Raj Thackeray, Ram Mandir and Modi
Shrikant G. Talageri
In an earlier article, "The Twelve Indian Political Figures I Like, Respect and Admire the Most", I had written:
"By coincidence, six of them are no more with us (and the first of them is in a class by himself in my estimation), and six are still alive (at least I hope the last one is, but I have no means of knowing), and the list, except for the first name in each of the two categories, are not in order of preference:
1. Swatantryaveer Savarkar.
2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar
3. Lal Bahadur Shastri.
4. Balasaheb Thackeray.
5. Balraj Madhok.
6. Hamid Dalwai.
7. Arvind Kejriwal.
8. Manik Sarkar.
9. Raj Thackeray.
10. Arif Mohd. Khan.
11. Dara Singh (of Orissa fame).
12. The unknown, unnamed Sentinelese tribal who shot an arrow and killed the American missionary boy of Chinese origin in November 2018".
It is always hazardous to express admiration in writing for politicians (or politically active figures) who are still alive and politically active. I should have learnt from the experience of Arun Shourie, who wrote a book in fulsome praise of Ramnath Goenka, and Madhu Kishwar, who likewise wrote a book in fulsome praise of Narendra Modi, and (although I do not know if they would like to openly admit it, but), both of whom (in my opinion at least) lived to feel some embarrassment over their words. In the above article, I included two names, Arvind Kejriwal and Raj Thackeray, and I have been left a trifle red-faced by subsequent events. In fact, in the case of Arvind Kejriwal, I was forced to write a mea culpa appendix to the article (on 24/3/2022: the actual article was written on 4/9/2021) as follows:
"NOTE added 24/3/2022: If I have made a mistake, I will accept it. In the above article, I have praised Arvind Kejriwal, and written: "Well, I have not as yet seen him do anything much more anti-Hindu and secularist than the Congress or the BJP or any other secularist or "Hindu-when elections-approach" party." Today, by referring to the film The Kashmir Files as a "jhoothi" film in the Delhi assembly, Kejriwal has made me eat my words and made me feel ashamed of myself for the praise I heaped on him in the above article for which I apologize to all Hindus and especially Kashmiri Pandits. Anyone who can deny the massacre of Kashmiri Hindus and the forced migration of 500,000 of them from Kashmir, and vindicate the powerful Leftist lobby which is out to destroy India and which has been exposed in the film, is a very dangerous person for the country. This does not whitewash the multiple sins of the BJP, but it does show that Kejriwal is not an alternative. I am adding this as an addendum rather than making any change in the above article.
In a Hindi film, there was a famous dialogue: "ek macchar aadmi ko hijda bana sakta hai" (one mosquito can make a man into a eunuch). Likewise, "ek shabd aadmi ko hijda sabit kar sakta hai" (one word can prove a man to be eunuch).
All in all (I think I am fairly confident I will not have to eat my words, and eat humble pie, in respect of any of the other names in the above list), it is true that almost all politicians are crooks: "birds of a feather", or as a Marathi phrase puts it: "ekach maleche mani" (beads from the same string), or, most accurately, as an earthy Konkani phrase from Mangalore puts it: "ɛkkā:: lɛṇḍyᾱ: ku:ḍkɛ" (pieces of the same lump of shit)."
Yes, it is time to eat my words, and eat humble pie, in respect of the other name as well: Raj Thackeray.
I was an admirer of Raj Thackeray's forthrightness and sharply logical analyses since many years (although the record of his party in respect of physically attacking North Indians, and in extortionism, and his own personal past, in for example the notorious Ramesh Kini case, were not positive factors), but it was his detailed and absolutely unparalleled analytical critiques of the BJP during the 2019 elections which aroused my admiration, and made me list him as one of my favourite present-day political figures. Today those same speeches from 2019 present a study in irony: they show how he has executed a sharp and totally inexplicable u-turn (whether to rescue the sinking ship of his party, or to escape the attacks of the now notorious governmental agencies like ED and IT). I think someone should make an equally detailed analytical critique of those speeches from 2019, and list out in detail the variety of issues on which he had exposed and criticized the BJP in detail and in totally unanswerable ways − in fact he himself would not be able to answer any of them now to explain why those points do not matter anymore and why they do not discredit his complete u-turn. He now completely ignores every single thing he had said at that time on any and every issue, and indulges only in child-like praises of the Great Leader, of the kind which have become a hallmark of the present day culture of political bhakti but are totally out of sync with his own bold and forthright personality.
After keeping observers and analysts guessing as to what exactly he would say in his Gudi Padwa speech at Shivaji Park on 9 April 2024 this year, he finally delivered an ambiguous and uncharacteristically muted speech in which he announced his "bin-shart pathimba" (unconditional support) for the BJP without being allotted a single seat by the BJP in the election. This speech resulted in confusing even his staunchest followers, with some prominent ones leaving the party or openly expressing their dissent, and most others (barring the inevitable blind followers) left clueless as to what exactly had happened or was happening.
