How Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir is a win for BJP and not Hindus

Co-authored by Mohammad Amaan Siddiqui, Ayaan Iqbal, and Mohammed Adnan Ibrahim. This article is not just from researched sources but also includes statements given by Hindus about Ram Mandir.

“There is nothing Hindu about tearing down a place that has historically meant so much to a population”
[Nandita (pseudonym), Uttar Pradesh].

“It [Ram Mandir construction] feels like propaganda before elections. […] The government could prioritize much more important issues [welfare and the economy]”
[Aditi (pseudonym), Rajasthan].

On January 22, 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir. The temple was constructed on a site that has been controversial since the 16th century. In the 1900s, so-called religious tensions were exacerbated, resulting in Hindutva ultranationalists destroying the illegal destruction of the Babri Masjid that formerly stood at the site of today’s Ram Mandir. Many battles, legal and extrajudicial, followed.

In 2019, the legal struggle was settled by a 1045-page Supreme Court judgment. While the conclusions of the report are many, this judgment is often reduced to its land grant clauses that gave the contested Babri Masjid site for the construction of the Ram Mandir and allotted a different land to replace the historic Babri Masjid.

The destruction of Babri and the ~2500 people the ensuing riots killed, but this summary does not do justice to the stories of individual people and the role this fiasco played in the court’s legal gymnastics, the ignorance of the illegal destruction of the Masjid in the first place, and the growth of BJP’s political clout, not religious devotion, in the decades to come. Several other events are affiliated with what is reductively labelled the “Ayodhya Case,” such as L. K. Advani’s Rath Yatra, which also took many lives and now represents another case of BJP’s endorsement of extrajudicial and illegal actors.

The components of the politics of Babri, Ram Mandir, and Ayodhya are many, but one theme can be found–the gains the BJP makes through them. Given the immense role that the BJP played throughout this ordeal and the blood these activities rest on, the question of Ayodhya is not one that is limited to Ayodhya nor so-called Hinduism but matters for India as a whole.

Key Takeaways about Ram Mandir and BJP’s Politics (Synopsis)

“I grew up learning Ramayana and Mahabaratha. One thing I know is Ram won’t be happy about the intentions behind the building of a temple for him, he won’t be happy about the blood shed behind this. Hinduism doesn’t teach that. I can never stand how politicized the whole establishment of Ram Mandir sounded rather than genuine faith and devotion for Ram”
[Tanushree (pseudonym), South Indian].

The overall driving point of this article unveils how Ram Mandir’s construction and narratives around it are almost exclusively created or hijacked by the BJP to pay off at the electoral booths. Most narratives that support Ram Mandir’s construction are incongruent with both the majority view among Hindus and the 2019 Supreme Court judgment.

“Being a South Indian Non-Resident Indian, I personally think having a mandir for Ram is good but more than the values it has for Hindus I strongly hate how its construction and the whole land dispute goes against the secular nature and promise of the country and that to me takes a higher priority than another temple”
[Ayush (pseudonym), Kerala].

The BJP is not defending Hindus from any threat; rather, it creates narratives around a threat that does not really exist and sells disinformation to unsuspecting voters, abusing their religiosity. A nation where Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and all communities can truly thrive is one where the BJP is voted out of power. The details of these claims can be read throughout the following sections of the article:

The importance of Ram Mandir for BJP
- The role of L. K. Advani and the Rath Yatra
- Legal battles and an opportunistic BJP
Pre-BJP historical events
Aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition
Legality of the Ram Mandir and other common narratives
- Idols inside Babri in 1949 and other archaeological “evidence.”
- The Mughals and destruction of a pre-Babri temple
- The nature of (non)Islamicness of Babri’s architecture
- The testimony of KK Muhammed
- Matters of religion: Rama’s birthplace and Muslims’ rights over Babri
Implications and Next Steps

The importance of the Ram Mandir for BJP

To understand how the temple came to be, it is important to recognize the role of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), created in the 1980s, following a couple of predecessors and a dominant Congress era.

This party was the creation of disgruntled Janata coalition members, particularly Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) members who were actively discouraged from participating in the pro-Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) faction (the RSS and BJP had much closer ties and collaborations starting 1992 with the Babri case).

While the party initially aimed to sway voters with its Hindu nationalist ideals, it struggled to garner support. This forced the party to retract to a more moderate stance, trying to appeal to crowds using the now-secular Janata Party, as well as Gandhian Socialism.

Unfortunately, this strategy was also unsuccessful. This was mainly due to the Congress’ efficient rallying methods following Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Following this, the Party’s first president, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was replaced by Lal Krishna Advani, most notably known for being India’s 7th and last Deputy Prime Minister of India.

