top of page

By:

Abhiram Ghadyalpatil

10 May 2026 at 12:01:04 pm

Can Muslims Reimagine the BJP?

As the BJP expands its political dominance, Indian Muslims need to rethink old electoral assumptions in engaging with the BJP. It is fascinating to read Arvind Singh’s ‘India’s Rogue Historians: How They Fought Hindus at Ayodhya & Lost’ (Redux Publications) in the context of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s recent Bhojshala judgment. Singh, in his 830-page tome, explains how India’s Muslims, persuaded by the cohort of Marxist historians, squandered every opportunity to reconcile with the Hindu...

Can Muslims Reimagine the BJP?

As the BJP expands its political dominance, Indian Muslims need to rethink old electoral assumptions in engaging with the BJP. It is fascinating to read Arvind Singh’s ‘India’s Rogue Historians: How They Fought Hindus at Ayodhya & Lost’ (Redux Publications) in the context of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s recent Bhojshala judgment. Singh, in his 830-page tome, explains how India’s Muslims, persuaded by the cohort of Marxist historians, squandered every opportunity to reconcile with the Hindu side’s religious, historical, and legal claim over Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. In November 2019, when the Supreme Court (SC) awarded the entire site to the Hindus to build the temple to Lord Ram, it only built on a series of legal interventions including the 1994 SC judgment which ruled that “a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam”. Singh writes that right from 1858 when the then caretaker of the mosque filed the first complaint seeking an order restraining Hindus from praying inside the ‘mosque’ which the Muslim complainant himself mentioned as ‘janmasthan’, Ayodhya presented innumerable opportunities to the Muslims to accept the religious, historical, archaeological, and legal superiority of the Hindu claim over the site. Throughout the legal trajectory of the Ayodhya case post-independence, India’s ‘eminent historians’ took it upon themselves to represent the Muslim side and effectively stopped them from reaching any legal or out-of-court settlement, reconciliation, or just a pragmatic acknowledgement of the merit in the Hindu side’s claim which the SC upheld in 2019. Rogue Historians Singh’s account is an instructive read about the Hindu side’s nearly 500-year old struggle to reclaim Ayodhya, particularly the post-independence era, against all odds including the narrative war that “India’s rogue historians” fought on behalf of the Muslims but lost eventually, in the context of two recent developments- one, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) victory in West Bengal and Assam elections that has triggered a curiously cynical response that Muslims do not matter any longer to the BJP. Two—and a more direct outcome of the 2019 Ayodhya verdict itself—the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment declaring the Bhojshala complex in MP’s Dhar district a “temple to goddess Saraswati”. The MP HC based its judgment on the 10-points emanating from the Ayodhya verdict. It also ruled that the 1991 Places of Worship Act, widely cited by the entire spectrum of Muslim petitioners to politicians to “secular” parties to the “eminent historians”, did not apply to the Bhojshala temple as it was a “protected monument” under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958, a set of monuments the Places of Worship Act does not apply to. The argument that the Muslims do not matter to the BJP has not been made for the first time nor are we likely to see this reductionist tendency to interpret India die down anytime soon. The BJP has won Bengal and retained Assam with even higher numbers despite the unfavourable demographics in many constituencies in these states. It indeed is a paradigm electoral shift in the sense that the BJP has finally denied the Muslim vote bank, if not the Muslims, the exercise of its veto power. In several state and national elections, the Muslim vote bank, and the fantastically self-styled secular parties who court this vote bank, have exercised this veto power to either deny the BJP a majority or even a shot at power. Assam and West Bengal have changed this and hence the cynical argument that the Muslims (not just Muslim voters) do not matter to the BJP any longer. Cynical Template Why always use this reductionist template which gives just one task to the Muslims - defeat the BJP in elections? Why not ask Muslims to take a chance on the BJP and vote for it? Given the viscerally polarised political atmosphere it probably is a big ask of the Muslims. But in that shines a political opportunity that has the potential to change this very cynical ‘BJP versus Muslims’ template of Indian politics. A suggestion has been made that all non-BJP parties build a coalition of Hindu voters and Muslims to take on the BJP. But in order to build that Hindu-Muslim coalition, won’t these non-BJP parties have to give up at least some, if not all, of their nauseatingly Muslim-appeasing politics? There is absolutely no sign that the non-BJP parties are even thinking on these lines. But the Muslims already have an electoral choice in the BJP. Like any other successful political party in a democracy, the BJP caters to its constituency, which effectively is the Hindu constituency. With West Bengal and Assam, the BJP’s Hindu consolidation is at its peak. So, there is no electoral incentive for the BJP at least in near future to change this Hindu maximisation matrix. But there is an incentive for the Muslims to consider the BJP as an option- it has the potential to make them stakeholders in BJP’s reign and perhaps incentivise the BJP to speak to the Muslims without appeasement. Can the Indian Muslims be politically bold and creative to take a bet on the BJP? A large part of the answer lies in the Bhojshala judgment. A court has just pronounced the structure as a temple to Saraswati based on the solid archaeological, historical, and religious evidence. The Muslim clergy and politicians have reacted exactly in the same manner they did to the Ayodhya ruling. Seven years after the epic Ayodhya judgment, a splendid Ram Mandir stands on the site taking nothing away from the Indian Muslims. Can the Indian Muslims distinguish themselves from their clergy and political leadership this time around and revisit some of their positions in an India that looks vastly different from what it did in 1992 or even 2019? (The author is a senior journalist and Executive Director of Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini. Views personal.)