Let me add here at this point that I still hold Raj Thackeray in great respect for his sharp analytic mind and deeply intelligent vision in many respects. Even as I was writhing in agony at his ignominious "bin-shart pathimba" speech, I came across the following (four-year old) video on youtube, which left me breathless with admiration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-27USHlNiEw
It is incredible and almost impossible to believe that the man who gave the anti-BJP speeches in 2019, and who made the above video (which is not about electoral politics, but about nation-building in general, as, unfortunately, only a person knowing Marathi will be able to understand since the video is in Marathi), all of which demonstrate his incisive analytical logic, is the same person who called a press-conference on 13 April 2024 to try to stem the currents of dissatisfaction and confusion within his party after his "bin-shart pathimba" speech, by trying to explain why he extended his full support to Modi, and gave the Ayodhya Temple as the main reason for this support. At the very start of this apologetic press conference, he gave his views on this subject, and made two points:
1. That the Ayodhya Temple would never have been completed and inaugurated "so fast" (or perhaps "at all"?) if not for the leadership of Modi.
2. That, because of Modi's completion and inauguration of the temple, the souls of all those martyrs who died in the course of the Ayodhya agitation and (in his own words) whose bodies were to be seen floating on the waters of the Sharayu river at the time, can now rest in peace.
Is it really the incisive-minded Raj Thackeray making these above points?
To take the first point:
a) the Ayodhya movement for the restoration of a temple at the site of the Birthplace of Rama has been going on since centuries.
b) In 1857, a "chabutra" (platform) was erected at the spot by unknown Hindus to mark the birthplace.
c) In 1949, unknown Hindu devotees of Ram installed the idol of Rama inside the premises, and subsequently, it became a functional temple once again, although the century old court cases continued.
d) The actual present Ramjanmabhoomi movement and agitation in the nineteen-eighties was started by a group of Hindu Mahasabha and Congress leaders around 1983. The two prominent Congress leaders in the forefront of the movement were Dau Dayal Khanna and Gulzarilal Nanda: the latter, it must be noted, was a minister in the cabinets of Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi, and became temporary acting/interim Prime Minister of India twice: in 1964 after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru and in 1966 after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. In the initial years of the movement, led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, it was fully backed by the Hindu Mahasabha and some prominent Congress leaders, while the BJP (which had taken on a Secular avatar) was totally aloof from the movement; and it was only when they lost the 1984 elections (winning only 2 seats out of 543) and were on the verge of being wiped out, that the party suddenly (but unofficially) re-transformed itself into a "Hindu" party and was forced to plunge into Hindu/"Hindu" issues like Ayodhya, Bangladeshi infiltrators in Assam, and the Shah Bano judgment.
e) In 1985 (after the results of the 1984 elections), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad launched the Ayodhya movement in full blast all over the country, and it became practically the major agenda for all the affiliate organizations of the RSS.
f) In 1990, the BJP officially and directly entered into the fray, with L.K.Advani's rathayatra. With the killing of the karsewaks in Ayodhya by the U.P government, and the arrest of Advani (on his rathayatra) by the Bihar government, the BJP numbers in the Lok Sabha started shooting up graphically, and the BJP won a majority in the U.P. assembly and formed its government there.
g) The VHP/BJP combine, with the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra also fully on board, intensified the agitation. The whole country resounded with the speeches of Ramjanmabhoomi firebrands like Sadhvi Rithambhara and Uma Bharati (who became particular icons perhaps because they represented "nari shakti": I remember my Muslim friends in Bhendi Bazar, all of them undoubtedly Babri Masjid supporters, asking me at the time to bring a cassette of Sadhvi Rithambhara's speeches I had bought at a VHP rally, and, even they were impressed with her rhetoric!)
h) But while the organizers were only interested in holding periodical ritual mass-participation ceremonies all over the country (baan-pooja, paduka-pooja, and the like) at the time of elections to keep up the political tempo, a group of unknown Hindus (including those belonging to all the Hindu organizations involved in the agitation, and many organizationally unaffiliated Hindus) decided to take matters into their own hands and started the process of demolition of the Babri-mosque-structure on 6 December 1993, and all this completely transformed Indian politics for ever. The demolition achieved a fait accompli: now that the most "controversial" part of the restoration of the Ramjanmabhoomi − i.e. the demolition of the existing Islamic structure − was a done fact, it would now always be automatically easier to build a temple on the site rather than to rebuild another Islamic structure, and it would also be easier for judges to give judgments to that effect. And both the opposing sides in the battle knew this very well!
i) What was the result of the demolition? The RSS/BJP leaders who had led the agitation were squirming in their pants at the unexpected event. They never had any intentions of actually replacing the Babri structure with a temple: they only wanted a perennial election issue. LK Advani burst into tears, and called it the saddest day in his life! He did not know what to say to the press which was bombarding him with questions. I was present in Sita Ram Goel's house on that historic day, and in my presence Goel received a phone call from Arun Shourie (who was with Advani) asking him what Advani should say to the press. Sita Ram Goel told him to point out that no-one had made such a hue and cry when a number of prominent temples were destroyed by Islamicists in Kashmir just a few weeks earlier. Within five minutes, Advani and Shourie appeared on TV, and Advani repeated the exact words suggested by Goel!!
