In a recent publication, the Financial Times launched what many perceive as an attack against the Indian government, coinciding with the approaching Indian elections. This article focuses on the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, a site of significant historical and religious importance, especially for Hindus worldwide. As the temple is set to reopen grandly, it represents not just a religious monument but a symbol of a collective reawakening.

The Ram Mandir, standing in the ancient city of Ayodhya, is more than a mere structure; it's a beacon of faith and centuries of perseverance. Its grand re-opening and the Pran Pratishthan (consecration) of Sri Rama, expected to attract a global Hindu audience, marks the first such event in over five centuries. This momentous occasion underlines the temple's deep-rooted significance in Hinduism and Indian history.

The temple's history is marred by conflict and conquest. The Financial Times' recent critique seems to stem from the temple's historical association with the Turkic-Mongol invader Babar. His forces, described as Islamic zealots, are historically blamed for the destruction of the original temple, a site deeply revered in Hinduism. This historical narrative is a sensitive and complex subject, intertwining religious sentiments with nationalistic fervor.

Despite its turbulent past, the temple has always held a special place in the hearts of many Hindus. Through the eras of Islamic rule and British imperialism, countless devotees have preserved the temple's memory. They conducted prayers and maintained traditions, symbolizing resilience and continuity of faith. The commitment of generations of Ayodhya's citizens, who continued to revere the site even when the temple structure was absent, speaks volumes about its significance.

Over the years, there have been numerous efforts to reclaim the site. One such attempt involved the Nihang Sikhs, led by Baba Fakir Singh, who conducted a hawan (a ritualistic fire ceremony) and marked the site with symbols and writings in homage to Sri Rama. This act of devotion was a statement of reverence and a claim of cultural and religious identity, reflecting the site's contested and multifaceted history.

Why BJP deserves credit for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya

The reopening of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya stands as a significant event, bringing to the forefront not just religious sentiments but also the intertwining of fate and faith. This month, an event of profound importance is set to occur, as Baba Harjit Singh Rasalpur, the eighth descendant of Baba Fakir Singh, prepares to conduct the "langar sewa" for the thousands of devotees expected to gather. This act of communal feeding, deeply embedded in Sikh tradition, symbolizes unity and devotion.

The Nihang Sikhs, to whom Baba Harjit Singh belongs, are known for their martial tradition and historical role in defending Dharma and the nation (desh). Despite recent unfortunate incidents involving Nihang Sikhs and accusations of violence in rural gurudwaras, it’s crucial to remember that such actions are contrary to the teachings of the ten Sikh Gurus, revered in both Sikh and Hindu traditions. The Nihangs have traditionally been respected for their role in safeguarding religious and cultural values, and many continue to preserve ancient knowledge and traditions.

In Ayodhya, the perseverance of its citizens has been a testament to their deep-rooted faith. Despite the site being transformed into a mosque, the temple lived on in the hearts and minds of those deeply connected to their cultural heritage. Their continued prayers and reverence, even in the face of adversity, highlight the enduring power of faith and cultural identity.

The journey to this moment has been marked by tragedy and conflict. In 2002, a train carrying Kar-Sewaks (volunteers helping with the temple's construction) along with their families, was set on fire by Islamist mobs in Gujarat, leading to the infamous Godhra riots. This incident underscores the often painful and complex path that has led to the temple's reconstruction.

The Western media's portrayal of such events has often been criticized for its apparent bias. Violence, particularly when the victims are Hindu or Jewish, seems to receive a different treatment in the narrative, often underplaying the gravity of the situation. This perspective, seen by some as a continuation of Anglo imperialism, contrasts starkly with how Western academicians and intellectuals often celebrate the retaking of native culture in their own societies. However, when similar movements happen in countries like India, they are frequently labeled as 'barbarism' in studies such as “Indology”, which some view as a colonialist approach to understanding a 'pagan' people.

The Financial Times article, in this context, exemplifies this perceived double standard.

“Three Decades After Hindu Zealots Tore Down a Mosque at Ayodhya…”

The phrase “Three decades after Hindu zealots tore down a mosque at Ayodhya…” from the Financial Times article has sparked significant controversy. Critics argue that this portrayal lacks historical context, notably omitting the previous destruction of a temple at the same site. This oversight ignores a critical aspect of the Ayodhya dispute, where the Shia Muslim Waqf Board even showed willingness to relocate the mosque to either Lucknow or a nearby area, acknowledging the site's deep significance to Hindus. This gesture by the Waqf Board is an emblem of interfaith understanding and respect for the historical sentiments of Indian society.

The language used by the Financial Times, referring to Hindus as "zealots" and implying a negative connotation of "nationalists," is seen as perpetuating a longstanding stereotype. This depiction echoes the colonial-era portrayal of Hindus as "dirty savage Hindoo," a narrative prevalent in English media before India's independence. Such framing is criticized for its apparent anti-Hindu bias, where Hindu matters of faith are labeled "contested." In contrast, the article refrains from questioning the history of Muslim conquests, indicating a possible double standard in its approach to religious sensitivities.

In the context of Ayodhya, the city, once engulfed in communal tensions, is gradually transforming. The impending arrival of Sri Rama at the temple is a symbol of this transformation. The story highlights the profound commitment of the local community, such as the Suryavanshi Thakur Kshatriya clan, who are preparing to wear their turbans again after a 500-year vow, signifying respect and anticipation for the return of Sri Rama. Another poignant example is Savitri Devi, an 85-year-old woman who maintained a vow of silence for three decades, waiting for the day Sri Rama would return to his abode.

