Jai Shri Ram, 'Sitaram'

Popular assumption is that an individual's character and personality is reflected in his name. But India has one exception to this assumption. We have a Communist leader with the name as ‘Sitaram”. However, both Sita and Ram are missing from his character and personality. It is like a body without a soul. But it is not surprising as Communists are more familiar with materialistic life.

 

 

 

 

Communist opposition to Ayodhya Ram temple is a well-known fact. Communists never showed any sympathy for Hindu sentiments. In fact, demolition of Babri structure was a criminal offence and assault on secular principle from Communist point of view. Communists did not leave any stone unturned to ensure that Ram temple did not come up in Ayodhya.

 

Against this backdrop, it was a dignified act by Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Teerth Kshetra to extend an invitation to Communist leader Sitaram Yechuri for the consecration ceremony, scheduled for January 22. It was a matured reflection and manifestation of Hindu philosophy, which is known for tolerance, openness and liberal ideas. In Hindu philosophy, even the opposition views are highly respected.

 

However, Communists have once again shown their narrow-minded attitude by turning down the invitation for the consecration ceremony. Yechuri has declined to attend the ceremony. Given the history of Communists, Yechuri's response is not surprising. It would have been surprising had Yechuri shown willingness to participate. Indian Communists are born to hate Hindus because of which Communist ideology has touched rock bottom. Communism, as a political ideology, has become irrelevant all over the world and India is not the exception. It would have been upholding constitutional values, which Communists always speak of, had Yechuri gracefully accepted the consecration ceremony invitation. But hatred for Hindu sentiments prevented him from accepting the invitation.

 

 

 

Yechuri's denial is surprising as Ram temple is being constructed after ruling by the judiciary, which is a constitutional authority. Therefore, Yechuri denial amounts to humiliation of the judiciary and constitutional authority. CPI (M) was never comfortable with rulings delivered by the judiciary from time. Party has raised doubts on the Supreme Court decision, which handed over land for construction of Ram temple. CPI (M) had then raised a case pending against some VHP and BJP leaders, related with demolition of Babri structure. CPI (M) had then raised a case pending against some VHP and BJP leaders, related with demolition of Babri structure. This happened even though the party was insisting on settlement of the dispute through judicial process.

 

Curiously, CPI (M) described the Special CBI court decision, which acquitted VHP and BJP leaders as ‘A travesty of justice’. Party said in a statement, “This verdict will blemish the image of India as a secular-democratic country governed by the Constitution. The CBI must immediately appeal against this judgment”. Communist leaders did not hesitate to criticise judicial decisions, which again has constitutional validity. Both the cases are evident to the fact Communists have no respect for judiciary when verdicts do not suit them politically. This is politics of convenience, which is born out of dishonest commitment to constitutional values. CPI (M) would not have used a strong term like ‘travesty’, which means – “something that fails to represent the values and qualities that it is intended to represent, in a way that is shocking or offensive”. The use of the term travesty shows that CPI (M) had no respect for constitutional mechanisms.

 

Another example can be placed to prove that CPI (M) has no respect for the judiciary. In March 2017, the then Chief Justice of India J S Khehar asked concerned parties in the Ayodhya dispute to settle the matter through talks. This time, CPI (M) said that the judicial process was concerned with title of land. CPI (M) even said that the Supreme Court must adjudicate on this matter before it and discharge its judicial responsibility. This obviously indicates that CPI (M) was not willing to have any out of court settlement. In fact, it showed arrogance by trying to remind the Supreme Court of its judicial responsibilities.

 

CPI (M) showed similar antipathy for Hindu sentiments when Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of Ram temple. CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechuri felt that Modi's action was a violation of the constitution in letter and spirit.

 

Communists always vouch for the constitution but they did not hesitate to manipulate and mislead the Supreme Court. Babari Masjid Action Committee, which was a party to the dispute, submitted a piece of opinion in the Supreme Court, claiming that no evidence of the temple was found during the excavation. The book written by D Mandal – Ayodhya: Archaeology After Excavation – was produced in the court in an attempt to show that the temple did not exist. However, Communist plan did not work out when the author himself confessed in the court that his views were based on photographs and he never saw excavated pieces in Ayodhya. Court, obviously, did not entertain the book as evidence.

 

 

 

Former Director of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Dr K K Muhammed exposed Communist design, which showed how Communists played with malafide and nefarious intentions. In an interview to FirstPost (January 21, 2016) Dr Muhammed says, “The action committee held several meetings under the leadership of Irfan Habib, the then chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research. "The Babri issue would have been settled long ago if the Muslim intelligentsia had not fallen prey to the brainwashing by the Leftist historians. A set of historians including Romila Thapar, Bipin Chandra and S Gopal argued that there was no mention of the dismantling of the temple before the 19th century and Ayodhya is Bhudhist-Jain centre. They were supported by historians Irfan Habib, RS Sharma, DN Jha, Suraj Ben and Akthar Ali,".

 

Dr Muhammed’s information is significant as the ideological identity of Ifran Habib is a well-known fact. One can understand how leftist ecosystem was acting against Hindu sentiments and national interests. Dr Muhammed’s information is important as he was a member of the team, which completed excavation of the site.

 

Two incidents expose Communist design to field Muslims against Hindu and make the issue more complicated. Communist leaders did hot hesitate to misuse constitutional rights and mechanisms to achieve their goal with ulterior motives. CPI (M) tried to undermine Hindu sentiments by saying that temples were being constructed when hospitals were needed. The party celebrates December 6 as Constitution and Secular day to present itself as a constitution bound political force. This happens when party always disregard the constitution.

 

Yechuri’s denial to attend consecration ceremony in Ayodhya needs to be seen against this backdrop. Communists would never tolerate Indians to be united. This ideology has always tried to fuel divisive forces by using constitutional tools. Communist arrogance is evident from the fact that other political parties have slightly softened their positions on Ayodhya temple but Communists continue to remain unchanged as their ideology is not born in Indian soil.

 

 

--