By Sonakshi Garg
Abstract
‘Taala khulwa do’, the three words that dictated Indian politics for the next four decades inked a new chapter of vote bank politics, creating a new kind of dance India undertook with democracy. The true beauty of the phrase lies not solely in the gravitas it carried, but also in the fact that it was uttered not by the sitting Prime Minister of 1986, Rajiv Gandhi, but rather by the crafty opportunist, Arun Nehru, a member of the Gandhi – Nehru clan, who like many of his kin, found meaning in his life by preaching to the millions of Indian voters the meaning of their lives. Hence, this article will aim to unearth what took place behind the scenes when Rajiv Gandhi landed upon the fateful decision to spark the religiosity of secular India and attempts to undertake a brief analysis of the very recent consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir, which could only have been built when the Babri Masjid perished in the ashes of political communalism.
Behind the Scenes
The Babri Masjid was guarded as a forbidden structure since the date of independence because of the highly controversial land it was built on. The Masjid’s origin finds itself in the pre-modern year of 1528 after Mir Baqi demolished the Ram Temple, which stood as a marker of the birth of the Hindu saviour. Therefore, from the time of the British, its volatile history was locked away and even after insurrectionist Hindus, deceivingly placed an idol of Ram in the sanctum sanctorum of the Mosque in 1949, the Hindus were only allowed to worship the idol from outside the gates of the religious monument.
Hence, though the structure was powerful in its religious significance to Hindus, it also possessed the unique power to sway the votes of India’s two most prominent factions of citizens: the Hindus and Muslims, with even a simple dialogue. It can be said, therefore, that the weapon of the Babri Masjid Mosque was to be used when any Prime Minister was in deep trouble and instantly needed some relief or attention diverted because the topic instantly turned all senses towards itself. Rajiv Gandhi found the need to play the trump card with a picture of a Mosque on it after the uproar from the Hindus, following the Shah Bano Judgement.
One of the most important rulings of Rajiv Gandhi’s Darbar was the Shah Bano Judgement, where Muslim women’s rights were debated. Therefore, the Muslim’s needs and wants were at the centre of the government’s concerns. This change could not be easily digested by the Hindus, who solely considered themselves worthy of the government’s legal acumen and time. Hindu angst could be felt by the Prime minister’s camp. In an attempt to not lose the vote of every third citizen, Arun Nehru proposed to the desperate Rajiv that the gates of the Masjid be unlocked and to allow the devotees to be reunited with their God, as this move would most definitely return the parting Hindus to their original voter base.
This decision to break the rust, protecting India from going into a downward spiral of religiosity, was easy to accomplish because Vir Bahadur Singh, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP) in 1986, was Arun Nehru’s protege, so Nehru did not have to put too much force on the CM to seek the unlocking of the gates. Secondly, it was discovered that the gates were locked based on an administrative command instead of a judicial one, which was too easy for the government to pass the order on. To make their act legitimate in the eyes of the law, a verdict of the District Court of Faizabad was sought for the unlocking. It is rumoured that a Supreme Court Judge directed the ruling judge of the District Court, Krishna Mohan Pandey, to give a verdict in favour of the government. Therefore, the only query the Judge had was if the Government could handle the law-and-order situation that could arise from the action. The excited government officials vigorously nodded their heads in the affirmative. Hence, the verdict was passed to open the floodgates to many Rath Yatras, hurt religious sentiments, destruction of public and private property, and religious divide, all because one Arun Nehru had the guts to use perhaps the biggest shield Indian history had bestowed upon Indian politicians to save their faces in times of crisis.
Consecration of the Ram Mandir
The consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir divided the country not only in terms of religion but also in terms of legal and political diplomacy and decision–making. While the pomp and show associated with the inauguration of the Temple, were to some, signals of the melting away of the secular nature of Indian democracy, to other more moderate analysts of the situation, the wait is on to see if the construction of the Mosque which will be 22 kilometres from the Temple will also be as nationally significant, with an attendee list of every A – list celebrity in India. Suppose the inaugural of the mosque is equivalent to the grandeur of the Temple. In that case, it can be stated that Indian secularity is not to be designated as an illegal refugee so fast. However, if not, then it can be considered a deep tear in India’s political character.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s judgment on the long–drawn issue of the land was hailed as a well–balanced decision by many as they analysed the situation holistically and allowed the Hindus to build their temple on a piece of land, which lies at the heart of Hindu mythology and sentiment. But, at the same time, the Indian Justices understood the sorrow of the Muslims due to the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Therefore, Muslims were supplied with funds and land to construct a ‘world-class Mosque’ of their own. Political analysts also praise the sitting Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, for putting an end to the battle for the ‘true custodian of the land’, thus ending the war that was, to many politicians, a path to further their political aspirations. Therefore, from now on, the Masjid–Temple dialogue can only be used as a telltale of greatness or obscurity and further dimensions to its already long story cannot be further added on. Hence, now a new kind of lock has been put on the temple, and that is one of finality, which can hopefully steer our leaders towards more pressing issues like education, poverty, and healthcare.
Conclusion
The tale of the Babri Masjid thus acts as one more example of religion being a mere tool in the hands of the powerful, which stresses the fact that often decisions related to a sphere so central to the workings of ordinary people are taken with much less regard to emotions or spirituality, and are rather taken by fuelling Hobbesian human traits like selfishness and brutishness. Another interesting point that surfaces during the narration of the reasons as to why the Babri Masjid was unlocked, is the power which lays behind the throne of the Prime Minister. Almost every individual associated with unlocking the gates of the structure would confirm that Arun Nehru was calling the shots and was the political mastermind, so an order by him could be taken as synonymous with the order of the Prime Minister. Therefore, the question arises that if Arun Nehru were not a radical man, would the gates still have been opened? Also, would religion be used as the shield to protect Rajiv Gandhi’s electorate, and could an alternative shield, like that related to Hindu education or livelihoods, be used to cool the steam of “the” Shah Bano Case? All these probably exist in the numerous multiverses of human existence. However, we are stuck in a universe where religion is used as an uncomplicated way out of any sticky situation.
Lastly, the incidents of the unlocking of the gates, and construction of the Ram Temple, shed floodlights on the mentality of Indian voters and their priorities. Citizens of the country should remember that they hold enormous amounts of power in dictating the course of the state’s history, and therefore, allowing leaders to exploit religious sentiments is a loss to both the victors and the others. Now that we are steadily marching towards a hundred years of Independence, we must remember that we have responsibilities as Indians and human beings first, and then as devotees to a particular idol that preaches the same principles of love and tolerance, as the idol of a neighbouring religion.
Author’s Bio
Sonakshi Garg is a first-year law student at O.P. Jindal Global University. She is deeply passionate about History, Sociology, Psychology and Political Science and enjoys inter-dimensional research and writing.
NICKELED AND DIMED 