On 20th December, Karan Thapar of The Wire interviewed ‘historian’ Ramachandra Guha based on his op-ed in The Telegraph. The discussion between the two mainly revolved around Guha’s perspective on the political and cultural shifts in India, specifically regarding the prominence of Hindu identity in Indian politics. As expected, Guha vehemently expressed his concerns about the changing language of the political discourse. He claimed that the Indian society is shifting away from secularism.
The interview then delved into Guha’s apprehensions about the “implications” of the Bhavya Ram Mandir that is scheduled for inauguration on 22nd January, 2024, in Ayodhya by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Guha claimed that he would not be celebrating the event because he “experienced the communal violence” that followed the demolition of the disputed Babri structure.
Guha also expressed his reservations about the monumental scale of the temple, claiming that it would potentially have implications for the country’s future. He claimed that the construction of Bhavya Ram Mandir is a step towards a “Second Republic” with a Hindu-first approach, which, according to him, contrasts with the secular ethos of the Constitution of India.
Ramachandra Guha questioned the need to construct such a monumental Mandir and criticised the endorsement it has received from the political leaders. The discussion then drew comparisons with the other Asian countries like South Korea, Singapore, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. While giving examples of Sri Lanka, Guha asserted the way India is moving towards Hindu majority, the country may face a similar fate as the neighbouring country Sri Lanka. He said, “The civil war happened in Sri Lanka because the Sinhala-speaking Buddhist majority sought to put the Tamils, who are Hindus, in their place.”
Notably, during the interview, Karan Thapar made a bizarre statement that the inauguration of Swarved Mahamandir by the PM leads to Hindus taking the path of authoritarianism, which calls for a deep dive into the importance of Guru Parampara while attaining the path of spirituality.
Ayodhya Bhavya Ram Mandir and legal reclamation of sacred spaces
The way Ramachandra Guha expressed his views about the Ram Mandir in his op-ed, and the interview with Karan Thapar showed how misinformed he is about the Hindu culture and the ethos that ensured India remained secular. Notably, the Supreme Court verdict legitimised the rebuilding of Bhavya Ram Mandir, which the invaders destroyed. The judgment is a testament to Hindus’ belief in the legal and democratic approach.
Through the legal process, Hindus exercised their constitutional right to reclaim a sacred space of immense significance that they had fought for over 500 years. The land dispute between Hindus and Muslims spanned for decades and witnessed a legal battle that culminated in a verdict which recognised the complexity of the situation. One has to appreciate the balance between the cultural reverence and the rule of law that led to the construction of the Bhavya Ram Temple. It has given a ray of hope to every sane Hindu worldwide that their sentiments matter.
Every country has a different design, which Thapar and Guha forgot to comprehend
While discussing the “implications” of Ram Mandir’s construction on Indian politics, they asserted that India should learn from what happened in Sri Lanka and Pakistan. According to Guha, the civil war occurred in Sri Lanka because the Sinhala-speaking Buddhist majority sought to put the Tamils, who are Hindus, in their place. Similarly, the fundamentalists changed the country’s course of progress in Pakistan. They asserted that if India continues its chosen path, it will end up like these two countries. Furthermore, they stated that India should learn from Singapore and South Korea, where religion does not “find a place in the public view”.
Interestingly, while expressing their imaginative concerns, they completely ignored the nuanced nature of the secular fabric in Indian society shaped by the constitutional principles and the Hindu way of living that is rooted in “live and let live”. Unlike Sri Lanka and Pakistan, India is unlikely to become a religious state.
Left-liberals often forget that it is not the Hindus that conspired to make India a religious state. It was the Popular Front of India and other Islamic organisations that called for “Ghazwa-e-Hind” and wanted Sharia to be implemented in the country. Had PFI been not banned, they would have moved on with their plan for Sharia in India by 2047. Both Guha and Thapar ignored that India has a diverse religious landscape and the coexistence of multiple faiths for centuries. Furthermore, it is only because of Hindus that India has remained a secular state. Otherwise, it would have turned into the likes of Pakistan long ago.
Guha and Thapar’s suggestion for India to learn from South Korea and Singapore regarding religious ethos completely oversimplified the complex dynamics of religion in each country. While India has a rich history of religious pluralism, South Korea and Singapore have homogenous religious landscapes. India’s inclusive approach to diverse religious practices must be aligned with models designed for much smaller and more homogenous populations. Both failed to recognise India’s constitutional protections and its historical embrace of diversity in terms of religion.
Lack of understanding of Hinduism, spirituality and the importance of Guru Prampara
Now, coming to Karan Thapar’s bizarre statement that the inauguration of Swarved Mahamandir by the PM is Hindus taking taking the path of authoritarianism. He completely missed the point that Sanatan Dharma talks extensively about Guru Pramapara. The philosophies embedded in the Hindu traditions discuss the significance of having a spiritual guide.
Sant Kabir famously wrote, “Guru Gobind dou khade, kaku lagun paye… Balihari guru aapne, Gobind diyo milaye”. In the couplet, Sant Kabir said that when Guru and Gobind (Bhagwan) are standing together in front of you, bow down to the Guru first as he is the one who showed the path connecting with the divine.
In Sanatan Dharma, a Guru is not just a teacher. He is a spiritual guide who imparts wisdom. He facilitates self-realisation and leads disciples on the path of righteousness. What Thapar contended, failed to grasp the essence of the Guru-Shishya Parampara, the foundational element in the Spiritual journey within Hinduism.
The profound significance of Guru Parampara has been described in the life stories of many saints. For example, Guru Gorakhnath, one of the most prominent figures in Nath traditions, belonged to a strong lineage of Gurus who played a crucial role in preserving and disseminating spiritual knowledge. Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adiyanath belongs to the lineage and currently holds Guru Gaddi after Mahant Avaidyanath.
Similarly, the great philosopher and theologian Adi Shankaracharya established the Advaita Vedanta tradition. His Guru, Shri Guru Bhagvapada, was crucial in shaping his profound understanding of Vedanta.
Sant Tukaram, the 17th-century saint and poet from Maharashtra, was influenced by his Guru Babaji Chaitanya. Swami Vivekananda became a renowned saint because of his Guru, Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, who introduced him to the universality of religions and the importance of direct experience in spirituality. Without Gurus, these saints would never have been what they became.
Guha expressed his dismay over the meditation centre and his amazement that someone would guide people on how to chant mantras, what to chant, what not to chant, etc. His assertions made it clear that he must know the importance of pronouncing the Mantras correctly. The right pronunciation and understanding of the inherent vibrations of the Mantras hold spiritual significance. In a way, Guha neglected the meditative and transformative aspects crucial for the spiritual growth of Hinduism.
Notably, Mantras are a bridge between the individual and the divine. Chanting Mantras plays a pivotal role in meditation and spiritual elevation of the devotee. Understanding their depth goes beyond the surface-level rituals and plays and significantly fosters a profound connection with the spiritual realms.
Notably, Hindu practices are not homogenous. A large spectrum of beliefs and paths in Sanatan Dharma can take an individual to spiritual realisation.
The critique of Hindu practices in the op-ed by Guha and the discussion with Thapar, particularly regarding the Ram Mandir, reflected their limited understanding of Sanatan Dharma. They dismissed the legitimate cultural reclamation and undermined the essence of spiritual teachings. Their misguided comparisons completely lacked nuanced comprehension and showed the immediate need for them to reconsider their perspectives.
