[This piece, reproduced below, is rather interesting, penned by, understandably, the brightest intellectual currently within the wider BJP circle. He is a presidential nominee to the Rajya Sabha, as recommended by the Modi regime.
A closer reading would reveal an undercurrent of nervousness as regards the rising Ram Temple movement, still at its nascent stage though, as far as the current phase in concerned. This is, obviously, a high-return/high-risk venture. If the movement fails to gather the required momentum, fails to sufficiently incite and galvanaise the Hindus, then it is, evidently, going to boomerang. Even otherwise, if the movement goes berserk, in the process, the eventual outcome may turn out to be disastrous. The last time, the BJP was in opposition, at the national level. This time, it's the ruling party, at the Centra and also the state. It's the second prospect that Dasgupta is dealing with here. Though, carefully, have avoided being explicit. He has virtually tried to mollify the party's "core", not the "fringe", constituency. Tried to reassure why the "movement" is having a decidedly upper edge now. Extolled the virtues of restraint! It's an insider's voice. <<... While there may be an abhorrence of turmoil, the outpouring of sentiment that propelled the Ram temple movement to the centre stage has, in fact, been strengthened. To project Hindu self-assertion by the parameters of an earlier era would be a miscalculation. The challenge for the Ram temple movement lies in tempering a long-standing grievance with the parallel yearnings for stability, order, prosperity and national self-esteem. Provoking explosions of frustration isn’t always a prudent response to a challenge. Simmering anger plus exemplary restraint may be more rewarding.>> Apart from the Sangh demonstrating its level of ability to play havoc with the Constitution, via the Babri Masjid demolition, despite categorical assurance to the Supreme Court to the contrary, Modi also has shown his own individual prowess and penchant for rash and reckless moves, in the mad hunt for political dividends, by way of demonetisation, scrupulously keeping away from any professional advice. Read together with a sort of cold-blooded advocacy for such a dangerous move by Nalin Mehta carried on the same page by the same newspaper, things are, decidedly, getting more and more chilling.] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/right-and-wrong/1992-and-now-how-the-ram-mandir-battle-is-different/ 1992 and now: How the Ram mandir battle is different November 4, 2018, 1:00 AM IST Swapan Dasgupta in Right & Wrong | India | TOI Hindus, it is said, have an expansive sense of time. To that extent, a Supreme Court decision that, in effect, pushes back any decision on the title suit of the disputed site in Ayodhya to well beyond the general election of 2019 may well be inconsequential. After all, what are few months or even a year in a battle that has been ongoing for at least 150 years, if not more? Having waited for generations for an apparent historical wrong to be corrected, it is possible that the aggrieved will wait even more without too much fuss. Whether the judiciary has its own priorities or is guilty of prevarication is for history to judge. What is, however, undeniable is that an apparent lack of urgency has always had profound consequences. Had the courts settled the title dispute in the 1950s, the course of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement may well have taken a different turn and remained localised. It could also be said that had the Supreme Court not returned the Presidential reference on determining if a temple had indeed predated the mosque built in 1528, the terms of the dispute would have been very different. Judicial verdicts invariably have consequences but so do the absence of decisions. The immediate reaction to the Supreme Court’s new timetable has been an enhanced sense of Hindu victimhood. In the political sphere, there is a clear divide between those who feel that Hindu sentiments are being trampled upon, whether in Ayodhya or Sabarimala, and those who are gleeful that Narendra Modi and the BJP have been denied an opportunity to play the Ayodhya card in 2019. There is a ‘secular’ calculation that the Hindu mahants who are at the forefront of the Ram temple movement will either take their frustration out on the BJP or force the Narendra Modi government into a bout of self-defeating adventurism. Either way, the legal delay is expected to create complications for the present government. To, however, imagine that the present muddle will automatically result in a repetition of the stir that began with the Ram shilan pujas in 1988-89 and culminated in the demolition of December 6, 1992, is a little far-fetched. Although the age-old dispute shows no sign of abating and the proposed Ram temple is still a blueprint, India has changed, as has the political context. First, there has been a profound shift in the mood. Earlier, along with the Ram temple movement, there was a simultaneous battle to secure the recognition of Hindus as a distinct political entity, perhaps as an alternative to the surfeit of ‘minorityism’. Today, that battle has been resoundingly won. While there is a residual sense of victimhood, there is also a clear understanding in mainstream politics that Hindu sentiments can neither be disregarded nor offset by creating a coalition of minorities. ‘Secular fundamentalism’ built on the assumption that the Hindu voice can be taken for granted is politically unworkable today. Secondly, the earlier round of the Ayodhya battle was dominated by a contrived tussle between history and faith. Historians played an important role in trying to demonstrate that the stories of a destroyed temple in Ayodhya were fiction. The Allahabad High Court judgment of 2010, basing its conclusions on archaeological reports and the examination of ‘secular’ historians, concluded that a big temple had indeed existed where the Babri Masjid had been built. Consequently, the present battle is characterised by the strange silence of the historians who had been most vocal in the 1990s. Reduced to bare essentials, the issue today centres on where and how Muslim interests will be accommodated after the Ram temple is built. Finally, the earlier Ayodhya mobilisation occurred in an India that was experiencing the dying gasps of an inefficient, over-regulated economy. Today’s India is far more prosperous, globalised, self-confident and, above all, connected. The impulses that allowed for mass rallies, disruption and even rioting are clearly absent from today’s society. At the same time, religiosity is far more pronounced and complemented by supra-local networks built on technology. While there may be an abhorrence of turmoil, the outpouring of sentiment that propelled the Ram temple movement to the centre stage has, in fact, been strengthened. To project Hindu self-assertion by the parameters of an earlier era would be a miscalculation. The challenge for the Ram temple movement lies in tempering a long-standing grievance with the parallel yearnings for stability, order, prosperity and national self-esteem. Provoking explosions of frustration isn’t always a prudent response to a challenge. Simmering anger plus exemplary restraint may be more rewarding. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