j) But there was worse: Sunder Singh Bhandari (a top BJP leader and spokesperson) denied that any RSS or Sangh Parivar person could have been involved in the demolition, and suggested that it could be the work of Shiv Sainiks! In contrast, Bal Thackeray of the Shiv Sena immediately declared that if his Shiv Sainiks had demolished the Babri structure, then he was extremely proud of them!
k) After the demolition, while arguments continued in different forums over the decades, elections continued to take place as per their schedules (with the BJP-Shiv Sena making giant strides in electoral successes) with the Ayodhya issue being only an "also-mentioned-if-at-all" issue in elections, and direct activism on the issue came to a halt: the matter now rested with the judiciary. First, the Allahabad High Court judgment in 2010, and then finally the Supreme Court judgment in 2019 confirmed that the site was indeed the site of a Hindu temple to Rama before it was replaced in medieval times by various Islamic structures, and the title of the disputed site was now fully, officially and legally awarded to the deity "Ram Lalla Virajman" for the construction of the temple. So now it was just a matter of time for the temple to be fully constructed and inaugurated, and press reports on the issue were mostly about the progress in its construction.
l) Finally, the inauguration (pran pratishtha) of the temple took place on 22 January 2024. The two dignitaries on the stage performing the rituals were PM Narendra Modi and the RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat (who, only a few months earlier, had publicly admitted that the RSS had never been interested in the Ayodhya issue or wanted to take part in it, but were compelled to do so by political compulsions).
From where, in all this, does Raj Thackeray (or, for that matter, do bhakts making the same assertion) derive the idea that "the Ayodhya Temple would never have been completed and inaugurated "so fast" (or perhaps "at all"?) if not for the leadership of Modi"?
"So fast"? Yes indeed. Although the construction was not absolutely completed, the inauguration was definitely speeded up so that it would take place before the 2024 Lok Sabha election − and especially before the code of conduct for the elections became applicable to prevent political capital being made of it by the BJP − after all, the actual festival of Ram Navami was also before the election, but not before the date from which code of conduct would become applicable. And so, yes, it was indeed the BJP leadership (i.e. Modi) who set this "fast" date for its inauguration. Strange that Raj Thackeray should not have been able to see the coincidence: his anti-BJP speeches in 2019 constantly highlighted how "Hindu" issues, riots, and skirmishes with Pakistan always "coincidentally" took place just before elections.
And let us take up the second point made by Raj Thackeray, "because of Modi's completion and inauguration of the temple, the souls of all those martyrs who died in the course of the Ayodhya agitation and (in his own words) whose bodies were to be seen floating on the waters of the Sharayu river at the time, can now rest in peace".
Why are the souls of the martyrs supposed to now be able to "rest in peace"? Because Modi (and Bhagwat) usurped all credit for the pran pratishtha ceremony, after having advanced the date of this pran pratishtha to fit in with the elections, which was their only direct contribution in the entire Ayodhya story? Or because Modi and his government awarded the second highest civilian award, the Padma Vibhushan, to Mulayam Singh Yadav, the person directly responsible for all those kar sewaks becoming martyrs and having their bodies floating on the waters of the Sharayu?
Indeed, what has been the role of the Modi government and the present BJP (half of whose leaders and office-bearers are imported from parties which viciously opposed the Ayodhya movement) in the construction of the temple? Is it just because they happen to be in power at the moment (although it was the Congress and not the BJP which was in power when the Allahabad High Court gave its pro-temple judgment which the Supreme Court has now endorsed)?
I have already, in some previous articles, given this quotation from George Orwell's "Animal Farm" to illustrate the attitude of the subject animals of Animal Farm to attribute all good things to the rule of the Great Leader: "It had become usual to give Napoleon the credit for every successful achievement and every stroke of good fortune. You would often hear one hen remark to another, "Under the guidance of our Leader, Comrade Napoleon, I have laid five eggs in six days"; or two cows, enjoying a drink at the pool, would exclaim, "Thanks to the leadership of Comrade Napoleon, how excellent this water tastes!"" Such behaviour behoves hens and cows − and fervent bhakts. It does not behove Raj Thackeray.
This last press conference of Raj Thackeray has saddened me beyond words − his references to the credit for the Ram temple even more than his "bin-shart pathimba". Are honesty and intelligence completely extinct in Indian politics today?
To end this article, since we have had to refer many times in this article to various strange "coincidences" taking place, here are two more:
First: Raj Thackeray's attacks on the BJP abruptly ceased after certain ED raids on him. And second:
On 18 April 2024, the Bombay High Court has now (9 days after the Gudi Padwa "bin-shart pathimba" speech) suddenly "quashed" a 16-year old case pertaining to 2008. I am not concerned with the rights and wrongs of the case, but with the coincidental timing of the whole thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment