RAM MANDIR :THE DARK SIDE
WHY BJP LOST IN AYODHYA
"Na
Mathura, Na Kashi, Abki Baar Awadhesh Pasi,"
SARASIJ MAJUMDER
The
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s defeat in the Faizabad
seat in Uttar Pradesh has perplexed both—common people, and political analyst,
given the recent celebration of ‘pran
prathishtha’ and opening of the grand Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya city.
BJP
candidate Lallu Singh's loss to Samajwadi Party’s Awadhesh Prasad, despite
Singh’s back-to-back victories from the same Lok Sabha constituency in the last
two general elections, signifies a significant shift in local political
dynamics.
Awadhesh
Prasad, who got 5, 54,289 votes, defeated Singh by over 54,000 votes. Margin is
much, though.
While
BJP heavily relied on the TEMPLE
CARD across the country during the elections, Ayodhya, the birthplace of
Lord Ram, voted against the party, where the ancient Temple is located, and
rebuilt. The defeat in four out of five assembly segments in the Faizabad
constituency, where Ayodhya is situated, underscored the rejection of BJP's
campaign.
The
Faizabad parliamentary constituency is made up of five assembly segments,
namely Ayodhya, Bikapur, Milkipur, Rudauli and Dariyabad. While in the 2019
elections, Singh got 115,088 votes from Ayodhya, he got 104,671 votes in the
recent polls.
Data
shows that the biggest drop in number of votes for Singh, when compared with
the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, was witnessed in Ayodhya and Bikapur assembly segments.
As
per local experts, several factors have contributed to the unexpected electoral
defeat.
One
major misstep by Lallu Singh was his controversial remark that the BJP needed
two-third majority to be able to “make changes in the Constitution”. He reportedly made the
remark on 13 April at a chaupal in Ayodhya’s Milkipur, from
where he has been five-times MLA.
The
opposition quickly latched on to the controversy, alleging that the BJP aimed
to remove reservations for members of the scheduled and backward castes.
SP
national president Akhilesh Yadav accused the BJP of having a “hidden
agenda to end reservations provided to backward classes, Dalits, and minorities”.
This
rhetoric resonated strongly with those who feared the erosion of reservation
benefits.
The
SP strategically fielded Awadhesh Prasad, a member of the Pasi community, which
bolstered the party’s appeal among Dalits. Prasad’s campaign slogan was — “In Ayodhya, no Mathura, no
Kashi; only Awadhesh Pasi.”
Local
resentment against some administrative decisions regarding the Ram temple also
seems to have played a crucial role.
Road-widening
work in the city led to the demolition or displacement of over 4,000 shops
along several routes leading to the temple. As per a BJP worker from Ayodhya,
residents complain that compensation and rehabilitation promises fell short,
leaving many shop owners feeling betrayed. I PROPOSE AN INVESTGATION IN SUCH
ALLEGATIONS>
One
of such resident is a photographer who said to ECONOMIC TIMES that he ran a shop near the makeshift temple
that existed on the disputed site before “BHOOMI PUJAN” of
the new temple in 2020. His shop was demolished for road widening, but he was
paid a mere Rs 1 lakh for it. He waited for several months to be allotted a new
shop as promised. But when the time came, he was told to pay up Rs 20 lakh to
run it. If it true, he should be helped for
financing the shop. And 20 Lakh also appear high.
“They allotted me a shop in a shopping
complex they have built. But asked for Rs 20 lakh to use it. I did not have
that kind of money,” he said. “I simply lost my livelihood.”
He
accuses the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra of “grabbing
land” and blames, by extension, the BJP. He says his sentiment is shared by all
those who lost their businesses and “collectively decided to vote against the BJP”.
THIS
HAPPENED TO MANY PEOPLE, WHO LOST LIVING PLACE,
BUSINESS, AND HAD TO MIGRATE TO RURAL AREA.
Furthermore,
the hurried inauguration of the temple, believed to be timed to coincide with
the election campaign, led to significant mismanagement, an Ayodhya-based
journalist told “SWARAJYA”.
As
per him, residents have been facing numerous inconveniences, such as
discontinued private vehicular movement on several routes and the need to walk
considerable distances to board state-run buses due to barricaded routes.
