On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the contentiousRam Janambhoomi case, the BJP and RSS-VHP have a prima facie difference ofopinion. The former would like to wait for the apex court to deliver itsverdict on the appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgment of 2010. Thelatter feels the dilly-dallying that has marked the judicial process so far,serves no purpose and the government should push ahead with an enablinglegislation.
Naturally, they are on the same page insofar as building theRam Mandir is concerned. The question is one of taking the credit, rather thanentertaining the possibility of a subsequent government doing so, even if thatmeans jumping the gun with a pre-emptive Ordinance.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has to keeplarger issues in mind. In recent years, he has acquired considerable tractionon the global stage and has outgrown the muscular Hindutva image stemming fromthe 2002 Gujarat riots. He would like to stick to his development agenda andrely on delivery of services and benefits to the poor to bring him back topower in Lok Sabha 2019.
An influential section of the BJP supports this stance andfurther believes that turning the election campaign into a Modi vs Rahul battlewill deliver the electoral goods. It feels that the recent assembly electionswould have gone differently if the organisation had pulled together and notworked at cross purposes.
The PM has shown a willingess to compromise with theRSS-VHP, by hinting that if the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya casedoesn’t go Ram Lalla’s way, he will be open to exploring the idea of alegislation. The RSS is not convinced, perhaps because it is unsure that the SCverdict will arrive before the elections are notified, in which case alegislation would be ruled out.
Another section of the BJP subscribes to the view that thedevelopment agenda will not appeal to voters. Only by polarising the electorateon the Ram Mandir issue can caste consolidation be ensured and this alone cancounter the Opposition’s mahagathbandhan. Besides, just by bringing anOrdinance or a Bill, it can put the Congress in an awkward position. Anylegislation will need Parliamentary approval, which means the Opposition willbe compelled to take a public stand for or against the Ram Mandir. As the PMpointedly observed, it is the “Congress” lawyers who had sought to defer ajudicial verdict.
One way or another, Ram Janambhoomi appears all set tobecome an issue. Even if the PM refuses to consider an Ordinance or a Bill, theRSS has indicated that it will continue to whip up sentiments around it. ShivSena chief Udhav Thackeray has already taken the lead; first, by appearing inAyodhya just before the VHP’s dharam sansad in November and then, by tauntingthe PM for his “Ram is not bigger than the law” stance.
Back in 2002, the then Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee,had a similar face-off with the VHP. Vajpayee was so determined not to give way to the VHP that he reportedlythreatened to resign and call for an early election. The RSS deployed itsnumber three, Madan Das Devi, to negotiate with the VHP and persuade it toawait the judicial verdict, which came only in 2010.
The difference today is that the VHP is no longer the forceit was in NDA I. Under Ashok Singhal, who passed away in 2015, it was capableof massive mobilisation. The VHP did manage to stage a huge rally last month atthe Ram Lila Maidan in Delhi, but whether it can still electrify the massesremains to be seen.
It must be noted here that the RSS-VHP does not for oneminute believe that their case lacks legal merit. The Allahabad High Court’s 2to 1 majority verdict cannot be easily set aside. The HC had dismissed theSunni Wakf Board’s suit (no. 4) for possession as time-barred, whereas that ofRam Lalla (suit no. 5) suffers no such legal infirmity. The fear is that the SCmight deliver a favourable verdict at a time when the BJP is no longer part ofthe ruling dispensation. The relentless traction afforded by the issue to theBJP would be gone for good.
For the BJP, an RSS-led campaign for the Ram Mandir is notnecessarily a bad thing, because it underlines the commitment of the saffronforces to the cause. The differing views on strategy – judicial verdict versuslegislation – will be subsumed, if it snowballs into an election issue.
Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience, sheis now an independent writer and author.