The Role of L. K. Advani and the Rath Yatra

L. K. Advani was the mastermind behind the Ram Janmabhoomi (Birthplace of Rama) movement and orchestrated the Rath Yatra (chariot journey). This journey and the social movement called upon followers to enter the Babri Masjid to offer prayers with the underlying belief that this is where lay the birthplace of the Hindu deity, Rama.

Advani was then instrumental in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, joining hands with the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). VHP was founded by Golwalkar and carries on an extremist ideology that conceptualises a true Indian only as a true Hindu, and such a true Hindu must also conform to the characterizations of Hindus that the VHP creates, lest they be trolled and heckled for being second-class “secular Hindus” or “liberal Hindus.”

Along with many other Sangh Parivar organisations, the VHP also has at its core the vision to dismantle India’s secular democracy and replace it with a Hindutva state. In the Ayodhya context, VHP played a crucial role with Advani in gathering 150,000 people who finally demolished Babri. The Government of Bihar, however, was far from impressed and had L.K Advani arrested. Still, Advani was successful in his yatra, as supporters attacked the mosque, battling with paramilitary forces, leading to several casualties.

“As someone deeply rooted in the teachings of Hinduism, I’m beyond distraught to see the Ram Mandir’s construction marred by controversy and division. Our faith is founded on principles of inclusivity, kindness, and respect for all beings. This discordant path strays far from the teachings of Lord Ram, who exemplified unity and compassion in his every action. We must build our temples not just with bricks and mortar, but with the values that truly reflect the essence of Hinduism.”
[Kaavya (pseudonym), from Kerala].

Legal Battles and an Opportunistic BJP

This case eventually reached the Indian Supreme Court, which concluded that there was no evidence linking the destruction of an underlying temple and the construction of the masjid, which was built approximately 400 years later. Despite this, the court ruled in favour of the so-called Hindu parties. This then allowed for the construction of Ram Mandir, which was inaugurated earlier this month by the secular state’s PM Modi.

BJP would not have been able to gain the fame and appeal they did if it wasn’t for their exploitation of the Babri/Ayodhya issue. The party and its leaders are inspired by the creators of the modern political Hindutva ideology that seeks to subvert Hinduism and dharmic values. It is no surprise that the BJP and Sangh’s “Hinduism” is restricted to niche cultures of Northern states and Hindi speakers with not only an ignorance of other Hindu deities, languages, and cultures but also an exercise of supremacy over them.

Even today, BJP’s support for Ram Mandir induces a ‘rally around the flag’ effect and has nothing to do with true Hindu values. Unfortunately, the appeal of Ram Janmabhoomi has captivated many individuals who claim to be apolitical and that they would like to be “far from politics” but do not realize that what they are celebrating is not a win for their religious devotion but plays into BJP’s fame. They claim not to like politics but support the creation of a lawless massacre and an electoral campaigning ploy.

“I’m shocked that we allowed something like that and nobody is able to see through the political stunt of constructing a temple at the cost of another religious site. [And those who can see through it] don’t care, they are so rooted in the propaganda”
[Neha (pseudonym), Delhi].

Countless other themes can be found in BJP’s dealing with Ayodhya that can identified in their undemocratic and Hindutva majoritarian modus operandi. For example:

The BJP is notorious for celebrating criminals and terrorists who were earlier jailed or on trial for massacring innocent Muslims. Previously, they endorsed BJP officials, such as Pragya Thakur, a primary accused in the Malegaon blasts, Tejasvi Surya, an infamous disinformation spreader who constantly vilifies Muslims.
They also protect aides, such as the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, who were garlanded by local Hindutva organizations for being “Brahmins of good character,” despite their history of rape and murders.
Recently, the BJP government awarded L. K. Advani with the highest civilian honour for the illegal and violent Rath Yatra. Advani also has a long history of criminal cases and charges for communal disharmony and extremist acts.
But being a Hindutva proponent, it is no surprise that he, too, like Nanaji Deshmukh, will receive honours for his divisionary politics.

Pre-BJP Historical Events

This however, was not the first such attempt of takeover. In 1853, Niromhi Akhara, one of the 14 recognized Hindu denominations, forcefully entered the site, claiming their right over its entirety. Two years later, two divisions were created. The British Raj also involved themselves towards the end of the decade, setting up a railing to separate the outer courtyard to avoid disputes.

Thirty years later, the Hindus once again pushed yet again, hoping to build a temple. The civil administration again put its foot down, then the court, followed by higher courts. All of this was done on the grounds that there would be a law and order issue, and that 358 years later, it was simply an issue best forgotten as it was too late to reverse the process.

On December 23rd, 1949, two idols of Ram and Sita were placed, allegedly “mysteriously,” forcing further contention. This was despite Faizabad’s Civil Judge (once again) ruling against such assertions and rights a few years prior.