He
further said that while the influx of pilgrims was expected to boost local
economy, the anticipated economic benefits failed to materialise for small
business owners.
“It is only the big players and
outsiders opening businesses in Ayodhya who are benefitting or stand to
benefit,” he
said.
Another
journalist, who did not wish to be named, said the BJP cadre in Ayodhya felt
let down when prime minister Narendra Modi, during his campaigning in the area,
“repeatedly lauded Iqbal Ansari while
ignoring all those who made sacrifices for the temple”. Ansari was key litigant
in the Babri mosque-Ram Janmabhoomi legal dispute from the Muslim side, having
inherited the suit from his father, Mohammed Haji Hashim Ansari.
Iqbal
Ansari publicly accepted the Supreme Court verdict allocating the dispute land
to the Hindu petitioners in 2019.
“While Ayodhya’s
people respect the Ansari family, people who made real sacrifices for
the temple, such as “ KARSEWAKS”, were ignored in the speeches,”
the journalist said. The gesture triggered anger among the local BJP cadre, he said.
This MUSLIM appeasing lecture from P.M.
also caused vote loss.
The
construction of Ram Mandir had its ripple effects — the local real estate
prices started to skyrocket.. Resorts and homes were built by forcefully
vacating the locals. They did not receive fair remuneration for their land
vacated. The rental value also skyrocketed forcing the rented locals to move
out of the city. Many locals, who are eligible voters, were forced to migrate
to rural areas outside Ayodhya for an affordable living — among them were
Dalits and Yadavs. The local BJP unit did not pay attention to their concerns.
Although
the temple's construction fulfilled a long-standing desire and brought a sense
of pride, for many locals, it has become a symbol of their displacement and
marginalisation.
This
election result serves as a stark reminder that while symbolic gestures may
resonate nationally, local issues and sentiments ultimately drive electoral
outcomes.
BJP did bring some development projects to Ayodhya — roads,
bridges etc. However, the construction contract for these infrastructure
projects where handed over to outside companies, as informed.. This angered the
local UP construction contractors — who were the major party funders during the
election. Their dissatisfaction benefitted the opposition party.
The local pundits and brahmins of Ayodhya had to face
humiliation and discrimination. Since the Ram Mandir belongs to a private Hindu
trust, they replaced the local Brahmins who do daily rituals and pooja for Lord
Ram across generations and instead imported priests from other states to carry
out the temple rituals. The local priests were chucked out. A local BJP ex-MLA ,
who is a Brahmin had been prosecuted — which did not go well with the local
Brahmin vote bank.
Next, the local sitting MP was seen as someone who never
bothered to address the local's concerns. HE HAD SPENT MORE TIME TRYING TO SATISFY THE PARTY
HEADQUARTERS THAN MEETING THE LOCALS.
The BJP candidate for 2024, did not spend much time in an
active election campaign as he was overconfident to win the election. He even
went to the extent of mouthing “ If BJP wins 400 seats, we will change the constitution that favours
Hindus”. This did not go well with the Dalits as they aren’t treated as
Hindus in Ayodhya compared to local upper-caste Hindus. This made them unite
with minorities to vote against the BJP.
The man who was forced to sell his land, by the local real
estate brokers, to an Ahmedabad businessman is now living outside Ayodhya — but he has his vote in Ayodhya. This is the
reality.
IN CONCLUSION, THE BJP'S LOSS IN
AYODHYA CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO A COMBINATION OF INSENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
PRACTICES, CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL RHETORIC, AND FAILURE TO ADDRESS LOCAL
GRIEVANCES.
IT’S NOT A SURPRISE THAT THE BJP
LOST IN AYODHYA/
FAIZABAD.
REFERENCES:-
1.0 https://swarajyamag.com/politics/what-went-wrong-for-bjp-in-ayodhya
2.0 https://m.economictimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/uttar-pradesh/why-bjp-lost-faizabad-seat-which-houses-ayodhya-ram-mandir-explained/articleshow/110758647.cms
Image:- VISHAL SHRIVASTAVA—acknowledged.
Comments
Post a Comment