Of Temples and Twitter

Long years ago, when trials typical of Tentative Teens had not yet become an amusing memory, a family trip got me to the Royal land of Rajasthan. The architectural delights were dime a dozen, almost too many, as we tried to take in those majestic forts, intricate carvings, and imposing ramparts. Amidst the breathtaking grandeur and wonders of craftsmanship, a hearty hospitality stood out (apparent even in our sarkari arrangements). Again, this sunny geniality was in flagrant contrast to the fractious infighting whose undercurrents were implicit in Rajputana's many a tale of valour.

Nowhere was this enigmatic paradox of gallantry and fraternal discord more manifest than the indomitable fortress of Chittorgarh. Its remarkably well-preserved battlements were monument to the doughty challenge Rajput kings had posed to numerous invaders, yet often felled by the enemy within. One artefact in particular held my imagination at once. The king's bed (literally) carried the most unflatteringly modest dimensions; one that no self-respecting modern hostel would proffer under the name. Truly, allowing for some inaccuracy of magnification intrinsic to heroic myth-building, it was difficult to imagine the imperial bulk measure up to five foot nothing! An explanation was requested; and readily provided. It turned out that the royals preferred a smaller bedstead to enable their feet, knee downwards, to stay unfettered in combat. And a duel was much in order, the slumber (likely) and awakening (surely) being caused by the potentate being tied to the couch by one of the family's over-ambitious black sheep!

If the threat within sounded surreal, its external cousin was a lot less so. Mind you, this credibility rating was not on account of any reduced lethality in its consequences. Simply put, its higher probability made it appear commonplace. The most potent of this deadly-but-discounted-as-way-of-life set of enemies through Rajput history was the advancing Mughal empire. (On a related note, the singular alacrity with which a number of their progeny, their might much depleted and xenophobia strangely muted, accepted British subjugation a few score years later, is a curious and educative quirk of history.)

Like many parts of Rajputana, one of the relics of Chittorgarh's struggles of yore was a partially ravaged Hindu temple. Now this was early 90s; with Ayodhya-Kashi-Mathura movements still a dominant influence in national politics. Thus, risking a frown of obvious disapproval from the pater, one could not help but ask our escort for some pearls in clarification of this Medieval history thread. He had many and, surprisingly for one in quasi-judicial employment, was voluble in voicing them, especially after (or since) the rest of the entourage was not in earshot. Of these reasonably insightful hypotheses, one struck a chord for its incipient logic and bearing, namely the role of the temple as a theater for organized dissent.

In a nutshell, the rationale went thus: once the victorious left, the vanquished would ritually congregate at the temple to mourn the dead and pray for their deliverance, but equally to bemoan their own plight, seek cameraderie in numbers and ultimately the strength to fight from the Heavens. On the contrary, with the shrine pillaged, first efforts would go towards its rebuilding, setting organized resistance back a few years in funds, foot soldiers and foundation. The symbolic value of mental domination, hence, was perhaps a mere bonus over this bondage of resources; a true Machiavellian masterstroke.

Of course, apart from realpolitik, dogmatic drivers fueled this plunder too, Aurangzeb being the flag-bearing specimen of this ilk (and most lambasted member). Piety aside, the missionary zeal and state sponsorship he accorded to the task of temple destruction, had no parallel. This is not to suggest that his predecessors were beacons of benevolence: history (even in its recounting under as heavy-handed a Marxist influence as ours) is never that black and white. For instance, Shah Jahan gave us the Taj, an icon of Incredible India, but its pristine glory is indelibly soiled by the sweat of millions who paid for it in taxes (not lessened by the fact that such a price in human suffering is embedded in similar Wonders of the World across ages).

In any event, Aurangzeb 'the Austere' remains the most reviled of all Mughal monarchs. Many counts have been cited of his bigotry. For instance, he ordered that holy verses and imagery of Caliphs in coin inscriptions be replaced lest they get tainted by kaffir touch or use in unworthy places. Scholars highlight his adoption of the Arabic Lunar Calendar, withdrawing court patronage of music or reimposition of jiziya in argument too. Yet, his promotion of temple demolition under a policy of prohibiting practice of 'idolatrous forms of worship' remains core to the anti-Aurangzeb charge. His reign and actions wrote the preface, if not the first chapter, in the eventual transition of theological dialogue into the arena of incendiary politics. Skim through later history and it is easy to discern elements of this: razing places of worship as tool of war, inflamed debates on primacy of schools of faith, or high voltage drama spilling over to the streets.

Other forms of insurgency are no less a worry, including an Establishment going overboard in reprisal, that lends a new lease of life to many dying rebellions. However, spare a thought for temples where the will of a silent majority, retreating in face of high decibel onslaught of instigators on either side, gets an opportunity to break free. It is these new gods that one must chart.

Technology today presents us with many such modes. Films, for one, may help a generation awaken: Jessica Lal, BMW hit-and-run et al bear testimony to its pulling power. TV provides a cause célèbre and hence expanded pressure group on occasion. Yet, these media (including print) remain essentially plutocratic, overweeningly Left-leaning, and occasionally self-serving. My closing postulate is that the most promise is held in the low-cost, easy-to-use (and someday ubiquitous) Mobilephone-Internet combination. True, the Twitter-enabled Iranian voice of dissent died without daunting the world, and guns beat phones hollow even in an RTI-enabled world, but peer-to-peer networks will change many lives yet, mostly silently, but sometimes in the theater of visible discontent.