What was going on in the minds of the Congress ‘high command’ when it opted to boycott the consecration ceremony in Ayodhya? The term ‘high command,’ often a reference to the Gandhi family, raises questions about how they spent two weeks deliberating over the invitation and ultimately arrived at a decision that appears more detrimental to the party than anyone else. None of the explanations provided for declining the invitation from the temple committee seem convincing.
One explanation put forward by a Congress spokesperson in a chat show was that the decision signifies a ‘return to Nehruvian secularism.’ While it sounds like a valid reason, it lacks credibility. After all, it was Rajiv Gandhi who unlocked the gates to what was then the Babri Masjid and orchestrated a consecration ceremony for a Ram Temple before the 1989 general election. The argument of ‘secularism’ becomes even less plausible considering that the current inheritor of this legacy spends a considerable amount of time being filmed in temples, leading to accusations of endorsing ‘soft’ Hindutva. At one point, his team even circulated the notion that he was a Brahmin wearing a ‘jeneu (sacred thread),’ supposedly symbolizing his status as a baptized Hindu. Is this claim to be taken seriously?