Background

The Congress party has decided not to attend the consecration ceremony of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on January 22, causing controversy in both political circles and public conversation. The decision has produced a flurry of emotions and speculation, shedding light on the complex network of statements, historical facts, and events that have molded Congress’ attitude on this very sensitive matter.

Modhwadia, a Porbandar MLA, expressed concern about the party’s stance. He questioned why the leadership isn’t honoring Hindu sensitivities and highlighted the need to eliminate the myth that all Congress leaders are anti-Hindu.

In the southern state of Karnataka, Congress leader DK Shivakumar defended the decision, emphasizing the personal character.

Historical Context:

An important turning point occurred in 1986 when the Babri Masjid’s locks were released, and the foundation stone for a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was approved in 1989, both during Rajiv Gandhi’s term as prime minister. Nonetheless, Congress leaders insisted that rather than openly supporting the building of a Ram Mandir, these measures were taken to ease communal tensions.

Congress leaders refrained from openly endorsing Lord Ram as a legal entity during the Ayodhya title dispute case. It seemed that this legal stance was an intentional attempt to maintain a secular image.

Congress applauded the Supreme Court’s 2019 decision to support the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, signaling a significant change in the party’s position.

The Ayodhya Ram Mandir Court’s Stand:

In the legal dispute about Ram Lala’s status as a fictional figure, Congress has taken a strong stance. The party’s stance in court on the existence of the deity has complicated its handling of the Ayodhya issue and shaped public opinion.

Appeasement Politics:

The Congress party’s reputation among various voter sectors has been molded by its attempts to appease Muslims both before and after the Babri Masjid demolition, as well as by its shifting stance on the Ayodhya controversy. This approach’s complexity has persisted in influencing its political choices and actions.

you may wish to watch..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHJQ5F4QWiU

Recent Developments:

Discussions about whether the recent decision to turn down an invitation to the Ram Temple consecration event was a political ploy or a moral one have been spurred. In order to defend their absence, Congressmen Sonia Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge, and Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury described the occasion as a “BJP-RSS political project” with possible electoral ramifications.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has criticized the Congress decision, claiming the party engages in divisive politics and disregards Hindus’ cultural and religious aspirations. The party runs the risk of being branded as anti-Hindu if they choose not to attend the consecration event, particularly in relation to the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

Swiftly reacting, the BJP charged the Congress of denying Lord Ram’s existence throughout history, postponed court cases, and even pledged to restore the Babri Mosque.

Conclusion

The Congress party’s choice to skip the consecration event in Ayodhya exposes a complex internal conflict. It shows an effort to sort through the political fallout from a momentous occasion while addressing the legacy of its previous choices and actions.

Congress’s decision to skip the Ayodhya ceremony raises concerns about the party’s messaging, strategy, and attempt to strike a delicate balance in the face of conflicting historical accounts and modern political realities.