Having dragged its feet to decide on whether or not to attend the Ram Temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22, the Congress leadership recently said that UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and Leader of Congress in Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury have “respectfully declined” the invitation to attend the event.
The stand taken by the party, one that is learnt to be divided on the matter, portrays its several past contradictions on the sensitive issue while laying bare its half-hearted attempts to keep both Hindus and Muslims happy. The strategy has failed before and is bound to backfire again. Every explanation that the Congress offers to justify its decision is being met with a counter by the Bharatiya Janata Party and the overarching Sangh Parivar. And the process has already begun.
In its statement on January 10, the Congress alleged that the inauguration of the “incomplete” temple by BJP and RSS leaders was advanced with electoral gains in mind. “While abiding by the 2019 Supreme Court judgment and honouring the sentiments of millions who revere Lord Ram, Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, Smt. Sonia Gandhi and Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury have respectfully declined the invitation to what is clearly an RSS/BJP event,” the Congress’ statement read.
The BJP, on the other hand, has painted Congress’ refusal to attend the ceremony as an indication of the party’s “deeply entrenched anti-Hindu mindset”. “This is the same Congress that described Lord Ram as an imaginary figure, who spoke of rebuilding the Babri Masjid, who fielded advocates against Ram Lalla in the case. The Congress has always stood against Sanatan Dharam, opposed Ram Setu and accused Hindus of fundamentalism – this development is not new. Congress has boycotted the ‘Pran Pratishtha’ ceremony today, the people of India will also boycott them in the coming future,” Union minister Anurag Thakur said.
A deep-seated problem
The BJP’s immediate backlash, however, only scrapes the surface of what is clearly a deep-rooted problem of the Congress. The party, which has reached what is possibly its lowest ebb in the last two Lok Sabha elections, appears to have already reconciled with the outcome of the coming elections. The decision has left many political observers as well as Congress supporters wondering if the party’s rationale behind its decision to boycott the event would cut ice with the voters.
Understanding the reasons would require a look at the history of the Congress’ many flip-flops on the Ram Temple issue over the years. The Congress has often claimed credit for the opening of the Ram Temple locks on February 1, 1986. BJP leaders, however, point out that the locks were opened on the orders of the local court in Faizabad and that the Congress only happened to be in power at the Centre and the state at that time.
The BJP has also pointed out that several discussions between the VHP and officials of the Rajiv Gandhi government had failed to arrive at any resolution on the Ram Temple issue. While the VHP remained firm on its demand that the locks of the Babri Masjid must be opened, the Congress government, the ruling government refused to budge.
As the Sangh accelerated its Ram Temple campaign that was followed by communal riots in several places, the Congress again tried to play both sides by first impounding three VHP raths in Ayodhya in June 1986 and then sending the same raths to Lucknow in November in an apparent bid to keep the VHP happy. Vir Bahadur Singh, the CM at the time, was also criticised for his role in the massacre of several Muslims during the communal riots in UP, a charge that he denied.
Hit by defections and rebellions, the Congress’ stand on the Ram Janmabhoomi issue eventually led to its demise in the state as the SP-BSP hardened their line against the Ram Temple while BJP openly joined the agitation in its favour. The polarisation resulted in the Congress losing its minority support base to the likes of SP and BSP while the Hindu voters consolidated in favour of the BJP which was actively campaigning for the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
No lessons learnt
The historical context aside, the immediate fallout of the Congress’ current stand on Ram Temple opening is damaging and lacks electoral logic. Observers say the decision reflects the party’s choice to keep peace with its allies as it heads into the Lok Sabha elections. All INDIA bloc allies including the Trinamool Congress, Left, Rashtriya Janata Dal, DMK, NCP and even Shiv Sena (UBT) have distanced themselves from the event.
But does the Congress stand to gain from it? The parties it has tied up with are all regional satraps whose decisions are guided by an ear-to-the-ground approach that keeps them in sync with their core support base. Frankly, they have nothing to lose even if they fail to perform too well in the Lok Sabha elections, which will be a referendum on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity rather than the strength of a united Opposition. With Congress in lead spot within the alliance, the buck will automatically stop with the only national party in the Opposition’s umbrella alliance — in this case, the Congress!
A response from BSP leader Mayawati when asked about her party’s stand on the Ram Temple inauguration event is a contrast to the Congress’ response in terms of pragmatism. Mayawati said that she has received an invitation to attend the Ram Temple event due to her engagement in party-related programmes. “Our party has no objection to the programme being held in Ayodhya on January 22. We welcome it and if there is any programme regarding Babri Masjid, we will welcome that too… Our The party is secular and respects all religions equally. No matter what religion it is, our party has not opposed anyone. Bahujan Samaj Party is the only party in the country that is truly secular,” she said.
A clear disconnect
The Congress’ response, in contrast, borders self-contradiction. The Congress itself admits that the BJP has advanced the Ram Temple inauguration for “electoral gains”. If there are electoral gains to be reaped, what stops the Congress from being part of the event and preventing the BJP from doing so? Wouldn’t the presence of Sonia Gandhi, a Catholic who has opposed the demolition of the Babri Masjid, at the Ram Temple inauguration have sent a message to the majority of Hindus? If the party is not game for symbolism, why else did it parade its top leader Rahul Gandhi temple to temple, painting him as a “janeudhari Brahmin”?
Refuting the sentiments of a large section of voters on an issue as huge as the Ram Mandir is what columnist Tavleen Singh describes in The Indian Express as “suicidal”. The fact that the party remains unaffected by repeated setbacks that have reduced them to governments in only two states, besides its lowest-ever tally in the Lok Sabha, reflects no arrogance. It is, on the contrary, a clear disconnect from the people’s sentiments – one that has distanced Congress from ground realities to an extent that it begins to look deliberate.
