileage as possible.

Rao cobbled a small team of his Cabinet members and friends and invited five important Shankaracharyas (including the Kanchi Swamy who was very close to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad) to form an “independent trust” (Ramalaya Trust) patronised by the government and led by the head of the Shringeri Peeth (who incidentally hailed from Rao’s state of Andhra Pradesh). The other smaller but significant “Vaishnav” religious institutions, as well as the VHP and the RSS, made efforts to wean the Shankaracharyas away from the government and suggested that an independent “Dharma Sansad” (Parliament of Religions) be formed, which will go into the various aspects of the temple. The BJP also wanted a stamp of approval from the Supreme Court for the ownership of the temple land and its precincts.

Rao was very confident that a government-supported trust consisting of saints and seers would divert the political dividends to the Congress. The Puri Shankaracharya objected to the construction of a mosque along with the temple. Finally, the seers withdrew from Rao’s plan and the Congress party lost the election in 1996, thus frustrating Rao’s twin strategy.

Focus on the future

The four Shankaracharyas who allege that the BJP is politically motivated in holding a grand function on 22 January in Ayodhya should look back and ponder over the involvement of religious heads in the Ayodhya issue in the past. Many of the religious denominations and their heads have, at some time or the other, been part of the movement or part of the negotiations initiated by the governments and civil society activists.

Besides, none of them, barring a handful of a few, came forward to speak for issues that divided the Hindu society like caste divisions, untouchability and social reforms.

After 1996, the BJP realised the importance of political power to achieve its objectives of building the Ram temple in Ayodhya and/or abrogation of Article 370. Its dream of absolute majority came true in 2014 and the rest, as they say, is history.

The Akhil Bharatiya Akhada Parishad will reportedly confer the title of “Sanatan Shiromani” (Epitome of Sanatana Dharma) on Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Incidentally, this is one of the many religious platforms that came up in the run-up to the Ayodhya movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The VHP was spearheading the movement but it had also successfully roped in heads of several Hindu religious denominations. This was a clever and strategic move to reach maximum people and create a wider following and acceptance for the cause. Ayodhya was sought to be made a socio-cultural issue and a matter of national pride.

The role of seers

Throughout these awareness programmes, the VHP and the RSS were also aware of two important aspects of the movement. One was that the Ram temple issue had to be a positive Hindu assertion movement and not spin off into a conflict between different Hindu denominations as well as go against Muslims. The other aspect was to keep the movement as far away from politics as possible.

The action plans keeping these aspects in view were devised in 1982, two years after the formation of the BJP, following the issue of dual membership and the fall of the Janata Party government. The BJP’s poor performance in the 1984 Lok Sabha (when it won just two seats) was attributed to “Gandhian Socialism”, which soon gave way to the Ram Mandir issue riding on Advani’s Somnath and Ayodhya rath yatra. In a way, the religious heads have no or very little role to play in the ascendancy of the BJP or the legal and social victory on Ayodhya.

The significance of Ayodhya in galvanising and uniting the Hindu society cannot be overlooked by the seers. They should play a leading role in the future events as they unfold or risk losing support of their devotees. On the other hand, the seers, Shankaracharyas, and heads of various denominations play an important role in Hindu unity and social reforms movement, including the “No Mosque-only Ram Temple at Ayodhya” stand of the RSS/VHP. Their salience should not be negated citing trivial issues of criticism of procedural matters.

Seshadri Chari is the former editor of ‘Organiser’. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prashant)