 Saqed Ayodhya Faizabad, what is the Ram Temple really about? How does the clamour for a Ram Temple ahead of the 2019 General Elections is actually the final legitimisation of a politics that has violated both the Indian constitution and Indian law? Violence and revenge is integral to a bloodied path to refashion the Indian Democratic Republic into an authoritarian, theocratic Hindutva nation. It is significant that December 6 was chosen for this brazen act. Babasabh's memory is venerated and commemorated by hundreds of thousands on this day. Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar have provided formidable critiques of the entrenched and exclusionary caste system. To replace what December 6 stands for in public memory is crucial for the supremacist ideology of Hindutva that is constructed on the hegemony and discriminations of caste. Babasabh Ambedkar was singular in his critique of organised Hinduism, whether it is through annihilation of caste or riddles in Hinduism. It is a kind of psychological war against the Dalit Bahujan. It all began in 1984, so to speak, if not before. In 1949, first, the idols were surreptitiously smuggled into the Babri Masjid, post-independence, and after the assassination of Gandhiji on 30th January 1948. Before 1984, there are some other dates that are relevant, 1529, 1853, 1855, when the mosque designed by Mirbaki was built, when the claims of a Hindu temple first began under British colonial rule, before British colonial rule, there were no such claims. 1947, we, India, became independent, 1950, we, India, became a republic with a constitution. Key to understanding this issue is what we in India stand for, the fundamentals of Indian citizenship, the fundamentals of Indian nationhood, equality of citizenship, reason over faith, supremacy of the rule of law. In 1984, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an offshoot of the Rajshri Swayamsevaksangara says, held a Dharam Sansa and identified 3,000 conflict sites between Hindus and Muslims, quote-unquote, that could mobilize the sentiments of Hindus and polarize the nation. The top three sites chosen were at Ayodhya, Kashi, and Mathra, the Dharam Sansa decided to start with the clamor for a Ram temple at Ayodhya. A nationwide village-to-village campaign to collect bricks and money to build a grand Ram temple in place of the Babri Masjid was masterminded. Hindutva NRIs chipped in with dollars, pounds and the like. Around the same time, India's state-controlled television channel, Doordarshan, started to run a never-ending serial on the Hindu epic, the Ramayana. The story of Lord Ram. Mythology began to rule our consciousness. Militaristic, confrontational, domineering faith Hindutva was set when BJP hardliner Elki Adwani set out on the chariot of fire in 1990. His chariot was flagged off symbolically at the site of the Somnath temple in Gujarat, near Rajkot, rewind. Seven-century historians say that at the location of present-day Ayodhya, Stan Sakit, in the 16th century, when Tulsidas visited Ayodhya many times composing the Ram Charitrimanas in Kali Boli. It was this text that popularized the legend of Rama in Kali Boli, earlier known only in Sanskrit, and took it to the ordinary folk of North India. Several Hindus know that Tulsidas does not ever mention a temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram that was just demolished by Babar. Remember this was just a century after. In the middle of the 16th century, when the Babri Masjid was built, it is highly unlikely that there were any Ram temples at all at that time in Ayodhya. Today, Ayodhya is full of such Ram temples and at least 20 of them claim to be built in the birthplace of Ram. The reason is obvious. Any temple that establishes itself as the birthplace of Ram gets huge donations from its devotees. Fast forward to 1990, violence continues as the campaign for this political act mounts. Traditional greetings of ordinary folk in North India, Jayasiya Ram, greeting both Sita and Ram changed to Jayasi Ram, a threatening Rama in a muscular form with bow and trishul is now hung in posters all over India. 30th October 1990 had been declared by LK Advani as the target date for Karsheva at the disputed site, the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Mosque site in Ayodhya. Until then, it was known as the site of the Babri Masjid. Laldas was then the court appointed head priest of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Mosque site. Laldas was an outspoken critic of Hindutva, despite being a Hindu priest and had received death threats. The UP government had provided him with two bodyguards. Laldas spoke out against the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, pointing out that they had never even prayed at the site but were only using it as a political act to garner funds and for financial gain. He spoke of the syncretic past of Ayodhya. He expressed his anguish in interview after interview that Hindu-Muslim unity in the country was being sacrificed by people who were cynically using religion. On the 1st of March 1992, BJP's Kalyan Singh government removes him from his position. On 6th of December 1992, the Babri Masjid is demolished. Laldas fears for his life he is not given security. On the 9th of November 16, 1993, he was shot dead under mysterious circumstances. Another victim to the cold and calculated politics of Hindutva. Blood, gore, revenge and violence has been the underpinning of Hindutva politics in general and the clamour for a Ram temple at Ayodhya in particular. Between 1990 and 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished, the mainstream media, quote unquote, tracked the aggression and violence, took a stand and spoke out. Stop the rathyatra, government told the Hindustan Times headline on October 7, 1990 read. The communal flare-up wrote an article, a Sunday Observer, on October 14, 1990, authored by none less than Sudindra Kulkarni, later an advisor to Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He tracks the attacks on Muslims in villages of Karnataka, including Thumkur, Manvia, Kodagu, Kurg, Chittadurga, Mysore, Mangalore, Shimoga, parts of Bangalore city itself and even Dharwad in North Karnataka. The telegraph, October 14, 1990, likened Adwani's Rathyatra with a chariot of fire, that when the pink city ran red with blood, Sunday Observer, October 28, 1990, describes the violence in Jaipur. The Independent, dated November 2, 1990, in a story titled, communal riots take a new turn in Indore, depicts the difference in the violence, to quote unquote, rampaging mobs, bearing armed trishools and being armed to the teeth, clashing with the police, attacking police with firearms, among all things. Curfew orders are violated with impunity and families of policemen have been attacked and their houses damaged. Fast forward to Bulanshahar, 2019, Uttar Pradesh, obliterating the name Faizabad, Taj Mahal, Kashi, Mathara and then 3,000 more sites are their target. Already the Gyanwapi Mosque has been exposed and is under real threat. Does this politics have a 21st century place? Can India, with its commitment to all its citizens of all denominations, languages and multiple cultures afford such an aggressive hegemony? In 1992, after the Majid was demolished, in clear violation of law and good faith, thousands were massacred all over India. Thousands lost their home. In 2002, the politics of Hindutva wrecked another kind of havoc when in Gujarat, close to 2,000 minority lives were lost in reprisal killings following the burning down of S6 Sabarmati coach at Godra. At 2014, different shades of communal violence, lynchings and violence have dotted our landscape as India is sought to be violently refashioned and redrawn to a blood-drenched, saffron nation. Though Adwani, the man who played a pivotal role in the movement that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, with callous disregard to the implications for the rule of law or the human consequences, is today a pale shadow of himself, the purposeful glow in the new found generals of the Hindu nation. In Delhi and Lucknow is yet to politically fade. For India, Indians committed to a rule of law, we need to understand what this campaign is about and share what the demand for the Ram Mandir really means. It is not about faith or spirituality, but about supremacy. It is not about ways of worship, but about violence and subjugation. For centuries, the Indian people have found their multiple ways of coexistence, respect, reason and toleration. We must not allow a unique brand of secularism to be taken away now.