Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s unabashedly overt role in the installation and consecration of an idol of Ram at the still-under-construction grand temple at Ayodhya on January 22 has many among his political adversaries wondering whether this marks the makings of a Hindu theocratic state. Although there is nothing that obvious to suggest the rise of a Hindu theocratic state in a legislative sense, at the very least it is an important debate to have against the backdrop of a politically and culturally resurgent Hindu constituency that has resulted from Modi’s near-decade as prime minister. 

Modi’s frenzied pilgrimage across the length and breadth of India that preceded the consecration during which he wore piety on his sleeve and a hint of a beatific smile on his face may have been in keeping with the historic nature of the January 22 event. But it is also being seen by many among his antagonists as a harbinger of some version of the Hindu theocratic state. 

The consecration comes a little over a month and a half after the 31st anniversary of December 6, 2012, which witnessed one of independent India’s most defining and wrenching political, social and cultural moments. It was that day in 1992 that the Indian state suffered its worst body blow as fanatic Hindu groups razed the contentious Babri mosque structure at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. 

Hundreds died in the immediate aftermath of riots that broke out in the country and subsequently at least 2000 others were killed in violence triggered by the event. 

The destruction of the mosque constructed in 1527 by Babur, the first Mughal emperor of India, and which bore his name was claimed by Hindu groups to have been built after destroying a temple heralding the birth of Ram. Hindu groups had steadfastly maintained that this was the spot where Ram, one of the most important figures in the Hindu pantheon, was born and hence its name ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ (The birthplace of Ram).  That claim was subsequently validated by India’s Supreme Court on November 9, 2019, which permitted Hindus to build a temple at the site. The court also granted five acres of land elsewhere in Ayodhya to build a mosque.  

Event holds little parallel in a democracy

Since then, the movement to build a grand temple has been underway and January 22 marks the electorally expedient day chosen by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) generally and the prime minister specifically for the consecration. 

It is undeniable that Hindus have considered the mosque an effrontery for nearly five centuries but more frenziedly since 1992. Now that the temple is a reality attended by unprecedented religious celebration piloted by the country’s avowedly Hindu prime minister, it is an unquestionable triumph for not just the Hindu right as well vast sections of Hindus. Perhaps there is no comparable centuries-old campaign in any democracy to restore a shrine of a particular religion, not to mention the most revered of its kind for Hindus, over what was once a place of worship of another faith imposed on the edge of a conqueror’s sword. 

In the exultation of the rise of the new temple, someone who has been pushed to the margin is, ironically, someone viewed as the progenitor of the movement to reclaim the Ayodhya site—India’s former Deputy Prime Minister and grand patriarch of the Hindu right Lal Krishna Advani. At 96, Advani is expected to watch the celebration unfold from his home in New Delhi. Although he was among the first to be invited, age-related frailties have been cited for his inability to attend personally.  

Relatively old school in his graces and worldview and someone who has eschewed the in-your-face stridency of the current BJP leadership, Advani has had a very clear and categorical view on the question of whether India would become a Hindu theocratic state. As someone often credited with having single-handedly revived the fortunes of the BJP in the late 1980s and 1990s this writer frequently interacted with him.

After an interview that most likely took place in February of 1993 at Advani’s Pandara Park, New Delhi residence, I realized that I had forgotten to ask him one particular question. Rather than again taking up his time, I sent a handwritten question to him.  I have kept that piece of paper on which I wrote the question as well as Advani's reply in longhand.  

The note said, “Dear Mr. Advani, Since you seem pressed for time, I would not persist with raising the remaining questions, but I would appreciate it if you could answer just one question. 

“Q: In the event of the BJP coming to power, what will be the status of the 200 million odd non-Hindus?” 

Advani was gracious enough to handwrite his answer in which he said, “The Indian Constitution guarantees equality and justice to all citizens, irrespective of their faith. The BJP holds that this commitment of our constitution makers is a commitment of the nation. Anything else would be contrary to our history, tradition and culture. The BJP rejects theocracy. In India, we can never have Class I citizens and Class II citizens as you have in Pakistan and several Islamic countries.”  

Consecration seen as national civilizational event

Advani’s reply was characteristically mature but equally intriguing given that it was he who had been credited with having given the so-called Hindutva movement a sharp political edge with the Babri agitation. During one of his subsequent interactions, Advani told me that he saw the destruction of the mosque as wrong and in contravention of “true Hindu values.” 

Of course, Advani is now a largely marginal figure whose worldview has next to no resonance in the current Modi dispensation. So, whether his commitment to the Indian Constitution in all its glory will remain intact and prevent theocratic impulses to shake it up among the current BJP leadership is an open question.  

For his part, Modi has attempted to project the consecration as a national civilizational event rather than a political party-specific grandstanding. It remains to be seen whether that will remain his approach as the 2024 parliamentary elections draw closer. 

There is undeniable validity in the pushback from the Hindu right on the ground that a great deal of India’s cultural, societal and institutional liberalism and pluralism have everything to do with its Hindu ethos. It is from that vantage point as well that the debate over a Hindu theocratic state ought to be viewed. 

(The writer is a Chicago-based journalist, author, songwriter and filmmaker. Views are personal.  He can be reached at mcsix#outlook.com)