In the last one century, these activities were primarily led by Hindutva organizations indoctrinated with the contemporary seemingly religious version of the political ideology rather than organically originating from among the Hindu community. Essentially, the Sangh Parivar earlier took the role of abusing ordinary people’s faith, which is now done collectively by them and the BJP.

Aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition

The difference between the previous incidents and Advani’s yatra is that the latter actually had a lasting impression, as the Rajiv Gandhi government allowed Hindus to finally access the site for prayer in 1985, despite constant disputes for the previous 130 years.

Rajiv Gandhi made this decision purely to save face and regain Hindu voters, which were lost due to a previous case (Shah Bano case) where the judgment disappointed Hindus. The poor reception of this case encouraged Rajiv Gandhi to make decisions opportunistically.

Another interesting point to note is that even though the Chief Minister of Utter Pradesh at the time, Kalyan Singh, promised to protect the mosque, the police defense deployed was weak and insufficient to control the crowd gathered. A 2009 report, several police officers, and bureaucrats criticised Kalyan’s lack of action.

This demolition kickstarted several months of riots between Hindus and Muslims, with action taken against VHP and BJP members. Some of the most famous acts of violence, including the Mumbai Riots between December 1992 and January 1993, were coordinated by the Marathi-based Shiv Sena. This event caused the death of 900 people, and $3.6 billion dollars worth of property damage.

Legality of the Ram Mandir and Other Common Narratives

The Supreme Court verdict that allowed for the construction of the Ram Mandir is often reduced to just this conclusion. Many then mistakenly draw all sorts of incorrect conclusions just from this one, such as inferring that allowing for Ram Mandir to be constructed here means that the Mughals destroyed an earlier Mandir 400+ years ago. This section reminds us the actual conclusions of the case to dispel the myths that are being consciously spread by political actors and nationalists, clearly to induce feelings of religious nationalism and securing their vote banks. To that end, the 1045-page judgment’s following important conclusions are often ignored:

Idols Inside Babri in 1949 and other Archaeological “Evidence.”

In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were smuggled inside the Masjid. While some claim that these were findings of archeological evidence, the SC verdict identified these findings as descerations (p. 11, 76, 914, 921-922). It also declared illegal the damage caused on occasions in 1934 and 1992 (p. 914-915).

Indubitably, the aftermath and evidence collection, including the disputed archaeological survey, was only possible because of the illegal and extremist destruction in the first place. How can the court allow for the collection of evidence of an act of a nature that it otherwise recognizes? How can the “evidence” of a mission supporting armed extremists be trusted? Indeed, they cannot, as subsequent points in the verdict deny many of the major claims of the archaeological survey. Many other non-Muslim academics and archaeologists deny all of the survey’s claims.

The Mughals and Destruction of a Pre-Babri Temple

The Mughals are often a scapegoat of the ruling party and their voters. As such, the issue of Ayodhya is often interpreted as a nationalist one as they claim it is their move of reclaiming a site destroyed by the Islamic Mughal invaders. However, the verdict concluded that there was no evidence that the archeological site was a result of destruction by the Mughals or any adversary. The destruction of the prior structure and the construction of Babri were two separate and unrelated events.

“Hypothetically, even if that [the Mughals destroying the temple on Babri’s site] was true, eye for an eye is not what Sanatana Dharma teaches”
[Tanushree (pseudonym), South Indian].

The Nature of (Non)Islamicness of Babri’s Architecture

It is also often claimed that Babri’s structure is un-Islamic. However, the verdict concluded that such claims are baseless (p. 914). Had it not been for the destruction of Babri and political pressures on the judiciary that acted in a non-secular manner, the Supreme Court would not have been able to grant the site to the Hindutva proponents. The verdict otherwise concluded that the conflict and destruction of Babri was illegal and “wrongly deprived” the Muslims “of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago” (p. 922).

The testimony of KK Muhammed

KK Muhammed, who was the Foreign Regional Director of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) was among the first people to call upon the Muslim community to hand over the mosque to the Hindus. He claimed to be a part of the team that investigated the temple in the first survey by the ASI in 1977, led by Professor BB Lal. He testified about the apparent presence of 12 temple pillars underneath the structure. Also, he accused prof Lal and his team of hiding the findings of the survey and not making it public using unsubstantiated anti-Communist rhetoric.

This single testimony by Muhammed is often misused to paint a picture of a token Muslim supporting the BJP and further aggravates claims about Muslim support for the BJP. However, KK Muhammed’s claims of being in the survey were declared false by former members of the ASI, along with the absence of his name on the ASI reports during that time period. Another anomaly was the fact that KK Muhammed was, in fact, present at Aligarh in the Department of History; there was no record of absence in his file accessed by the former chairman of the Department of History at AMU.

