CETRI
In his speech in 1928 to the Indian Statutory Commission, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution, described politics in India as “nothing but theology in action”.
“If representative government is so weak when operating among European peoples, where the secularisation of politics has gone far further, how much weaker must it be in India where politics is nothing but theology in action. It is this theology against which the depressed classes must seek to be protected,” he said.
If Ambedkar’s words on the politics in India being “theology in action” are to be believed, a manifestation of his statement will be visible on January 22, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the head of the sovereign, secular state in India, participates in the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, just months ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The official sanction to the event at the under-construction Ayodhya Ram temple – built on the site where the Babri Masjid was destroyed by Hindutva groups, with over 2,000 people killed in the ensuing communal violence, over three decades ago – is in no uncertain terms being celebrated as a national one with state governments including central hospitals rolling out official notifications, orders and directions giving half or full day offs.
“Secularism as principled distance is being brutally crushed”
In 2013 essay, political theorist Rajeev Bhargava argued that secularism is not against religion, it opposes institutionalised religious domination. He wrote that the secular state shows “critical respect to all religious and philosophical world views, possible only when it adopts a policy of principled distance towards all of them”.
Does the January 22 event then represent an unprecedented moment in independent India where this “principled distance” between the state and religion is obfuscated?
“Secularism as principled distance is being brutally crushed” Bhargava said to The Wire.
“In the current conjuncture, secularism is out of the picture. Secularism has been abandoned. Hardly a moment for any kind of celebration. Once secularism is set aside, the relevant question is what kind of a religion centred state is replacing a secular state? Here there are three possibilities: one is theocracy. In a classic theocracy, a religious head such as the Shankaracharya should become PM. But this is not being witnessed. In the second kind of religious centred state, there is a very close alliance between the big leaders of a religious community and the state. Both the religious and the political leaders are virtually equal partners in running the state. This too is not happening here. Then what is it? It appears that there is a third model. Here, the state has merged with religion entirely on its own terms.”
On January 12, ahead of the consecration ceremony in Ayodhya, Modi announced in an audio message that he will be starting 11-day rituals to prepare for the event and said that God had “made him the representative of the people of India” to be present at the ceremony.
“This reminds me of the Divine Rights of the King,” said Bhargava.
“We have somebody who is acting like the king and has announced that divinity is passing through him or he is chosen by God, by the divine voice to perform this ceremony. This is a total subsumption of religion by politics. The line between the religion and the state has been broken down and is breaking down entirely at the initiative of the state which is dictating how religion and religious ceremonies are to be conducted.”
In an interview with The Indian Express, former Union minister and senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad upon being asked on the blurring lines between religion and state said: “Felicitating the grand ceremony, arranging for that does not mean blurring the lines… The prime minister is going there as a real worshipper of Lord Ram, and he is following the required discipline for it.”
Hilal Ahmed, associate professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies said that the idea of constitutional morality becomes crucial.
“The event can be seen from two different perspectives. One could argue that this is actually a cultural event. The active participation of political leaders representing the state authority, hence, may be interpreted as an acceptable act on legal technical grounds. Many BJP leaders are making arguments of this kind. We must remember that in the Indian context, giving money to a mosque or a temple or politician going to religious events are acceptable.
“However, there is another way to look at this event. The idea of constitutional morality becomes crucial in this regard. It is expected from the state to maintain a principled distance from religious affairs. Two questions might be raised here: is it possible to disassociate religious elements from the inauguration ceremony? Is it a religious event or not? Secondly, are people of all religions going to be included in this celebration or would they feel excluded? From this perspective, it might deviate from the distinctiveness of the idea of secularism and constitutional morality in the Indian context.”
While the opposition INDIA alliance has decided to stay away from the event in Ayodhya, they have instead found alternative ways to platform their Hindu identity. The Congress announced its decision to not attend the ceremony in Ayodhya calling it a BJP-RSS event, but former party president Rahul Gandhi will be visiting a temple in Assam during his ongoing Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra. West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee will hold a harmony rally in Kolkata but only after visiting a Kali Temple in Kolkata. The Delhi government under the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is organising a three-day Ram Lila in the national capital, while Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray fact) will see former Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray in Nashik where he will offer prayers at the Kalaram Temple.
Ahmed said that while the political discourse might be centred around the BJP, the role of the other political parties needs to be looked at as well.
“The Supreme Court judgement on the Ayodhya title suit was based on a certain legal technicality. It didn’t subscribe to Hindutva claims. If you read the judgement, you find that the court invokes secular legal principles. It gives land to the party representing the Ram Lalla Virajman. At the same time, it recognises the destruction of Babri Masjid as a criminal act and asks the state to give five acres of land to construct a new mosque. Nobody is talking about these details. The entire political class gives us the impression that the court has accepted the Hindutva claim and for that reason Hindutva politics is invincible. The Opposition wants to break the monopoly of BJP on Hindutva or for that matter Ram Temple.”
Rahul Verma, fellow at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), said that the event presents a “dilemma” for other political parties.
“If they go there it is a problem if they don’t then also it’s a problem. That is why it is a dilemma for them. And there is no easy answer. But this is not going to be helpful. They should think real hard on this question and think about what their politics on this is going to be, so they are only reacting at the moment. Of course if your opponent is in a dilemma it helps the BJP but only time will tell whether it will bring votes or not. But the opposition is in a bind on this question and there is no doubt about that,” he said.
According to Ahmed, in post 2014 India, the political class has lost interest in the politics of secularism.
“It doesn’t mean that secularism has become irrelevant in the context. People adhere to secular values in various ways. Politically speaking, the BJP would like to use the Ayodhya celebration for 2024 elections. It doesn’t mean that the party is not aware of the limitations of the Ram Temple as a political issue. There is a serious competition for Hindu votes. Every political party is interested in capitalising on Hindu sentiments. So BJP is not the only party which will use Hindutva for political gains,” he said.
Mridula Mukherjee, former professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University and former director of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, said that January 22 represents a new turn in India’s post-independence history.
“It is not about the prime minister attending the event but it is much more. He is actually the main character in the consecration ceremony, he is performing religious functions. Inaugurating a temple is very different from performing religious functions in the consecration ceremony. In my understanding it is not within the permissible framework of the Indian Constitution,” she said.
Mukherjee said that while it is a religious event in which a temple is being consecrated, “the purpose to which it is being put is clearly political”.
“In the classic sense the use of religion for political gains is what we call communalism, whether Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Jew.”
