Ram Mandir: Congress' Reasoning to Not Go Has Merit but is Its Stance 'Secular'?

There is merit in the party's reasoning but the explanations offered showed, again, the lack of ideological clarity.

The Congress has been facing a barrage of criticism ever since its top leadership declined the invitation to the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. It has been accused of hurting the sentiments of the majority community, turning its back on Lord Rama himself, and politicising a sacred event. Predictably, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led the attack against its chief political adversary, declaring that the decision reflected the party’s opposition to “India’s culture and Hindu religion.”

Though well aware that the invitation for the inauguration of the Ram Temple was a trap and would come in for stringent criticism, the Congress ventured to take the brave decision to say no to the invite. It reasoned that the BJP campaign against the Congress would not go away even if its leaders participated in the ceremony. And if it accepted the invite, the BJP would mock them for seeking out Lord Ram for votes.

There is Merit in the Congress' Reasoning

The official explanation proffered by the Congress was that religion is a personal matter and that the Ram Temple has always been a BJP-RSS project. It also stated that the BJP had timed the consecration ceremony to draw political mileage from it with an eye on the coming Lok Sabha election.

Rahul Gandhi has repeatedly pointed out on his Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra that Congress leaders had decided not to attend the inaugural ceremony because it had been planned as a BJP-RSS function, centred around Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

No doubt there is merit in the Congress' reasoning and it could not have decided otherwise. Even though it welcomed the 2019 Supreme Court judgment paving the way for the construction of the Ram Temple, it would have been difficult for Congress leaders to attend the ceremony which has been converted into a BJP/Modi show.

This is all but evident from the ongoing preparations for the 22 January consecration, the over-the-top publicity campaign, and the massive public outreach undertaken by the BJP’s foot soldiers preceding the inauguration. The focus all along has been on Modi. Even the ceremony is to be conducted not by religious saints, but by the Prime Minister. He will be flanked on the grand stage by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

It is against this backdrop that the Congress leaders decided to stay away from the event.

But the Congress Erred on Several Counts

The primary mistake was the inordinate delay in taking a view that strengthened the public perception that the party was unsure of its stand. While the leadership weighed its options, divisions within the party ranks surfaced with members speaking in different voices. The picture that emerged was that of a confused, directionless Congress.

But when the Congress finally did take a stand, it was unable to cope with the rush of criticism and the disquiet within its own ranks. The systematic campaign unleashed against the Congress worried its cadres who fear that the party would end up paying a heavy price for this decision in the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections, especially since the BJP has drawn up extensive plans to use the Ram Temple as its main poll plank.

Faced with a sharp attack from its political opponents and the need to address the concerns of its own cadres, the Congress soon went into damage control mode. But in the process, it ended up tying itself in knots as it made desperate attempts to convince its party workers and the public at large that it is not opposed to the construction of the Ram Temple, and that it revers Lord Rama and respected the sentiments of the millions of Hindus who worship him.

The Congress’ initial stand was further diluted when it clarified that though its leaders would not be attending the inaugural ceremony, others were free to visit the Ram Temple on any day. This was obviously a response to the apprehensions expressed by the party workers who were not in agreement with the leadership’s decision. A group of Congress leaders from Uttar Pradesh took a dip in the Saryu River on Makar Sankranti while others have announced plans to offer prayers at the Ram Temple.

Is the Congress Position Really Secular?

The subsequent explanations offered by the Congress betrayed, once again, the lack of ideological clarity in the party. It was no different from the soft Hindutva card played by the Congress on earlier occasions when Rahul Gandhi made a conscious effort to visit temples on his nationwide tours and was described by the party as a janeudhari Brahmin.

However, this failed to strike a chord with the people. All it did was provide an opportunity for the BJP to dismiss Rahul Gandhi as a “seasonal Hindu.” Similarly, former Congress chief ministers Kamal Nath and Bhupesh Baghel laid out a slew of programmes aimed at wooing Hindus in the recent assembly elections but to little avail.

Going further back, it was Rajiv Gandhi who endorsed the decision to open the locks at the Ram Janambhoomi site. His government followed it up by allowing the shilanyas of the temple. Rajiv Gandhi then went on to launch his 1989 election campaign from Ayodhya with the promise of ushering in the Ram Rajya. The Congress was roundly defeated in that election, its tally coming down from 404 to 197, while the BJP numbers registered a big jump and has not looked back since then.

And yet the Congress has failed to learn any lesson from its past experience. As in earlier instances, the party chose to defend its decision by referencing the four Shankaracharyas who are not attending the consecration ceremony on the ground that it violates the Dharma Shastras. The party further cited the shastras to underline that a consecration ceremony could not be conducted in an incomplete temple.

Clearly, the Congress party’s brush with the Constitutional position on secularism proved to be short-lived.

(The writer is a senior Delhi-based journalist. She can be reached at @anitaakat. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)