Matters of Religion: Rama’s Birthplace and Muslims’ Rights over Babri

The conclusion of the case also dispels the narrative that the verdict confirmed that the birthplace of Ram was under Babri’s central dome, while it remains undisputed that the birthplace is in Ayodhya. The verdict states that:

“The dispute is over immovable property. The court does not decide [ownership] on the basis of faith or belief.” It subsequently granted the land to the Hindutva side based on evidence of Hindu worship in the past and ownership of the site’s outer courtyard (p. 914, 921).

At the same time, the verdict is confusing and evidently employed gymnastics to please the Hindutva order of the BJP that was consolidating in 2019. The above conclusions of devotion on the Hindu side appear for the Muslim side, too. The verdict states:

“The existence of the structure of the Mosque until 6 December 1992 does not admit any contestation. The evidence indicates that there was no abandonment of the mosque by Muslims” (p. 914).

Ultimately, the court’s verdict handed the land to the Hindutva side not because of uncontested ownership, Ram’s birthplace, nor because of anything to do with the Mughals. But because of proof of ownership of the outer courtyard prior to 1857.

In contrast, the Babri masjid’s lawful existence and unlawful destruction were acknowledged time and time again. The verdict also identified the opposite side rightly for unlawfully depriving Muslims of their rights.

“Religion plays an important role for people in different ways. Telling someone their religion is wrong is hurtful. But to destroy places of worship to build your own is an even more alarming sign of supremacy”
[Shivani (pseudonym), from Tamil Nadu].

Yet, it did not do what the law should do, it acted unfairly. An educator, Dr. Gayathri’s, analysis concludes this best (pseudonym), “The Hindu side only had to show worship on the site while the Muslim side had to show ownership of the site. Different goalposts for the same case.” Even if it were to be assumed that granting the land to Hindus with a different site for the former Babri Masjid was ideally the correct decision, many questions remain unanswered.

Why was the site destroyed illegally?
Why was no justice given to the murders caused by the extremists?
Why were different evidentiary standards used for the different parties?
Why was the secular government’s BJP party so involved in a religious issue to the extent that its members directly and indirectly orchestrated violence?
Why were the members participating in this not banned from political activity?
Why do Indians not view this case in the context of BJP’s broader crimes?

What Now?

The handling of the case, particularly in the last 30 years, sets a dangerous predicament for minorities in India, and not just Muslims. Despite the efforts of various historians and the Waqf Board, it is concerning that the outcome allowed certain parties to go relatively scot-free. While the land was granted for the Mandir, justice was not served for the illegal destruction of the Masjid nor the deaths that occured before, during, and after the fact.

Even more troubling is how the secular country’s politicians that were and still remain involved did not suffer any consequences for their departure from secularism and peace. The injustice Muslims suffered from was left unpunished by one of the highest legislative identities in the nation. Today, the BJP actively uses the construction of the Mandir as a token to gain votes and the Election Commission fails to enforce its Model Code that prohibits such forms of electoral campaigning.

While privileged Indian citizens often turn their eye away from the politics of the government that harm its minorities, “secular” and “apolitical” folks celebrate the construction of the Ram Mandir uncritically. The presence and marketing of primarily political figures and the rejection of the event by many Hindu priests does not help emancipate them. It is either that we have sold our brains, eyes, and ears to the government and become yes-men to them, or have undergone education mechanically without any meaningful development of critical thinking skills where it matters.

It is not that we are opposing Hindus celebrating the construction of a temple, but to do so for one where facts are twisted, blood spilled, and brownie points sent to a party’s electoral campaigning is far from ideal.

It is imperative for the nationalist community to reclaim Hinduism from the BJP, never conflate the two, and vote them out in this general election. India as a pluralist state crafted a constitution with a version of secularism far better than any Western state and voting BJP out stands as a first step to ensure that this remains protected.

Final Reflection on the Use of Pseudonyms for Quotes: All people that we spoke to for comment only spoke with the condition of anonymity. The reasons for requesting anonymization included preventing losing out on future job offers because of internet checks and protection from online harassment, doxxing, and violence from Hindutva proponents. The fact that so many people wanted to remain anonymous in what is considered the world’s largest democracy communicates an appalling message about the environment that BJP’s politics has created.

Disclaimer: this article is rooted in constitutional values and does not promote any extrajudicial action. It must also not be read as an opposition to Hinduism and temples; rather, it is an analysis of how Ayodhya’s Ram Mandir specifically is a political stunt that erases decades of gruesome histories and injustices. In sum, it shows that there exists a major demand from the Hindu community to reclaim the narrative around Hinduism from the BJP and a major demand from the broader nationalist community to prevent its democratic and pluralist ideals from being eroded by those who seek to attain permanent power.

References

The Vigilant Mind

When truth and falsehood come together, falsehood is bound to perish.

Leave a comment Cancel reply