John Reed, described as an "actively anti-India bureau head for the Times," is criticized for his use of the term "zealotry" to describe these acts of faith and devotion. The term, often associated with violence and extremism, is argued to be misapplied in this context, especially when contrasted with the lack of its use for Islamist groups involved in terrorism in India.

The article also casts a disparaging light on the workers at the Ram Mandir site, describing them as “toiling day and night,” suggesting a form of indentured labor. This portrayal is seen as insensitive, especially considering the history of British colonialism, known for its exploitative practices. The workers at the temple, many of whom have chosen to work there as an act of devotion, are part of a larger narrative of faith, cultural pride, and economic opportunity.

The phrase “Modi, who has ruled India since 2014,” from the Financial Times article, is critiqued for seemingly downplaying the democratic process that led to Narendra Modi's election as Prime Minister of India. This statement overlooks the significant public support that brought Modi into power, not once but twice, through a democratic electoral process. It's important to recognize that millions of Indian citizens actively voted for Modi, contributing to his status as one of the world’s most popular political leaders for nearly a decade. This perspective is crucial as it reflects the will of a large segment of the Indian population, signifying their trust and belief in his leadership.

The article's reference to the "minority Muslim" community is seen as an appeal to an uninformed audience, potentially perpetuating a misleading narrative. It suggests that the Muslim community in India, which is the second-largest majority in the country, is somehow at a disadvantage or under threat. This portrayal is argued to be overly simplistic and fails to acknowledge the complexities of India's diverse society, where Muslims have constitutionally guaranteed rights and have significantly contributed to the country's cultural and socio-economic fabric.

The credibility of mainstream media platforms, including the Financial Times, is called into question regarding their reporting style. The frequent use of vague terms like “Analysts / Sources say,” is criticized for allowing these publications to distance themselves from the responsibility of the claims made in their articles. This style of reporting is seen as a means to present opinions or unverified claims without direct accountability.

Furthermore, the claim that “Modi rose to power on a wave of Hindu revivalism stoked by the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the right-wing nationalist movement behind the ruling party,” is portrayed as an outright lie intended to evoke anti-Hindu sentiment. This statement is criticized for its one-sided view, neglecting the broader political and social context of Modi's rise to power. It fails to consider various factors that contributed to the BJP's popularity and electoral success, such as economic policies, anti-corruption measures, and development initiatives.

Narendra Modi's ascent to the Prime Minister's office in 2014 occurred amidst a backdrop of significant political turmoil. The Congress party, then in power, was embroiled in numerous corruption scandals and facing criticism for the nation's worsening economic inequality. Modi's election symbolized a shift in public sentiment, with voters seeking an alternative to the status quo. His victory reflected a widespread desire for change in governance and economic management.

Remarkably, Modi's re-election in 2019 was largely attributed to his government's implementation of welfare programs. These programs were notable for their effectiveness in preventing the leakage of resources and ensuring that aid reached the intended beneficiaries. Globally, such initiatives are often associated with leftist politics, yet they played a pivotal role in Modi's re-election, underscoring his government's focus on social welfare and economic equity.

Despite these policies, Modi's political stance is frequently labeled as “right-wing” by Western media. This categorization is often used to describe leaders who prioritize national interests, sometimes perceived as being at odds with globalist agendas. This labeling has been a point of contention, as it seems to oversimplify the complex nature of Modi's governance and policy decisions.

The Financial Times, in particular, has been criticized for its portrayal of the political situation in India. The newspaper is accused of relying on sources with an anti-Hindu bias, thereby skewing the narrative to emphasize Muslim victimhood while downplaying or ignoring facts that might counter this perspective. This approach is seen as creating a one-sided view of the political and religious dynamics in India.

An example of this alleged bias is evident in the publication's coverage of the Supreme Court's 2019 decision to greenlight the construction of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. The Financial Times claimed that the decision was made “despite a lack of conclusive evidence that there had ever been a Hindu temple on the site.” However, this assertion has been contested, as the decision was based on extensive archaeological evidence and historical records, some of which were provided by notable figures like KK Muhammed of the Archaeological Survey of India. These documents supported the existence of a non-Islamic structure at the site, influencing the court’s decision and fulfilling a long-standing desire among many Hindus.

In contrast, the Financial Times' coverage of the Hagia Sophia's conversion in Turkey—from a church to a museum, and then to a mosque—was reportedly more measured. This is a double standard in reporting, where similar situations are treated differently based on the geographical and cultural context.

In an open society like India, the misuse of freedom of speech and expression for spreading propaganda to an unaware readership is an unfortunate byproduct. Ideally, in a system with a more effective legal framework, those spreading community-divisive misinformation could be held accountable by the public. A more assertive approach would involve legal scrutiny of persistent foreign entities that aim to damage the nation by supporting or justifying violence against the majority community.

For a country still emerging from its colonial past, India cannot afford excessive external meddling. Despite this, Indians often silently endure foreign disdain, as these outside influences continue to perpetuate deep-rooted prejudices, contributing to a legacy of historical misrepresentation. This misrepresentation seeps into the consciousness of people even in former colonies, supplementing a body of work that could be used to legitimize aggression against Indians and Hindus, especially in territories they inhabit or are interested in. The hope is for a shift in this dynamic, with an increasing number of people becoming aware of the underlying motives of such biased narratives, recognizing the activities of those with hidden, malevolent intentions.