Much of India came to a standstill on Jan. 22, when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi consecrated a temple in the northern city of Ayodhya commemorating Rama, a warrior-king worshipped by Hindus as a god. Schools, colleges, and offices closed and central government offices gave a half-day off to all employees. Some expectant parents even cajoled obstetricians to schedule cesarean sections on the day so that their children are born at the auspicious moment coinciding with the temple’s opening.
Much of India came to a standstill on Jan. 22, when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi consecrated a temple in the northern city of Ayodhya commemorating Rama, a warrior-king worshipped by Hindus as a god. Schools, colleges, and offices closed and central government offices gave a half-day off to all employees. Some expectant parents even cajoled obstetricians to schedule cesarean sections on the day so that their children are born at the auspicious moment coinciding with the temple’s opening.
Such a public display of religiosity by the Indian government and its leadership may seem peculiar, particularly to those who cherish secularism. But India moved away from the state’s traditional interpretation of secularism a decade ago, when Modi led the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power. With the next national elections only a few months away, Modi has choreographed the Ram temple consecration to consolidate his Hindu vote (about 80 percent of the country’s population is Hindu). The political intent is clear: Cutouts of Modi grace lampposts on the airport road in Ayodhya, with similar images of Rama added almost as an afterthought. In an audio message on social media this month, Modi said, “God has made me an instrument to represent all the people of India.”
The ongoing construction of Ram Mandir is very controversial in India. From the early 16th century until 1992, a mosque known as Babri Masjid stood on the site—built during the time of the emperor Babur, the first Mughal to rule India. Many Hindus say that Babur destroyed a temple honoring Rama that previously stood on the land, which they believe is Rama’s birthplace. In the 1980s, Hindu activists began a movement to reclaim the site and build a temple there. In December 1992, they razed the mosque, an act that shocked the nation.
But in the past two decades, India has changed, and Hindus clamored for the land to be restored to them. In 2019, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that although the initial act of demolition was illegal, it would offer the site to a Hindu trust to build a temple and grant land elsewhere to a Muslim trust to rebuild a mosque. Although the construction of the Ram Mandir is not yet complete, Modi needs the imagery for his election campaign, and so the consecration will go ahead. Some opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress and the Communist Party of India, did not send their top leadership to the ceremony; however, some Congress leaders were divided over the boycott and at least two attended.
Rama, for many Hindus, is maryada purushottam—the ideal human being who sacrifices himself for others. His is the kind of life to which lesser mortals should aspire; his heroism is based not simply on battlecraft, but upon his ability to put others’ interests before his own. In the Sanskrit epic Ramayana, Rama is the prince of Ayodhya who is about to become king when one of his father’s wives demands that Rama go into exile, and the succession passes to her son instead. Rama leaves with his wife, Sita, and brother Lakshmana. The king of Lanka, Ravana, abducts Sita, and Rama mobilizes an army of monkeys to invade the island fortress, defeating Ravana and rescuing Sita. After 14 years, Rama finally rules Ayodhya, leading to a golden age.
The BJP sees the construction of the Ram Mandir temple as evidence of its single-minded determination, no matter how long it takes. Formed in 1980 by some members of the former Janata Party, the BJP initially struggled electorally. It briefly held power in the 1990s and led a coalition government between 1999 and 2004. In 2014, Modi projected himself as committed to development and boosted the BJP’s vote share to win a majority of seats in parliament with 31 percent of the national vote; five years later, the party increased its tally to 303 seats out of 542, winning 37 percent of the vote. The temple project follows other promises kept by Modi’s government: revoking the special autonomous status of Indian-administered Kashmir and introducing a citizenship act that created a pathway to Indian citizenship for asylum-seekers from neighboring countries but excluded Muslims. Modi has shown that he is the man who gets things done.
