“Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven.” These immortal words, penned by William Wordsworth in the 1790s amidst the fervour of the French Revolution, capture the profound joy and exhilaration of witnessing the dawn of a transformative era. For Wordsworth, it was bliss to experience the awakening of a new age in Europe. For us, the dawn of January 22, 2024, carried a similarly momentous significance, as we witnessed the Pran Pratishtha of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
This day marked a civilisational milestone—the true liberation of Bharat, a decisive step in our journey of decolonisation that began 75 years ago. To be alive in this moment is to witness India’s resolute journey towards reclaiming its rightful place as the Vishwaguru. For us, this is a moment of unparalleled importance, rivalling the significance of our political independence. It transforms the collective agony of the past many centuries into a shared pride that unites the nation. The completion of the Ram Mandir stands as a testament to the unwavering dedication and toil of generations—a fulfillment of the aspirations of countless individuals and organisations, particularly the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), who championed this national movement.
Awakening Bharat’s Swa
Echoing this sentiment, RSS Sarsanghchalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat observed, while political independence was achieved and a Constitution was framed, it was on the Pratishtha Dwadashi that the ‘dignified freedom’ of Bharat was actualised. ”After India got political independence from the British on August 15, 1947, a written Constitution was made according to the path shown by that specific vision, which comes out of the ‘self’ of the country, but the document was not run according to the spirit of the vision at that time… The true independence of India, which had faced many centuries of persecution, was established on that day (the day of Ram Temple’s Pran Pratishtha). India had independence but it was not established,” he said.
As Mohan Ji rightly observed in his speech in other words, Ram Janmabhoomi movement was initiated to awaken Bharat’s Swa—its true self. While nationalists grasp it in letter and spirit, those who vociferously label such sentiments as treachery would do well to study the works of great historians like Arnold Toynbee. Interpreting the text and context of this speech through the lens of history sheds light on its deeper significance and the true essence of Mohan Ji’s words.
Restoration of National Pride
Why should this moment be hailed as the greatest in our national life? Why does it deserve a place of pride in the annals of history? The reconstruction of the Ram Mandir symbolises the culmination of Bharat’s centuries-long colonisation and the restoration of its national pride and glory. Though it has been delayed—taking 75 years after Independence to achieve this monumental task—its completion coincided with the dawn of Amrit Kaal, a significant chapter in our timeless civilisational journey. Reclaiming Shri Ram’s birthplace signifies reclaiming Swa, the essence of our national and civilisational identity.
Dr Mohan Bhagwat observed that Bharat’s Swa was awakened through Ram Janmabhoomi movement
For any society, the removal of symbols of subjugation and their replacement with emblems of national pride is a profoundly liberating experience. This process has recurred throughout history and continues even today. In Bharat, centuries of Turkish invasions and misrule resulted in the desecration, destruction, or conversion of thousands of temples into mosques, leaving deep scars on the Hindu psyche. The Government’s decision in 1947 to reconstruct the Somnath Temple, under the influence of visionaries like KM Munshi, was an official acknowledgment of this historical wound. However, demands for the restoration of the Ram Janmasthan Mandir in Ayodhya, the Krishna Janmasthan Mandir in Mathura and the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir in Varanasi were unfortunately overlooked.
Valuable Insight
British historian and philosopher Arnold Joseph Toynbee, renowned for his 12-volume magnum opus A Study of History, offered valuable insights into our aforesaid civilisational problem during his Maulana Azad Memorial Lecture in 1960. In his speech, later published as One World and India by the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, Toynbee, while lauding India’s ‘large-heartedness and broad-mindedness’ as her great contributions to the world, subtly expressed scholarly astonishment at the Indian Government’s decision not to dismantle Aurangzeb’s mosques, structures erected primarily for political rather than religious purposes.
Drawing a parallel with Poland, Toynbee noted how the Polish Government demolished the Russian Orthodox cathedral in Warsaw, which had been erected to assert Russian dominance. He argued that the political structures built by Aurangzeb on Hindu holy sites served a similarly offensive purpose, symbolising slavery and colonial oppression. For Toynbee, the real freedom of a nation should involve replacing such symbols, as has been the practice across the world. He rightly identified the political structures built on Hindu’s holy sites as symbols of slavery and colonialism and gently reminded us that it was naturally the responsibility of a liberated Government to address these symbols of historical subjugation.
He cited the example of the Russians constructing an Orthodox Christian cathedral at a prominent central location in the city that had once been the capital of the independent Roman Catholic nation of Poland, emphasising that this act was driven by a deliberate political purpose. “The Russians had done this to give the Poles a continuous ocular demonstration that the Russians were now their masters. After the reestablishment of Poland’s independence in 1918, the Poles had pulled this cathedral down. The demolition had been completed just before the date of my visit. I do not greatly blame the Polish Government for having pulled down that Russian church. The purpose for which the Russians had built it had been not religious but political, and the purpose had also been intentionally offensive. On the other hand, I do greatly praise the Indian Government for not having pulled down Aurangzeb’s mosques: I am thinking particularly of two that overlook the ghats at Benares, and of one that crowns Krishna’s hill at Mathura,” Toynbee remarked.
