Rahul Gandhi’s proclamation demands attention as a declaration of ideological conviction, one he wishes his faction to grasp and adopt.
“The crusade initiated by L.K. Advani ji, the one centered around Ayodhya, was conquered in Ayodhya…. I am conveying something profoundly significant… The Congress party and INDIA coalition vanquished them in Ayodhya,” Rahul Gandhi asserted last week while addressing his party members in Ahmedabad. The essence of this statement has been overlooked by the media and commentators.
Gandhi’s pronouncement is not a recounting of reality. Instead, it should be perceived as a declaration of intent. He claimed that the Ram temple crusade led by Advani, an experienced Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stalwart, has been thwarted by the INDIA coalition in Ayodhya. He made this assertion during a meeting in Ahmedabad, after an attack by BJP workers on the Congress party office. It can be inferred that Gandhi made this statement to uplift the spirits of his party members.
The pertinent question is, if Gandhi made a deliberate statement, then what does defeating the Ram temple crusade signify?
Gandhi’s declaration pertained to the BJP’s defeat in the Faizabad Lok Sabha constituency during the recently concluded general elections. INDIA candidate Awadhesh Pasi from the Samajwadi Party (SP) triumphed over BJP’s Lallu Singh.
The BJP’s defeat by a Dalit candidate, particularly in a region considered the nucleus of Hindutva politics, is highly symbolic. This singular defeat has compelled the BJP to adopt a defensive stance. The opposition exploited this during the first session of the 18th Lok Sabha to embarrass the BJP. Pasi sat between Gandhi and Kannauj MP Akhilesh Yadav in the first row, with both Yadav and Gandhi frequently shaking hands with him. Pasi’s smile was a dagger to the hearts of BJP MPs. Awadhesh, incidentally, is one of the many appellations of Ram.
When this defeat was announced, the BJP scoffed, stating that it lost in Faizabad, not Ayodhya. It now has to regret the Uttar Pradesh government’s 2018 decision to rename the district of Faizabad as Ayodhya, since the BJP wanted people to forget about Faizabad and remember Ayodhya. Ironically, those who opposed the renaming now speak of Ayodhya, while the BJP insists on discussing Faizabad. It’s as though it’s natural for the BJP to lose in Faizabad.
How could it be vanquished in Ayodhya?
Regardless of whether it’s Faizabad or Ayodhya, the loss of this seat has agitated the BJP. The BJP and its allies waged a fierce hate campaign against the Hindus of Ayodhya after the election result, demanding a financial boycott on the grounds of their alleged ingratitude. The BJP bestowed upon them a grand Ram temple, airport, and more, only to be repaid with electoral defeat. Could there be greater ingratitude?
Gandhi elaborated on the reasons behind the BJP’s defeat in Ayodhya. The populace of Ayodhya rejected the BJP because they were incensed by the loss of their land, livelihoods, and the general misery inflicted upon them. The reasons were fundamentally worldly. Can this then be termed as the defeat of the Ram temple crusade? Can it be considered an ideological defeat of the BJP?
Gandhi’s statement was part of a discourse directed at his party members and supporters in Ahmedabad. The Congress had suffered a severe defeat in Gujarat, and BJP workers had attacked its office. As the party leader, Gandhi’s duty was to invigorate his followers. This explains his assertion that if the BJP can be defeated in Ayodhya, a cornerstone of its election campaign, it can also be vanquished in Gujarat.
Recall that BJP’s chief propagandist Narendra Modi had been declaring that if the BJP did not triumph, Congress would lock up the Ram temple. The people of Ayodhya rejected this notion. However, the question remains whether this can be deemed the defeat of the Ram temple crusade.
Gandhi’s statement should be interpreted as an expression of the ideological determination he wishes his party to comprehend and adopt.
Significantly, he invoked Advani’s name. By doing so, Gandhi intended to associate the Ram temple with Advani rather than Modi. He aimed to emphasize that this temple emerged from a crusade led by Advani when Modi was merely an acolyte.
Those familiar with the evolution of the BJP, and its predecessor Jana Sangh, understand that the Ram Janmabhoomi crusade was its most crucial attempt to dominate Indian politics. The Ram Janmabhoomi crusade metamorphosed the Hindu faith into Hindutva. It ingrained a narrative of persecution in Hindu minds, transforming them into seekers of retribution. Who was a Hindu? One who harbored animosity towards Muslims. This is what Advani’s crusade accomplished. The temple crusade also redefined Hinduism. It turned the purported ‘Ram Janma Sthal’ into the epicenter of the Hindu faith. Only those who believed in it could be Hindus. This was accepted by other political parties and the judiciary. This was the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)’s greatest political and ideological victory. For the first time since its inception in 1925, the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva almost vanished.
Modi’s ascent would not have been possible, and terms like ‘kar sevak’ and ‘Ram sevak’ would not have entered the Hindu lexicon, without this crusade. It was also due to this crusade that the number six coach of the Sabarmati Express was set ablaze in Godhra. We still do not know how that fire started, but it was used as a pretext for a massacre of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. This event catapulted Modi to leadership within Advani’s Hindutva.