Ayodhya movement & transformative shift in Hindu social dynamics: A Journey Towards Inclusivity
Total Views |
The Ayodhya movement, which gained momentum in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was a watershed moment in Indian history. While the political aspects of the movement have been widely discussed, it is essential to explore its social implications, particularly in fostering a more inclusive approach within the Hindu community. This article delves into the transformative journey that the Ayodhya movement triggered, leading to a significant shift in social dynamics, increased participation of marginalized sections, and a more inclusive Hindu society.
As seen across the globe, some moments in a nation’s life have the power to alter the trajectory of history. The of Babri Masjid was one such moment that set in motion a string of transformative events for Hindu society as a whole. Today, as the Ram Mandir is ready to be inaugurated in Ayodhya, it stands not just as any temple structure but an assertion of Hindu solidarity. In a way, what could not be achieved through several years, was done by Ram Janmhabhoomi andoolan.
Historical Background:
The roots of the renewed Ayodhya movement can be traced back to the late 20th century when various Hindutva organizations began championing the cause of the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. The movement gained momentum in the 1980s and the outburst took place in 1992. However, amidst the political turmoil and religious fervour, a silent social revolution was taking shape.
Pre-Ayodhya Movement Social Landscape:
Before the Ayodhya movement, the leadership in North India was predominantly controlled by Brahmins and Baniyas, creating an urban-centric narrative. The power dynamics were such that certain sections of society, especially women and the deprived classes, found themselves on the fringes, victims of social discrimination. This skewed power structure became a focal point of criticism, with leaders like Kanshi Ram, the founder of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), highlighting the exclusionary nature of the existing social order.
Transformation of Social Dynamics:
The Ayodhya movement inadvertently became a catalyst for change, steering Hindu society towards a more inclusive and participatory model. The fervent call for the construction of a Ram temple acted as a unifying force, bringing together people from diverse backgrounds under a common religious banner. This unity extended beyond traditional social hierarchies, paving the way for a new generation and a new breed in social transactions.
During Karseva, many of the foot soldiers were from traditionally depressed classes and some of them later rose to became prominent faces not just in the Ayodhya movement, but in social activities, including politics. Thanks to Ayodhya movement, there is a special place for traditionally supressed classes and OBCs in the evolved Hindutva matrix.
In preparation for the Rath Yatra a year later, on the 9th of November 1989 — a date carefully selected by the RSS and the VHP for the Shilanyas, the foundation laying ceremony of the envisioned temple — a kar sevak, belonging to Scheduled Caste, was selected to place the inaugural stone. Despite the preferences of numerous saints who had lined up for the Ram Mandir Shilanyas, Kameshwar Chaupal, a member of the VHP and a resident of Samastipur in Bihar, went against the grain by personally laying the foundational brick for the Ram Mandir. Chaupal, 67, who had previously served RSS pracharak in Madhubani region and organisation secretary of the VHP, is currently a member of the Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust for the construction of the temple.
In one of his interviews during 2020 after Supreme Court verdict on temple, Chaupal recalled that former VHP chief late Ashok Singhal often used to get emotional when he saw him. “He told me repeatedly that there was no such thing as Dalit , as all Hindus were one,” Chaupal had said. Chaupal unsuccessfully contested the 1991 Lok Sabha polls on the BJP ticket from Rosada in Bihar. Next, he contested the Bihar assembly elections in 1995 from Begusarai, but lost again. However, in 2002, he got elected as a Member of Legislative Council (MLC).
Following the Supreme Court’s 2020 verdict, as the Ram Janmabhoomi Teertha Kshetra Trust embarked on
preparations for the construction of the Ram temple, the VHP undertook a symbolic yet crucial initiative. They gathered soil from significant Valmiki temples and noteworthy locations, including Nagpur where Babasaheb Ambedkar embraced Buddhism, the Sant Ravidas temple in Kashi, the Tantya Bhil temple in Madhya Pradesh, the Maharshi Valmiki Ashram in Sitamarhi, and the Valmiki Ashram in Delhi, where Mahatma Gandhi had spent over a month.