He further observed, “Aurangzeb’s purpose in building those three mosques was the same intentionally offensive political purpose that moved the Russians to build their Orthodox cathedral in the city-centre at Warsaw. Those three mosques were intended to signify that an Islamic Government was reigning supreme, even over Hinduism’s holiest of holy places. I must say that Aurangzeb had a veritable genius for picking out provocative sites.”
Commenting further, he noted that the Poles were kinder in destroying Russians’ self-discrediting monument in Warsaw than the Indian Government has been in sparing Aurangzeb’s mosques. “Anyway, it is Aurangzeb, and not the Hindu holy ground on which his mosques are planted, that suffers from their very conspicuous presence,” he added. He also pointed out that Aurangzeb’s mosques are not outstandingly beautiful works of Indian Muslim architecture.
It is noteworthy that the very groups who once demanded the partition of Bharat—the same “Breaking India” brigade are now pushing for divisive agendas like “Cutting South”
Toynbee’s observations resonate with the spirit of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which sought to restore not just a temple but the essence of Bharat’s civilisational pride and identity. Although the Government of the time failed to address the people’s demand to remove colonial-era structures that stood as symbols of subjugation in Hindu holy places, social organisations like the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) eventually took the lead in a national movement. They reminded successive governments of the people’s aspirations and emphasised that harmonious Hindu-Muslim relations could only be achieved by rectifying historical injustices.
Rather than addressing the VHP’s reasonable demands, a succession of Indian governments chose to politicise the issue. The Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which reasonably advocated for the relocation of the mosque, met with fierce opposition from Congress and the Left. It is noteworthy that the very groups who once demanded the partition of Bharat—the same “Breaking India” brigade now pushing for divisive agendas like “Cutting South”—stood firmly against any amicable resolution. The result of this impasse was the events of December 6.
Lending ears solely to local Lefist court historians, we often overlook the reactions of independent intellectuals and historians of international importance, who shared Toynbee’s concerns about correcting historical wrongs, to the demolition of the disputed structures. Their perspectives offer a valuable lens through which to understand this complex and contentious chapter of history. One of the great writers and intellectuals, Nirad Chaudhuri said, ”Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about destruction of one mosque. From 1000 AD every Hindu temple from Kathiawar to Bihar from the Himalaya to the Vindhyas has been sacked and ruined… No nation with any self-respect will forgive this.”
For renowned Nobel laureate VS Naipaul, the construction of a mosque in Ayodhya on a spot regarded as sacred by the conquered population was meant as an insult! About the fateful day of December 6, he said, “What is happening in India is a new, historical awakening… Today it seems to me that Indians are becoming alive to their history… What is happening in India is a mighty creative process.”
Sharing the same historic perspective of Toyenbee, VS Naipaul, in an interview, said, “The people who say that there was no temple there (Ayodhya) are missing the point. Babar, you must understand, had contempt for the country he had conquered. And his building of that mosque was an act of contempt for the country.”
In an interview with Dilip Padgoankar, Naipaul explained his firm views and said, “What is happening in India is a new, historical awakening, a mighty creative process. Indian intellectuals, who want to be secure in their liberal beliefs, may not understand what is going on, especially if these intellectuals happen to be in the United States. But every other Indian knows that a larger response is emerging even if at times this response appears in his eyes to be threatening….”
Whether it is Shri Ram of Ayodhya, Shri Krishna of Mathura, or Bhagwan Parameshwar of Kashi, their presence is deeply etched into the very DNA of every Bharatiya, transcending geographical and linguistic divisions across Bharatvarsha. They are inseparable from the identity of this ancient nation. The Ramayan, supported by countless archaeological discoveries, geographical markers and the enduring oral traditions of local communities, stands as a timeless testament to truth. Its spiritual, national, and social essence is intricately woven into the fabric of Bharat. Among the many cultural and civilisational pillars of this land, the legacy of Bhagwan Ram remains a unifying force for the people of this nation. To deny this eternal truth is to deny the very idea of Bharat itself.
For those who perceive as treacherous the truth that the inauguration of the Ram Mandir marks a new dawn in our history and true freedom from colonialism, it is imperative to study history through a Bharatiya lens. Politicians from dynastic backgrounds, shaped by a Western secular upbringing and steeped in colonial narratives, often fail to grasp the true essence of Swa and Bharatiyata, let alone the profound meaning of freedom.
Comments