There are three reasons why I am opposed to the inauguration of the construction of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya by the PM of the Republic of India.
- Timing: The economy and health of India and Indians should be the priority, and temples and their inauguration should not be a national event, leave alone something on the PM’s diary. And I am not even talking of the other million things that should precede it on the priority list, including our foreign relations, education, housing, social welfare, forex reserves, the health of banks, employment, industry, trade, power, infrastructure, law & order, corruption, policing, border security, army preparedness, or other more nebulous but equally important issues like freedom of media and judiciary, corruption within democratic institutions, etc. The justification for this is that this is somehow about the sensitivities & faith, the honour & self-respect, and the collective consciousness of the entire nation. I reject that.
- Location: The temple is being built on the ruins of an act of vandalism. That means that our justification for what happened in 1992 and what is happening now is that our 20th/21st-century democracy is equal to a 16th-century Mughal monarchy. I reject that.
- Association: The PM is an official post in a representative democratic republic ruled by the Constitution we have adopted to govern ourselves, specifically calling ourselves equidistant from all religions and religious activity. The PM should be extra careful not to be associated with such events in his capacity as the Head of Government. The justification the government has forwarded is that this is somehow an event of national and historical significance. I reject that.
My stand in a nutshell:
- The Mandir should not be built now.
- It should not be built there.
- The PM (or any government official) must have nothing to do with any of it.
I don’t care what anyone else says. This is crystal clear to me. No confusion. No doubts. I refuse to allow anyone to claim that any of this has my sanction as a citizen of India. Even if I am a minority of one. I only wish to record my dissent.
I refuse to be part of this. Not in my name. I declare myself as a minority of one. But even one is enough some times.
P.S.: I can understand some people being uncomfortable with my questioning the court orders, and that my stand is against a perfectly legal act sanctioned by the highest court in India. My response to them is this: I have not said a single word about the legality of the said construction in the above post. I have based my stand on morality and ethics. What is right and what is legal are not always the same things. It is fine to stand against the law too. In fact, you would be following in some epic footsteps if you did. The only relation between moral and legal is that moral trumps legal, every single time. In effect, the law follows from what is and is not right. Not the other way around. Here is something I wrote when the whole hullabaloo about Kunal disturbing Arnab was on. I think applies equally, no, even more, here.
