Ayodhya: Has India really moved on?
7 October 2010
Ever since the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court reserved its verdict on the long awaited title suit in the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi case in July this year, media outlets waged an aggressive campaign that India has moved on and has become mature enough to go beyond polarized identity politics, and so on. This raises serious questions about the intentions and ideas behind this campaign as no one has tried to nail those elements.
On 30 September, when the judgment was finally delivered [after an aborted attempt to abort the verdict delayed it slightly from the original Sept. 24], it was interesting to see these media outlets interpret the verdict. There was a blatant slight bias in media coverage in favour of a 'secular' cult which has become a dominant cult in India since independence.
This was the very cult which had run the 'India has moved on' campaign – perhaps in anticipation of a different kind of verdict! What surprised me was the way the media headlines were formulated – rather than highlighting the consensus view of the judges that upheld the archaeological and circumstantial evidence that validated the faith and belief of millions of Hindus that disputed land is indeed the birthplace of Shri Rama, the went all out to emphasise the division of the disputed land in three parts as the highlight of verdict.
It was both amusing and disgusting to see the bias on the issue. But was media alone responsible for this? No. Media is only a manifestation of the will of a tiny secular cult which wants to rule India with its imposed views and propaganda. In broad daylight, the Ayodhya verdict defeated this cult at a critical moment, bringing its edifice of false assumptions and propaganda crashing down. The cult is not ready to accept defeat and move on.
When we talk about secularism in India, we must realise that secularism in India has been made hostage by a fraudulent academia and anti-Hindu polity which has exploited it at every turn to brand the Indian spiritual and cultural heritage as the biggest hindrance to the development of the nation and as a regressive step in marching towards progress and modernity.
Hindus had a very high stake in this verdict. But the secular cult seems to have had a higher stake, and anticipating a desired outcome, had campaigned aggressively in its like-minded media outlets that India has 'moved on' (whatever that means), and tried to deflect the debate in another direction.
As the verdict in the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi case covers more than 8000 pages, it will be an arduous task to read every passage and come out with a thorough understanding of the same. That task is for lawyers, yet some conclusions can be drawn.
One is consensus among the judges that the central dome of the defunct masjid is the exact place where, Hindus believe, Shri Rama was born. The report of the Archeological Survey of India has vindicated the Hindu conviction that a mosque was built on the ruins of a massive Hindu temple.
Whatever else happens in future, these two events have thrown a spanner in the secularist monologue in India, and is the biggest victory of Hindus since the establishment of the Vijayanagar empire. It is a slap on the face of secularists who have always questioned the existence of Shri Rama and maligned the Janmabhoomi movement.
The media debate has completely concealed the fallen edifice of their false propaganda and academic fraud. Rather, attempts are being made to portray the verdict as a 'secular verdict', whatever that may mean.
The secular citadel threw all its energy into a sterile attempt to incite communal passions over the verdict, even though everyone knew that the next stage of the battle will go to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the attempt is the modulate the apex court to behave the way they want, the way they managed to orchestrate certain actions by their hysteria over the Gujarat riots, when cases were transferred out of Gujarat on the basis of an unsigned affidavit in the National Human Rights Commission! Now they are busy denigrating the unresolved historical issues and unfulfilled issues of Hindu consciousness in nation building. They must be privately furious that the Supreme Court ultimately refused to interfere in the Lucknow bench verdict, which has opened a new chapter in Hindu self-confidence.
Since time immemorial, Hindus have never surrendered their right to define nationalism in a way that becomes synonymous with Hindu nationalism. It was apologetic thinking that broke the spiritual and cultural content of Indian nationhood and wreaked the catastrophe of partition. Nor did we use independence as an opportunity to reconnect with our ancestral spiritual and cultural roots; instead we fell for imported definitions without relation to our needs. Secularism emerged as the mantra that the liberal-leftist-cum-atheist anti-Hindu cult used to dominate and denigrate the Hindu populace. It controlled the political elite and academic world for decades, and seemed impregnable.
Today, the verdict on Ayodhya marks the beginning of the end of their reign. A new churning in India's ideological realm has begun, and now India will truly move on, though we have yet to see where it is headed. Certainly it is not going in the direction indicated by the crestfallen secular brigade, whose ramparts have been split wide open.
The writer is a Hindu social activist and promoter of the Indo-Israel Friendship Forum