Will more differentiating markedly Hindu values be added to Bharatiya list?

In a book, Creating a Nationality, edited by Shikha Trivedy, Shail Mayaram, Ashis Nandy, and Achyut Yagnik, eyewitnesses recall the events in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992: "Initially, there were some hurried, panicky pleas to the karsevaks over the public address system to maintain discipline. These were followed by expressions of concern for their safety, as the 500-year-old mosque began to come apart slowly. After a while, the karsevaks received only guidance and encouragement from the BJP leaders and the sants of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)'s Marg Darshak Mandal assembled at the Ram Katha Kunj. Singhal announced that the dawn of the Hindu rebellion had arrived, while Vijaya Raje Scindia declared that she could now die without any regret, for she had seen her dream come true." Referring to Uma Bharti and Sadhvi Rithambara, the book says that during her (Bharti) several turns on the microphone, she gave the crowds two slogans: "Ram Nam Satya Hai, Babri Masjid Dhvast Hai" and "Ek Dhakka Aur Do, Babri Masjid Tod Do".

 
However, at the Liberhan Commission, set up to enquire into the circumstances of the demolition of Babri Masjid, Bharti said she was only a ‘disinterested observer’ and while she did not deny speeches and statements were made, she said there was so much confusion and such a crowd that she could not really recall anything.
 
With the Supreme Court’s order vesting the ownership of the disputed site in the hands of Hindus, but simultaneously ruling unequivocally that the 1992 demolition was in violation of the law because Muslims were deprived of the possession of the mosque by forcible desecration, the government has a hot potato on its hands. If it accepts the verdict, forms a trust to build the temple and finally builds it, it also has to move to take action against those political leaders who today might have been rendered irrelevant but were icons of the Hindu mobilisation movement of the 1980s and the 1990s. In political terms, the judgment has given to the mandir cause with one hand but has taken away with the other.

 

A case against L K Advani and several others has been on for several years, mainly on charges of conspiring to destroy a place of worship. In May 2017, the Supreme Court asked the sessions court to frame charges against those accused in the FIR registered by the CBI and it included Vinay Katiyar, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, and L K Advani. In response, a discharge application was moved by Advani and others at the sessions court in Lucknow, which was rejected. After that, the Supreme Court gave the lower court time until April 2020 to pronounce a verdict. Now in a separate case, with the Supreme Court having reiterated that the demolition was unconstitutional, matters get on to the fast track of justice — hopefully.

 
How crucial the Ram mandir is to the Hindu definition project can be gauged by the response of ideologue Govindacharya. When asked why the Ram mandir was so important, especially when it caused such divisiveness in society, he said: “The question itself hurts. It is Ram’s birthplace and he is an embodiment of Bharatiya values. For any nation, its values and embodiment of values have to be venerated and if that doesn’t happen, then civilisation doesn’t march forward.” Now, in principle, the birthplace of Ram has been reverted to Hindus. But what of “Bharatiya values”? How will these be defined and will they prove to be as divisive as the Ram temple issue? And will they go beyond issues of real estate (which are complex in themselves because of the unfinished projects of Mathura and Kashi)?

 
The aftermath of the demolition was horrific. Within days, Mumbai was rocked with bomb blasts and riots, in which more than 700 people died. If the state failed in Ayodhya, it failed in Mumbai as well. By contrast, this time, all parties seem to have reacted maturely to the Supreme Court’s order. But this is the beginning. In order to build the temple, the remainder of the structure will have to be demolished. Will this be accepted tranquilly as well?
 
So far, ‘Bharatiyata’ is defined by eating habits, a piece of paper that pronounces you a legal Indian (not residentship over decades) and commitment to religious-nationalist symbols. Will more differentiating features that are markedly Hindu be added to this list?