The decision of Congress party leaders to decline the invitation to attend the consecration ceremony of Ram temple at Ayodhya on January 22 must be seen as the final assertion of a strong pseudo-secular attitude. This attitude has prevailed in the party since the days of Jawaharlal Nehru and it has metamorphosed into an anti-Hindu sentiment ever since Sonia Gandhi took over the reins a quarter century ago.
This is indeed strange because January 22, 2024 is a tryst with destiny moment for Bharat’s civilisation, which remained suppressed for over a thousand years because of Islamic invasions and British colonial rule. Further, it makes little sense from a demographic and electoral point of view because we are a federal and democratic nation with regular elections and with a population of over 1.1 billion Hindus who have shed their inhibitions of the past and are projecting a new assertive face.
This is also a strange decision in the light of the disastrous performance of the party in the Lok Sabha elections in 2014 and 2019 and the fall in its national vote share to less than 20 percent. Its seat share has also crashed to less than 10 percent in the House.
The Congress’s disdain for Hindus became apparent soon after Independence when Jawaharlal Nehru, the then prime minister, opposed Rajendra Prasad, Sardar Vallabhbhhai , K M Munshi and others over the restoration of the Somnath mandir in Gujarat. He did not want President Rajendra Prasad to attend the consecration of the new idol at Somnath because it would go against the secular traditions of the country. Sardar Patel took up the challenge and ensured that the mandir, which was pillaged seven times by Islamic invaders over several centuries, was restored with public funds as suggested by Mahatma Gandhi. Rajendra Prasad defied Nehru and attended the consecration ceremony.
L’affaire Somnath fully established the pseudo-secular foundations of the Congress, much to the discomfort of many stalwarts who felt that Nehru was not holding the scales evenly. Sardar Patel felt that “Hindu sentiment in regard to this temple is both strong and widespread… the restoration of the idol would be a point of honour and [in tune with] the sentiments of the Hindu public”. However, during the restoration, Sardar Patel passed away on December 15, 1950. With the passing of Sardar Patel, Nehru’s attitude towards Hindu sentiment hardened. Nehru’s ‘about-turn’ has been elaborately chronicled by two of his Cabinet colleagues—KM Munshi and NV Gadgil and by Prof Makkan Lal in his book Secular Politics, Communal Agenda.
In his book Government from Inside, NV Gadgil, minister for urban development, recalls the events. He says Nehru did not want government money spent on the temple. He also did not want the president to attend the consecration of the idol at Somnath (much like the Congress’s current objection to Prime Minister Narendra Modi attending the consecration of the idol at Ayodhya). Gadgil says, “I pointed out that the government gave subsidies and grants to thousands of mosques and tombs and there would be nothing objectionable if it spent a little money in restoring a Hindu temple. I understand secularism to mean the equality of all religions. Millions of Hindus are idol worshippers and not intellectuals like Nehru. Some of us are subject to the weakness of a firm faith.”
In April, 1951, during a meeting of the Union Cabinet, Nehru chided KM Munshi and said, “I don’t like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism”. Munshi responded to Nehru’s criticism in a long letter, which has much significance to the current debate on Ram Mandir. He said, “ I can assure you that the collective subconscious of India today is happier with the scheme of reconstruction of Somnath…than with many other things that we have done and are doing”. With regards to the charge that he was promoting ‘Hindu revivalism’, he said he had laboured through social work to re-shape Hinduism. “In the conviction that that alone will make India an advanced and vigorous nation under modern conditions”. He concluded by asserting the value of Hindu civilisation for India’s future. “It is my faith in our past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future. I cannot value freedom if it deprives us of the Bhagavad Gita or uproots our millions from the faith with which they look upon our temples and thereby destroys the texture of our lives”. He said he was delighted that his ‘incessant dream’ of Somnath reconstruction had come true. “Once the shrine was restored … it will give our people a purer conception of religion and a more vivid consciousness of our strength”. Just substitute Ayodhya for Somnath in Munshi’s letter and you realise how prophetic he has been in regard to the value we attach to our civilisational strength and consciousness.
Unfortunately for the Congress, it is stuck in the same groove for many decades and driven to a firmer anti-Hindu position in recent times. The best example of this was the controversial Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill by the Manmohan Singh government. The original draft of the bill was produced by the National Advisory Council headed by the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi. This bill sought to demonise the Hindus by saying that in all communal conflicts, the members of the minority community would be perceived to be victims and the needle of suspicion would by presumption, point to the majority. The bill also had strong provisions to penalise police and other government officials who failed to act as per the proposed law’s intent.
The Sachar committee report, which wanted a communal census of the Indian armed forces and the Ranganath Misra Commission which sought to create communal quotas in universities are just some of the many initiatives taken by the Congress against the Hindu majority.
In the Nehru era, there was neither a buoyant Hindutva party nor a strong leader like Narendra Modi hence the Congress was able to survive Nehru’s anti-Somnath stance. But it is a different story today. Can it remain afloat after boycotting the consecration ceremony in Ayodhya on January 22, which is perceived by the majority as a moment of civilisational pride?
(suryamedia@gmail.com)
A Surya Prakash, Vice-Chairman, Executive Council, Prime Ministers Museum and Library, New Delhi