The BJP capitalized on three major changes that occurred in India in the 1980s to build its identity and increase its vote share. First, many Indians bristled at how India practiced secularism, perceiving the government as granting special favors to religious communities, such as subsidies for Muslims to perform the Hajj and curriculum exemptions for faith-based schools. Second, Indians were tired of living in an economy beset by sluggish growth and shoddy products due to socialist policies that restricted foreign investment and trade. (That changed in 1991, when the Congress government deregulated the economy.)
Finally, India was a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement, but the appeal of nonalignment was fading with the decline of Soviet influence and the eventual disintegration of the Soviet Union. The Congress party ruled India for most of its first 49 years post-independence, and it was instrumental in developing India’s secularism, socialism, and nonalignment. The BJP took advantage of public disenchantment and stepped into the void, promising “equality for all, appeasement to none,” to promote a market-based economy, and to reset its foreign policy, often aligning with Western interests. (Still, the BJP pursues strategic autonomy in many respects, such as its continuing trade ties with Russia despite Western sanctions.)
Most politicians have the next election on their mind; Modi and the BJP leadership have the next generation in mind. After all, more than 40 percent of Indians have no living memory of the Babri Masjid mosque. Even in the early years, the party began influencing India’s younger generations in the states where it came to power first, changing textbooks and rewriting history to downplay the roles of Mahatma Gandhi and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (and his family members who later came to power) and project alternative heroes who were more militant and outwardly Hindu. By promoting Rama as the warrior-king who ruled over an ideal state, the BJP aims to create a constituency of voters who see their identity primarily in religious terms and equate the Hindu faith with the nation of India.
To the BJP’s core voters—the hardwired Hindu nationalists—the party has promised to restore Hindu glories, embodied by the Ram Mandir temple. The events in Ayodhya have set a precedent: Some party activists want to transform more mosques (and, in some instances, churches), claiming they were also built where Hindu temples once stood. The triumphalism around the temple construction is so vicious that not only is it the opposition leaders boycotting the event who are facing criticism, but also four seers of the Hindu faith who have raised a range of objections—including the choice of Modi to perform the ceremony, which they say should be presided over by a priest.
The Hindu nationalist movement’s elevation of Rama over other Hindu deities is also strange. Hinduism is polytheistic, and its literature does not rest on one book. Many interpretations are liberal, and some contradict each other: Skepticism and atheism are also part of certain strands of Hinduism. In the late 1980s, I interviewed Morarji Desai, who had served as India’s prime minister representing the Janata Party. I asked him what he thought of the movement to build the Ram temple on the site of Babri Masjid, and he suggested that the BJP’s ultimate goal was to undermine Hinduism’s pluralism and turn it into a faith with one book (the Ramayana), one place of worship (Ayodhya), and one god (Rama). The slogan now reverberating through Ayodhya and much of India is Jai Shri Ram, or “Victory to Lord Rama.”
Rama is an exceptionally interesting and nuanced literary figure and well-loved outside of India, especially in Southeast Asia. But many Indians do not take kindly to works that present Rama in a different light, such as the late poet A.K. Ramanujan’s celebrated essay, “Three Hundred Ramayanas,” which shows how the epic’s characters appear in different forms and offer different interpretations in India and beyond. Nina Paley’s charming 2008 animated film that draws on the Ramayana, Sita Sings the Blues, was also controversial. The latest victim of this outrage is a Tamil film released on Netflix last month, Annapoorani, about the daughter of a Hindu priest who wants to be a chef; her Muslim friend encourages her to pursue her dream, correctly citing a verse from the Ramayana that shows that Rama ate meat. Some Hindus who practice vegetarianism for religious reasons were offended; Netflix withdrew the film, and the actor who played the protagonist issued a public apology on a “Jai Shri Ram” letterhead.
India is no longer a land of nuances. A significant part of its population wants an assertive government and a black-and-white narrative where subjugated Hindus are reclaiming their identity, and the foreigners who colonized the country in the past—the British and, before them, Muslims—are cast as villains. Such an approach risks turning a multidimensional country into a cardboard caricature of itself. The Ram temple consecration marked another milestone on that path—which Modi walks in the hope of getting elected once again.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