Participation of Women:
One of the noteworthy outcomes of the Ayodhya movement was the increased participation of women in the socio-religious discourse. Traditionally relegated to the domestic sphere, women found a voice and a role in the movement. The narrative of `Ram Rajya’ resonated with many women, drawing them into the fold of the movement. The transformation was not merely symbolic but manifested in tangible ways as women actively participated in rallies, meetings, and discussions, challenging the traditional gender roles that had confined them. Women serving kar sevaks, shading pardah, was a very common scene in movement.
When the Ayodhya movement was at its peak, Sadhvi Ritambhara and Uma Bharati established themselves as the aggressive leaders. Audio-cassette recordings of both the women leaders were sold like hot cakes. The people used to wait for them for hours. Many such meeting were held in the midnights, which was indicator of their popularity and large-scale social acceptance. They repeatedly invoked Sita to protect Ram, in a clear reversal of conventional roles, and made acceptable the idea of feminine, saffron-clad aggression. While the Karseva had mostly the men, but women across India took off their gold bangles and donated them. In many cities, women worked extra to offer meals to kar sevaks. Their involvement in serving kar sevaks was significant as it crossed all the traditional grounds of discrimination.
Empowerment of Deprived Classes:
The Ayodhya movement brought about a significant shift in the participation of the deprived classes, who were historically marginalized within the Hindu social structure. The call for the construction of the Ram temple became a rallying point for people across caste lines. The movement provided a platform for the assertion of identity and agency by those who had long been relegated to the periphery. This inclusivity marked a departure from the past and contributed to a more heterogeneous representation within the broader Hindu narrative.
Critique and Shift in Hindutva Movement:
The initial criticism from leaders like Kanshi Ram regarding the urban-centric and exclusionary nature of the Hindutva movement was not unfounded. However, the Ayodhya movement acted as a turning point, forcing a re-evaluation of the movement’s focus and outreach. The face of the Hindutva movement underwent a transformation, becoming more inclusive and accommodative.
One such example is Kalyan Singh, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh worker and former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Singh, a member of Lodh caste under Other Backward Class (OBCs), personified the BJP-RSS’ blend of caste and Hindutva, which helped the saffron party come to power in Uttar Pradesh. Besides Kalyan Singh, other leaders like Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar broadened the social base of Hindutva movement. At the height of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, two women, Sadhvi Ritambhara and Uma Bharti, vocalised the anger of Hindus. These leaders were seen sharing dais with established leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi, a Brahmin, and Lal Krishna Advani, a Sindhi Hindu.
BJP during the movement and in subsequent years
The shift from an urban-centric focus to a more rural and semi-urban outreach was also a conscious effort to connect with the grassroots. This shift was not merely a strategic manoeuvre but reflected a genuine desire to include diverse voices and perspectives within the larger framework of the Hindutva movement. The movement began addressing the concerns and aspirations of people from varied socio-economic backgrounds, transcending the earlier narrow confines.
Inclusivity in Religious Practices:
The Ayodhya movement also triggered a re-examination of religious practices, encouraging a more inclusive approach. The emphasis on the construction of the Ram temple led to increased engagement with religious rituals and ceremonies by a broader cross-section of society. Temples, once considered exclusive spaces, started welcoming devotees from all walks of life. This change in religious dynamics contributed to a sense of belonging and participation among previously marginalized communities.
Educational Empowerment:
Another significant outcome of the Ayodhya movement was the increased emphasis on education as a means of empowerment. The movement inspired the younger generation to actively participate in socio-religious activities while simultaneously pursuing education. This dual focus on cultural identity and educational advancement contributed to a more enlightened and empowered generation that sought to break free from the shackles of traditional social norms.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Ayodhya movement, while rooted in a fervent religious and political context, had far-reaching implications for Hindu society’s social fabric. It acted as a catalyst for change, breaking down traditional barriers and fostering a more inclusive approach. The increased participation of women, empowerment of deprived classes, and the shift in the Hindutva movement’s focus marked a departure from the past, creating a space for diverse voices within the larger Hindu narrative. The legacy of the Ayodhya movement lies not only in the bricks and mortar of a temple but in the transformative journey it set in motion, shaping a more inclusive and participatory social landscape for generations to come.