by Rohit Sarma
On 22 January, the Hindu Right in India, with Modi at its helm, inaugurated a temple in the holy city of Ayodhya on a site where less than 22 years ago, a Mosque stood. This Mosque, known as the Babri Masjid, was destroyed by a violent Hindu nationalist mob on December 6, 1992. It was approximate 500 years old and was stated to have been constructed on a piece of land where previously a Hindu temple stood. This temple, Hindu Nationalists claim, marked the birthplace of Lord Rama, one of the most prominent gods in the Hindu pantheon. For this reason, the construction of the new temple is being seen by those in the Hindu Right as the return of Ram and as the inauguration of a new phase of Indian history – one of the Ram Rajya (Reign of Ram). The transformation from a secular to a Hindu polity was a long time in the making, with incremental steps being taken to fuse religion and the state. The inauguration of the temple marks the symbolic completion of this transformation. Through it, Modi has heralded himself as the new Hindu sovereign of India and effectively transformed Hinduism into a political religion.
The construction of the temple would not have happened without the assistance of the Indian Supreme Court. After close to three decades of litigation before the higher judiciary, the Supreme Court in 2019 awarded the land to the Hindu parties. It did so through an atypical judgement where the judges’ names of judges were anonymized and where a part of the decision—which for all intents as purposes could be considered a dissenting judgement—was titled as the “addendum”. The court paradoxically held that even though the destruction of the Mosque was illegal, the land should be awarded to the very same parties responsible for its destruction.
Modi, in his speech following the temple inauguration, thanked the Supreme Court for allowing the temple to be constructed in a “legal manner”. In making these remarks, he made it abundantly clear that the Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) project is perfectly compatible with at least one reading of India’s constitution. With the constitution’s guardians being hand in glove with the executive, so much so that the court is now chided for being an “executive court”, the constitution’s spirit has been cast aside and all that remains its shell. Modi’s BJP pays ritual adherence to the constitutional shell, while filling it with content that goes against the very values of liberalism, constitutionalism, and secularism, that the constitution used to stand for.
Aside from the fact of the construction of the temple, an analysis of the manner in which its inauguration was carried out is crucial towards understanding the Hindu-Right in India. The temple was inaugurated even though its construction is far from complete. According to estimates, the temple’s construction is to be completed only in December 2024. The haste with which the BJP inaugurated the temple stems presumably from the fact that the federal elections will take place in April this year. By inaugurating the temple now, the BJP showcased that it has delivered on its electoral promise of constructing the Ram temple and simultaneously projected Modi as the ultimate Hindu sovereign. The latter undoubtably goes against the India’s constitution which recognizes secularism as part of its ‘Basic Structure’. However, considering the enfeebled Supreme Court and the extra constitutional means through which the self-proclamation of Modi as the Hindu sovereign has been carried out, the constitution has proved to be nothing but a minor speedbump in the way of the Hindu Rashtra.
In line with the aim of projecting Modi as the Hindu Hriday Samrat (i.e. the Monarch of the Hindu Hearts), the inauguration process appeared less about Lord Ram and more about Modi. Sat beside the Chief of the RSS, the BJP’s fascist ideological ally, Modi conducted the prayers that accompanied the unveiling of the Idol of Lord Ram. The event itself was livestreamed across the country, and the day was treated as a quasi-national holiday, with organisation such as the Bar of the India imploring the Chief Justice to allow lawyers to take the day off to enjoy the proceedings. Many celebrities, politicians, and priests were invited to Ayodhya to attend the ceremony in person. Among those who declined the invitation were the four spiritual leaders of Hinduism, known as the Shankaracharyas. They did so because in their opinion the inauguration was being carried out in a manner that went against Hindu scripture. Though they expressed their dissatisfaction openly and called for a postponement of the event, their words fell on deaf ears. For them, as for others, the inauguration marked the victory for political Hinduism and not religious Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma).
Under Modi, the process of transforming Hinduism into an ideology and identifying Hindus as a political community has all but been completed. The focus now is not on adherence to scripture or philosophical enquiry, but rather on serving the collective narcissism of Hindus. Modi is seen by his supporters as the liberator of the Hindus, who under this ideology are considered the inheritors of India since they see it as both their Matrbhoomi (Motherland) and their Punyabhoomi (Holyland). Being oppressed in their own land, first under Muslim rules and then under the British, this ideology calls for the collective liberation of the Hindus, achieved through the overcoming of a deep sense of insecurity, reclaiming historical agency, and dominating the Muslim Other.
Modi’s charisma and the BJP’s immense electoral machine aside, the rise of Hindu Nationalism in India was arguably preordained. Independence for India and Pakistan was accompanied by a violent Partition which took place on ostensibly religious grounds. The proponents of the two-nation theory believed—and perhaps rightfully so—that the form of the nation-state was incompatible with the genuine protection of the rights of minorities. Without comprehensively engaging with their critique, the makers of modern India adopted a secular outlook and championed pluralism. However, they did so while maintained an uneasy relationship with Islam. Since Pakistan heralded itself as the home of Muslims, in India Muslims were considered suspect right from independence. Secularism in this context acted like a palliative – it numbed the harshness of religious nationalism but didn’t vanquish it altogether. If it were to be more meaningful, secularism in India ought to have proceeded from a deeper investigation of the nature of religious society in India; and reconciled with the history of the Partition and the lasting wounds that it has left behind. Without this, the door was left open for Modi’s Hindutva project, which tilted the balance in favor religious nationalism rather than invented it in the first place.
Beyond secularism, Modi’s Hindu nationalism—of which the recent inauguration is but the crown jewel—is also undoubtably a response to the ideology of the Congress party, India’s dominant political party post-independence. In 1980’s, Congress abandoned its project of Nehruvian socialism, which imagined the state as an instrument for securing economic and social transformation. Under this imagination, the citizen was called upon to sacrifice personal well-being for the benefit of the state and was therefore portrayed as being in charge of the making history. While it goes without saying that this elite driven process had its problems—many of which surfaced with the rise of the Naxalbari movement and the declaration of the Emergency by Indira Gandhi—its replacement in the form of neoliberal globalisation left Indian politics spiritually empty. The mass of citizens was told to believe in secular progress, of which they were the mere beneficiaries and not the drivers. History was supposed to happen to them and not be made by them. Modi, in response, brought back pride to politics for his Hindu voter base. The Hindus are now called upon to redeem their past and take hold of their future. In this context, the inauguration of the Ram Temple can be seen as an act of redemption and reconstitution.
The inauguration of the Ram Temple has been met with dew eyed responses from both liberals and Hindu nationalists. For the Hindu nationalists, the event marks the culmination of a long struggle that began in the 1980’s, whereas for the liberals it marks the death of the old idea of India. Though their emotions are understandable, the need of the hour for those who oppose Hindu nationalism is not to reminisce a romanticised past, but to imagine a future that departs both from the past and the present. Returning to a so-called state of “normalcy” from whose ashes Hindu nationalism rose in all its glory, is nothing but foolhardy. This moment of crisis should be seen as a moment of possibility, where turbulence is but the precursor to self-reflection and innovation. Among the intelligentsia, this process of re-thinking has fortunately started. Whether it will percolate into political transformation—that too before the elections in April—remains to be seen.
