-OpEd-
NEW DELHI — In his speech in 1928 to the Indian Statutory Commission, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution, described politics in India as “nothing but theology in action”.“
If representative government is so weak when operating among European peoples, where the secularization of politics has gone far further, how much weaker must it be in India where politics is nothing but theology in action. It is this theology against which the depressed classes must seek to be protected,” he said.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
If Ambedkar’s words on the politics in India being “theology in action” are to be believed, a manifestation of his statement was visible Monday when Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the head of the sovereign, secular state in India, participated in the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, just months ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
This was official state sanction to the event consecrating the controversial new Ayodhya Ram temple, built on the site where the Babri Masjid mosque was destroyed in 1992 by Hindu nationalist groups, with more than 2,000 people killed in the ensuing communal violence. It is in no uncertain terms being celebrated as a national event with state governments including central hospitals rolling out official notifications, orders and directions giving half or full day offs.
In a 2013 essay, political theorist Rajeev Bhargava argued that secularism is not against religion, it opposes institutionalized religious domination. He wrote that the secular state shows “critical respect to all religious and philosophical world views, possible only when it adopts a policy of principled distance towards all of them”.
Does the event then represent an unprecedented moment in independent India where this “principled distance” between the state and religion is obfuscated?
“Secularism as principled distance is being brutally crushed,” Bhargava said, speaking last week to The Wire.
Divine right of the King
“Secularism has been abandoned. And once secularism is set aside, the relevant question is what kind of a religion-centered state is replacing a secular state? Here there are three possibilities: one is theocracy. In the second kind of religious-centered state, there is a very close alliance between the big leaders of a religious community and the state. Both the religious and the political leaders are virtually equal partners in running the state. This too is not happening here. Then what is it? It appears that there is a third model. Here, the state has merged with religion entirely on its own terms.”
We have somebody who is acting like the king and has announced that divinity is passing through him
On January 12, ahead of the consecration ceremony in Ayodhya, Modi announced in an audio message that he will be starting 11-day rituals to prepare for the event and said that God had “made him the representative of the people of India” to be present at the ceremony.
“This reminds me of the Divine Rights of the King,” said Bhargava.
“We have somebody who is acting like the king and has announced that divinity is passing through him or he is chosen by God, by the divine voice to perform this ceremony. This is a total subsumption of religion by politics. The line between the religion and the state has been broken down and is breaking down entirely at the initiative of the state which is dictating how religion and religious ceremonies are to be conducted.”
Constitutional morality
In an interview with The Indian Express, former Union minister and senior BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad upon being asked on the blurring lines between religion and state said: “Felicitating the grand ceremony, arranging for that does not mean blurring the lines… The prime minister is going there as a real worshipper of Lord Ram, and he is following the required discipline for it.”
Hilal Ahmed, associate professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies said that the idea of constitutional morality becomes crucial. “The event can be seen from two different perspectives. One could argue that this is actually a cultural event. The active participation of political leaders representing the state authority, hence, may be interpreted as an acceptable act on legal technical grounds. Many Modi allies are making arguments of this kind. We must remember that in the Indian context, giving money to a mosque or a temple or politician going to religious events are acceptable.
“However, there is another way to look at this event. The idea of constitutional morality becomes crucial. It is expected from the state to maintain a principled distance from religious affairs. Two questions might be raised here: is it possible to disassociate religious elements from the inauguration ceremony? Is it a religious event or not? Secondly, are people of all religions going to be included in this celebration or would they feel excluded? From this perspective, it might deviate from the distinctiveness of the idea of secularism and constitutional morality in the Indian context.”
Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Jew
While the opposition INDIA alliance has decided to stay away from the event in Ayodhya, they have instead found alternative ways to platform their Hindu identity. The Congress announced its decision to not attend the ceremony in Ayodhya calling it a BJP-RSS event, but former party president Rahul Gandhi will be visiting a temple in Assam during his ongoing Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra.
Rahul Verma, fellow at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), said that the event presents a “dilemma” for other political parties.
“If they go there it is a problem if they don’t then also it’s a problem. That is why it is a dilemma for them. And there is no easy answer,” Verma said.
According to Ahmed, since the arrival of Modi, the political class has lost interest in the politics of secularism.
It is a religious event, but the purpose is clearly political.
“It doesn’t mean that secularism has become irrelevant in the context. People adhere to secular values in various ways,” he said. “Politically speaking, (Modi’s) BJP party would like to use the Ayodhya celebration for 2024 elections. It doesn’t mean that the party is not aware of the limitations of the Ram Temple as a political issue. There is a serious competition for Hindu votes. Every political party is interested in capitalizing on Hindu sentiments. So BJP is not the only party which will use Hindu nationalism for political gains.”
Mridula Mukherjee, former professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University and former director of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, said that January 22 represents a new turn in India’s post-independence history.
“It is not simply about the prime minister attending the event,” Mukherjee said. “He is actually the main character in the consecration ceremony, he is performing religious functions. Inaugurating a temple is very different from performing religious functions in the consecration ceremony. In my understanding it is not within the permissible framework of the Indian Constitution.”
Mukherjee said that while it is a religious event in which a temple is being consecrated, “the purpose to which it is being put is clearly political”.
“In the classic sense the use of religion for political gains is what we call communalism, whether Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Jew.”
