Tuesday
In the “Rama Temple Incident” reading, it says, “the mix of Ram and history has come to be a potent weapon for the Hindu communal forces to reap the much desired political dividends” (22). The Hindus proclaimed that a Ram temple, Ramjanmabhoomi, resided on a plot of land in Ayodhya that was eventually demolished and substituted by the Babri Masjid mosque. Ram or Rama is considered Hindu communalists’ “national leader” (12). He is a very important figure to them, so the destruction of his temple is quite significant. In fact, battles between Hindus and Muslims occurred over this topic, causing many to die. It wasn’t just about the topic of the temple, though. The text states, “The Ayodhya Ram temple movement “was not a plea for a temple for Sri Rama, …instead it reflected a far deeper quest for recapturing our national identity” (20).
Rama is an impactful, influential character to many Hindus. This intense devotion can be problematic, though, such as “For the young and male kar sevaks, Ram is not only a favorite deity but also a communal rendering of Indian ‘national history.’ Having been brainwashed by the rhetoric of ‘heroic heritage’ of the past and the ‘pathetic situation’ of the present, the ‘Hindu’ youth are made to feel intensely the need for shunning ‘impotence’ and ‘weakness’” (17). Their devotion to him is strong, and they must not be weak. Specifically, “The Hindu communal forces’ invocation of Ram and Ramayana along the lines of Eurocentered taxonomies facilitates not just the evocation of monolithic Hinduism and homogenous ‘Hindu’ samaj but also the eradication of the Other, Islam and Muslims” (18). It appears that the application of the Ramayana story is used by Hindus as a way to demonstrate dominance. A nationalist approach arose and added fuel to the fire.
According to the Reuters article, Hindu nationalist “want ultimately to shape the national identity to match their religious views, that India is a nation of and for Hindus.” This behavior promotes exclusivity. Muslims are affected, and, apparently, have “never felt so marginalised in the independent history of India.” The RSS, a Hindu nationalist group, is mentioned in this reading, as well. The Ramayana is addressed, too. In the article, Culture Minister Sharma mentions the story saying, “I worship Ramayana and I think it is a historical document. People who think it is fiction are absolutely wrong.” By referencing the Ramayana as a “historical document,” Hindus are solidifying their beliefs that they were “India’s first inhabitants.” This creates a divide between Hinduism and other religions.
Thursday
Muslim poet, Umaru Pulavar, and scholar, M.M. Ismail, both studied the Ramayana. The former is “One of the earliest serious scholars of Kamban and one whose own writing owes a great deal to Kamban’s Ramayana…” (267). As for M.M. Ismail, he “has given hundreds of speeches and talks on the Ramayana throughout Tamil Nadu and to many Tamil speaking communities all over the world” (276). Furthermore, he “has been recognized and decorated for his scholarship by many Hindu groups” (277) and “Not only Hindus within Tamil Nadu, but Hindu communities in the diaspora as well have honored Ismail” (279). Comparing this reading to Tuesday’s two, this one shows that Muslims, the ones that certain Hindus are fighting against, are actually quite informed on the Ramayana. As Vasudha Narayanan said, “Only after the Babri Masjid demolition did Hindus in the diaspora become self-conscious about the irony of the South Indian situation, where some of the great scholars of Kamban’s Iramavataram are Muslims” (279).