The Ram temple under construction in Ayodhya – which until now belonged to ‘the Hindus of the whole world’, ‘mahatmas, great men and religious leaders of all the 125 saint-traditions’ and ‘all 13 Akharas and six darshans’, which was the ‘temple of the nation’ and the ‘reason for a national celebration’, no longer belongs to the Sanyasis, Shaivites and Shaktas.
Champat Rai, the general secretary of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, formed by the Union government to oversee the construction of the temple on the instructions of the Supreme Court, has made this unambiguous announcement without any hesitation in an interview given to a Hindi daily – leaving no scope of doubt for anyone. The same group of people who claimed that this temple was the property of the entire nation is now bent on depriving a section from rights over it.
It is noteworthy that this trust is dominated by members hailing from a particular caste, class and organisation. Since its inception, the trust has been facing allegations, internally and externally, of not properly representing the sants and mahants of Ayodhya, disregarding the contribution of Dalits and backward castes in the movement for the construction of Ram temple ‘wahin (there)’, overstepping its boundaries and indulging in corruption. As a result, though its members have repeatedly praised Hindu unity, very few people believed that the trust would be able to do proper justice to the pluralism prevalent among Hindus.
That is why many ‘ungrateful’ people have long been questioning the remarks made by Champat Rai and asking – who does the temple, which is being built under the supervision of the trust on the orders of the court with the money collected from Hindu devotees, belong to? Does it belong to the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, who kickstarted the agitation for it? Or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, of which it is a subsidiary organisation? Or all Hindus? Or only its dominant and elite classes and noblemen?
Also read: Ayodhya Ram Temple: A Stage for the Visible Display of BJP’s Extremely Backward Class Politics
When the trust chose the Ramanandi method for the worship of Ramlala – the child form of Lord Ram – it was asked why this choice was made. Was it because this sect was the largest sect of Vaishnav sadhus and ascetics in the country or because of its important historical role in establishing coordination between various streams and branches of Rambhakti by brushing off caste hatred? Or was it because Ayodhya is the city of Ramanandis? Another question that was raised was – how will the narrow-minded trust keep pace with the customs and policies of the pluralistic Ramanandi sect?
Recently, when Champat Rai made an appeal asking those who are not invited by his trust to not attend the consecration ceremony on January 22, the question arose in many circles whether it was the ‘loyal’ religious leaders, political leaders, acharyas, dignitaries, industrialists, sportspersons, actors and artists who had the first right on the temple, who are treated as VVIPs by the trust and invited to the Pran Pratistha purely on the basis of its preference and not on the basis of their devotion towards Ram or their faith?
But no one had expected that in the midst of the debate on the discriminatory treatment in the invitation to the consecration ceremony of Ram, the impartial and holy god and the one who provides strength to the weak, Champat Rai would blatantly remark that the temple does not belong to the Sanyasis, Shaivas or Shaktas, but only to the Ramanandis of the Ramanand sect, giving rise not only to a situation of ‘Prathamgrase Makshikapatah’ (things soured right at the beginning) but also to a lot of contradictions.
With it came the apprehension of who might be in the crosshairs next. What is the guarantee that those who are the chosen ones now will continue to enjoy this status?
One also does not know – despite the system of coordination offered by Goswami Tulsidas through Ram to end the Shaiva-Vaishnav conflicts of the past (‘Sivadrohi Mam Das Kahwa, So Nar Sapnehun Mohi Na Pava‘, or one who wants to attain me by betraying Shiva cannot attain me even in his dreams) – whether the trust’s attitude towards the Sanyasis, Shaivites and Shaktas means that they have either ceased to be Hindu or have become ‘anti-Ram’ in the eyes of this group that distributes ‘Hindu certificates’.
Whatever may be the case, the matter has reached such a stage that a Shankaracharya has asked – if the temple belongs to the Ramanandis, why were donations taken from the others for its construction and why doesn’t Champat Rai resign and hand over the temple to the Ramanandis? What is the haste, why is the consecration being carried out for a half-built temple contrary to the provisions of the scriptures? Why is politics being done in the garb of religion by ignoring the questions arising on the timing and method of the ceremony? And why is the difference between a religious leader and a politician being erased?
Also read: ‘Only Political Hindus Are Happy’: Shankaracharya on Ayodhya Ram Temple Consecration
Here, one must note that the Shankaracharya has no objection to the ownership of the temple by Ramanandis. Rather, he objects to the politics being played by the trust regarding it. That is why he has demanded that the general secretary of the Trust hand over the temple to Ramanandis and resign. Obviously, in his eyes the trust is neither as inclusive as the Ramanandi sect, nor as acceptable.
On the other hand, many dignitaries defending the stand of the trust are saying that after the four Shankaracharyas boycotted the consecration ceremony, it was necessary for the trust to declare the ownership of the temple. But could these remarks not have been made in a different way, which would have made it look a little more civilised or had left scope for brushing it off as a personal opinion? These gentlemen have no answer.
These great men also claim that despite the long and strong tradition of reviving and uniting the ‘dispersed Sanatan Samaj’ and establishing a new philosophy, Shankaracharya is not the Pope or Caliph of Hindus. But when asked whether Champat Rai is the Pope or Caliph of Hindus – they again have no answer.
But this is not the only problem. Even though Champat Rai named Sanyasis, Shaivites and Shaktas, the temple’s unannounced ownership lies with many other personalities and communities. For example, it belongs to Sita, the life partner of Lord Ram, who does not even own Ayodhya owing to the game of patriarchy. When Deepika Chikhalia, who played the role of Sita in the much-talked about serial Ramayana, got the invite for the consecration ceremony, she expressed her sadness – saying that while there is the child form of Lord Ram in the temple, it would have been better if Mother Sita had been given a place beside it.
But for the trust, along with Sita, the uninvited Ayodhya residents are also strangers, who during the consecration of ‘Apne Ram’ have been asked to stay at home and watch the ceremony on TV or visit nearby temples for worship, and celebrate with fireworks like Diwali.
According to Champat Rai, there is also no plan to honour those kar sevaks who were lathicharged and shot in the 1990s and declared ‘martyrs’. Votes were garnered by showing videos of their ‘martyrdom’ too. He believes that India is a country of martyrs and those who laid their lives were martyred due to their own inspiration. “When soldiers are sacrificed, it comes to mind after 10-20 years that something should be done to commemorate them. A pillar is erected in their memory. Some names are mentioned but what was built for whom is forgotten,” he said.
Rai forgot to correctly add the years while making this remark – it has been 33 years since the ‘martyrdom’ of the kar sevaks and not 10 or 20 years. People have different opinions regarding this mistake. Some people say that when a person is very happy, he messes up such additions and subtractions; others opine that such mistakes happen when a person is tense.
There are others who point out that Champat Rai and his troop are not used to working for the unity and harmony of the country. Now, they are unable to work for unity even among Hindus.
Krishna Pratap Singh is a senior journalist.
Translated from the Hindi original by Naushin Rehman.