Cash Cricket

Updated: Nov 29, 2024

The IPL mega auction, once a mechanism for building teams, has evolved into an unapologetic display of cricket’s commercialization. Recently, the gavel fell in Jeddah with a record-shattering bid for Rishabh Pant, sold to Lucknow Super Giants for Rs. 27 crore, making him the most expensive player in the league’s history. Pant’s price tag eclipsed the earlier record set moments before when Punjab Kings shelled out Rs. 26.75 crore for Shreyas Iyer. The spectacle reeked not of cricketing merit but of a bidding frenzy where franchises flexed their financial muscles in pursuit of stardom.


The sums are staggering. On the first day alone, franchises spent Rs. 467.95 crore to buy 72 players, making millionaires of many in mere minutes. Auctions have always been a highlight of the IPL, but their evolution from modest beginnings to today’s theatrical extravaganza reflects a profound shift in cricket’s priorities.


While the IPL’s defenders tout its global appeal and revenue-generating prowess, the league’s relentless commercialization has cast a long shadow over cricket’s purist format—Test cricket. Test matches now seem like an afterthought to many players brought up in the T20 era. Young cricketers, seduced by the financial windfall of IPL contracts, are increasingly prioritizing the shorter format, often at the expense of mastering the techniques that are the bedrock of Test cricket. Batsmen struggle to build long innings, bowlers are optimized for death overs rather than endurance, and fielding techniques are tailored for acrobatic catches rather than consistent precision.


The rise of cricket mercenaries—players who hop between leagues for the highest bidder—has further eroded the sport’s traditional ethos. Consider the careers of players like Chris Gayle and Kieron Pollard, who excelled as globe-trotting T20 stars but left only fleeting legacies in Tests. Even promising talents from cricketing powerhouses such as India, Australia and England now risk being pigeonholed as T20 specialists.


Historically, cricket’s icons were defined by their exploits in the longest format. Test cricket-built legends, honing skills that translated into true greatness. Today’s players often find themselves at the mercy of IPL schedules, sacrificing preparatory time for bilateral Test series or domestic tournaments. Even fitness regimens are adapted for the high-octane demands of T20 cricket.


Some argue that the IPL has democratized cricket, enabling players from small towns to share dressing rooms with international stars. While this is true, the league’s structure perpetuates a mercenary mindset. The very auction that enriches players also ensures their loyalty is to franchises, not cricket boards or national teams. The IPL’s triumph is cricket’s tragedy. By reducing the sport to a glittering spectacle of cash and celebrity, it has turned cricketers into commodities. While the IPL may have enriched careers, it has impoverished cricket’s soul.

Comments

bottom of page