For decades, the Congress has waffled about the Ram temple. Not much has changed

It’s tough to be a Congress supporter these days.

The formation of the INDIA alliance last July, promising to “safeguard the idea of India”, was cause for much cheer. It began to peter out when the Congress began squabbling with allies over seat-sharing, the PM face, the schedule of meetings, and the party’s performance in assembly polls.

But conflict with other parties is one thing. Conflict within the party is another.

That’s clear with the kerfuffle over the Ram Mandir consecration taking place in Ayodhya next week. 

Three Congress leaders – Sonia Gandhi, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Mallikarjun Kharge – were invited to attend. It took them weeks to decide they wouldn’t because it was “clearly an RSS/BJP event”.

The BJP shrugged it off as the Congress’s “jealousy, malice and inferiority”. 

But the Congress itself seems torn asunder, especially with state units in northern India not wanting to entirely boycott an event that holds such emotional currency.

In Himachal Pradesh, Congress minister Vikramaditya Singh announced he’d attend the ceremony anyway “out of respect for my late father”, former CM Vidarbha Singh who had supported the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. The state’s current CM, Sukhvinder Singh, said he hadn’t been invited for the ceremony but “whether we get an invitation or not, Lord Ram is the centre of our aastha”.

In Gujarat, senior Congressman Arjun Modhwadia said the party “should have stayed away from taking such political decisions”. Ambarish Der, working president of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee, said the Congress’s statement was “disappointing” and advised the party to “respect public sentiment” 

In Uttar Pradesh, Congress leader Acharya Pramod Krishnam said the “suicidal” decision had “broken the hearts of many party workers”. The state Congress already announced that hundreds of its workers would descend upon Ayodhya on January 15 to pray at the makeshift temple. 

Among others, Kashmiri leader Karan Singh said that since the Supreme Court had permitted the temple’s construction, there should be no hesitation in attending the ceremony.  And in Karnataka, where Chief Minister Siddaramaiah supported the high command’s decision, saying it was a “political propaganda campaign”, his deputy CM, DK Shivakumar, asked, “What’s wrong in attending the consecration ceremony?” 

There’s plenty wrong. The contentious history of the mandir – built on the site of the demolished Babri Masjid – is conspicuously absent from discussion. This is true of the endless media reportage on the consecration, and its various associated inaugurations, resulting in a whitewashing of history on a daily basis.

And let’s be clear, to not attend the inauguration is a hard decision – and the right one. But the Congress’s positions on the issue have historically lacked conviction or clarity. 

A series of unfortunate events 

Appeals to build a temple in Ayodhya were made as far back as the 1880s. But it was on the night of December 22-23, 1949 that a Ram idol “appeared” under the central dome of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

Four days later, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru would send a telegram to Uttar Pradesh CM Govind Ballabh Pant: “Earnestly hope you will personally interest yourself in this matter. Dangerous example being set there which will have bad consequences.”

Of course, the “appearance” of the idol was an elaborate conspiracy passed off as a divine miracle. But it set the tone for the decades to follow. The land became “disputed” and the deity itself became a litigant in the court battle in 1989.

And it was Rajiv Gandhi who played a key role in reviving the issue.

In April 1978, a woman named Shah Bano filed a petition at an Indore court asking that her divorced husband pay maintenance. Her husband contested that he, as per Muslim personal law, only had to pay maintenance for the iddat period of three months, which had ended. But the local court, high court and Supreme Court all weighed in Bano’s favour. 

Tensions ran high. The Muslim clergy was outraged. Protests broke out. Shah Bano’s son said Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allegedly summoned his mother to Delhi, where he “asked us to refuse the maintenance”. 

As the story goes, Rajiv Gandhi took a decision that he hoped would appease the angered Muslims. His government began discussions over the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce) Act. It effectively circumvented the SC verdict by stating that maintenance needed to be paid for the iddat period alone. 

In the process, he annoyed everyone else – progressive Muslims, women and Hindus who didn’t approve of “appeasement politics”. Defenders of the Congress will say Gandhi either had no other choice, or that he was “betrayed” into passing the bill. 

But having cheered up one community with an unwise decision, he then fell to the task of cheering up the other with one more. In Faizabad, a petition was filed seeking public access into the Babri Masjid, where the Ram idol still remained. The gate had reportedly been locked by Gandhi’s grandfather in 1949 after said idol’s “appearance”.

On February 1, 1986, the main gate of the Babri Masjid was unlocked. Commentators would later say Rajiv had no idea this had happened though this is debatable. In his book India After Gandhi, historian Ramachandra Guha said the judge’s order “was widely believed to have been directed from Delhi, from the Prime Minister’s Office, no less”.

Unlocking the gate telegraphed the legitimacy of Hindu claims to the mosque. Ayodhya became the fledgling BJP’s chief campaign issue. To counter it, Rajiv in November 1989 permitted the Vishva Hindu Parishad to lay the foundation stone for a new Ram temple near the mosque. He also spoke of “Ram Rajya” in a campaign speech. It opened the floodgates to the demolition of the mosque three years later.

Congress leaders today play up the devastating truth of Rajiv’s role, hoping to steal some of the Ram temple valour from the BJP.  In the words of Madhav Godbole, who quit as union home secretary after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, Rajiv was “the second most prominent kar sevak”.

Why the Congress is exactly the same

The rest is history. 

In December 1992, when the mosque was brought down, PV Narasimha Rao was prime minister. Godbole said Rao “played the most important role in this crucial test match, but, unfortunately, he turned out to be a non-playing captain”. More damningly, journalist Kuldip Nayar later wrote that Rao “sat at puja when the kar sevaks began pulling down the mosque and rose only when the last stone had been removed”. 

Salman Khurshid, who was a minister of state at the time, said the central government was “dazed”. 

Interestingly, years later at an event at Aligarh Muslim University, a college student asked Khurshid about riots and events – including the opening of the Babri Masjid’s gates – that had taken place under the Congress. He asked how the Congress would wash “Muslim blood on its hands”. 

Khurshid replied: “I am also a part of the Congress so let me admit that we have blood on our hands.” The Congress promptly distanced itself from his comments.

Finally, in 2019, when the Supreme Court passed its verdict in the disputed land case, the Congress politely said it respected the verdict and was in favour of a temple.

But can we really expect any better from a party so muddled about itself? 

This is the fundamental failing of the Congress party. It’s unable to counter the BJP’s Hindutva because, at the end of the day, what ideology does it offer? In marketing the Ram Mandir, the BJP is unmatched. The party has most of the country convinced that this is one of the greatest civilisational achievements they’ll ever witness. As a result, the Congress can’t stand against it without political cost.

It’s an echo of Rajiv’s Congress and Rao’s Congress from decades ago, compelled to switch between support and dismay, unlocking a gate or disappearing into prayer. In the 40-odd years that have gone by, the Congress is almost exactly the same, caught in a cycle of going along with popular sentiment because it can’t afford to do otherwise.

In the specific case of attending the consecration, the party has made a decision that seems right and fair. But its lack of clarity will continue to be a stumbling block, unless a lot changes very quickly.