India. A nation housing a population of 1.3 billion, speaking more than 1600 languages, practising more than 7 major religions, all while living under one common name- Indian. This is the level of diversity in India and this diversity forms one of the very features that defines India- Unity in Diversity. However, to think that despite this overwhelming diversity, there would be no cases of friction between the multiple races, castes, religious groups etc. would be impractical. Ayodhya too, started as a matter of friction between two religious groups, but sadly, has been manifested as a political agenda in order to woo voters towards supporting one political party, leading the party to victory.
As per Hindu mythology (the epic Ramayana), Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Rama and Ayodhya was his Kingdom. One important point to take under consideration is that there is no actual evidence that firstly, the Ramayana is true and secondly that present day Ayodhya is the same Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Rama. It has been debated that present day Ayodhya, was originally called “Saketa” and was renamed to “Ayodhya” by the Gupta dynasty. It is common belief among Hindus in India, that Ayodhya is a holy and sacred place (being the birthplace of Lord Rama).
Historically, Ayodhya was the capital of the Awadh province under the Mughal empire. The Mughal ruler, Babur, built a mosque in Ayodhya, on what is alleged as the Janmasthanam temple. Archaeological findings indicate that before the mosque, existed a bigger complex, which could have been a Hindu temple, given the carvings and engravings of Hindu deities on the pillars of the structure and on the stones. The question raised here is that whether or not, the Hindu temple was destroyed for the creation of the masjid.
Irrespective of any of that, the Ayodhya conflict soon took its shape with the demands for the building of a Hindu Temple at the disputed site in order to acknowledge the sanctity of the holy land and to rectify the “destruction” of a Hindu temple for the creation of the Masjid.
The first significant instance of materialising the Ayodhya conflict can be seen in the year 1989, when the Bhartiya Janta Party adopted the Ram Mandir demand as part of its political plank. The argument ran that the ruling government, the Indian National Congress, was displaying a lack of concern for the sentiments of the overwhelming majority in the country. Dominated by the secular parties in India, the BJP was struggling to find a hold in the political sphere. However, by attaching one’s political course with the temple cause, officially with the Palampur resolution, the BJP gained a Hindutva edge which soon gave results. In the 1989 general elections, the BJP won 85 seats compared to the mere 2 in 1985. This instant spike in election results made it clear that the Ayodhya conflict can be capitalised for increased vote shares and ultimately, a majority in elections. It has been observed that the “Ram Mandir” demand gave the BJP a symbol, an image, a face like Mahatma Gandhi gave Congress an image. Using different techniques such as the “Ram Rath Yatra” the BJP further drove its own and the Hindutva wagon into spotlight. Through these years, the BJP used the symbol of Lord Ram and converted it into a base for aggressive Hindu majoritarian politics. The BJP used the Ayodhya conflict and the temple demand as a synonym for expression of national sentiment, and attacking the opposing parties as “Babri Parties” with a polarising undertone which has proven efficient electorally. By 1996, the BJP was the single largest party which it sustained until the 2004 general elections. Furthermore, from 1996 till 2019, the BJP manifesto has seen the mention of the construction of a “Ram Mandir”. The Bhartiya Janta Party, in the past and in today’s world as well, used the Ayodhya Conflict to simply woo voters towards voting for the party considering the overwhelming majority Hindus hold in our nation. Given the nature of Indian politics, its domination by two parties- the INC and the BJP, votes shifted from several communities such as the Muslim community for instance to the Congress (anti-BJP) . This particular growth in vote share from the Muslim community led to the INC taking a diplomatic, secular and Muslim leaning stance. This, then created a typical BJP vs Congress scene with a Hindu-Muslim conflict as icing on the cake. The Ayodhya Conflict was simply reduced to an incident pertaining to the destruction of a temple for a masjid and the destruction of that masjid as an attempt to rectify the destruction of the temple in the first place. The question that remained was whether or not to build another temple in that place. No political party questioned the intolerance Hindu nationalists acted by, no political party questioned whether placing of Hindu idols inside the mosque was right or not, no political party questioned whether breaking down an entire mosque or rather temple ( a temple essentially is the house of God, irrespective of Religion) was right or not. The very fact that Hindus went onto commit the same mistake they wanted to rectify (breaking down a place of worship) and considering the lack of denunciation Hindus have faced for this, I believe it is safe to say that, it does not really matter whether the Hindus were right, or the Muslims. It does not matter if a mandir is built at the disputed site, simply because an actual temple does not hold as much power or influence as the phrase, “Mandir yahin banayenge” holds. All that matters is that this conflict has resulted in the benefit of political parties who have manifested the conflict as a propaganda tool and a symbol, which they can and shall use in the years to come. And because of these reasons I believe that the Ayodhya Conflict has been and shall continue to be a symbol for the pro-Hindutva propaganda the BJP runs, a symbol for the divide created in our society for the sake of electoral gains, a symbol for the manifestation of a religious clash as a political conflict.
