Ram Mandir Shilanyas fatal blow to 450 years of slavery; exposes Cong’s political conspiracies: PM Modi in 1989 article
New Delhi: An article by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, written in 1989 under the pseudonym ‘Aniket’, described the Ram Mandir Shilanyas ceremony in Ayodhya as a historic turning point in what it termed the awakening of Hindu consciousness in independent India.
Published in the Gujarati magazine Sadhana’s ‘Akshar Upvan’ column on November 18, 1989, days after the Ram Temple foundation stone laying ceremony held on November 9 and 10, PM Modi, then an active pracharak of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), termed the event a “fatal blow” to what it described as the legacy of “450 years of slavery” and the beginning of a march towards cultural freedom.
The article also mentioned that successive Congress governments had resisted demands related to the Ram Janmabhoomi since 1947, accusing them of pursuing “politics of minority appeasement” and attempting to obstruct the movement at various stages.
The Ram Temple foundation stone laying ceremony, also known as ‘Ram Mandir Shilanyas’, was organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). Consecrated bricks (Ram Shilas or sacred stones) collected from across India were used, and a symbolic foundation stone was laid by digging a pit and placing the first brick (often credited to Kameshwar Chaupal, a Dalit member associated with the movement).
During this, as an RSS pracharak, Narendra Modi was deeply involved in organising the campaign in Gujarat, notably touring villages to collect bricks for the temple, working closely with the VHP for the movement.
Referring to the ceremony, PM Narendra Modi’s article, now shared by Modi Archive on X, said that for the first time since Independence, Hindus were moving towards victory, asserting that the Ayodhya event represented a collective expression of cultural consciousness rather than a political exercise. It claimed that attempts by political actors to project the event through partisan or tactical lenses ignored the historical forces behind it.
“Some intellectuals, engaged in political manoeuvring, will colour it with their own fantasies and derive arbitrary meanings. Some will see Congress’ consent in the Hindu victory, while others will find pleasure in the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s imaginative empire-building,” he wrote.
“The entire world was focused on this event that took place in India. Some power-hungry wolves, driven by the lure of votes, were deliberately ignoring the truth of the entire situation and instilling fear of riots. For all such people, this glorious day of Hindu consciousness will serve as a lesson,” he added.
It stated that public mobilisation around the issue began to intensify from the early 1980s, led by the Vishva Hindu Parishad.
“The Ayodhya event is clearly a victory for the collective consciousness. This did not happen by chance,” the article reads.
“The Congress’ politics of minority appeasement left no stone unturned in trying to obstruct this triumphant march at every step,” it notes.
“After the country gained independence, devotees of Ram demanded the Ram Janmabhoomi in 1947. For forty long years, Congress rulers not only rejected the idea but also completely ignored the pleas of the poor Hindus. From 1982 onwards, Hindus gradually began to awaken on this issue,” it added.
Referring to restrictions imposed on Ram-Janaki chariot processions and Ram Shila movements, PM Modi, who had been appointed as the General Secretary of the BJP’s Gujarat unit in 1987, wrote that government efforts to curb religious mobilisation repeatedly collapsed in the face of public resolve. It described the opening of the locks of the Ram Janmabhoomi structure as “the second victory for the Hindus”, asserting that it was compelled by growing pressure.
“Saints and religious leaders issued warnings, Hindus became agitated, and then the Congress government had to back down. The chariots had to be released within just three months. The saints and religious leaders issued an ultimatum to open the lock of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple,” he said.
“The Congress, which had refused to open the lock for forty years, began to witness the power of the Hindus. Using the court’s decision as an excuse, they had to open the lock. This was the second victory for the Hindus,” he added.
PM Modi, in the article, asserted that when the matter of the foundation stone laying ceremony for the Ram Temple came, “The Congress government, with empty threats, declared that no such program would be allowed. The Hindus remained resolute. The Congress government had to back down again. Ramshila worship programs were held in villages and homes across the country. Congress’ laws remained only on paper.”
Calling Congress “vote-hungry” with “petty mentality”, he mentioned that the party trumpeted its intention to ban processions of sacred stones — a challenge, he claimed, that was accepted by the Hindus.
“Grand and powerful processions took place right under the nose of the Congress governments, and Congress’ bans vanished into thin air,” he said.
“It threatened to ban the bringing of the sacred stones to Ayodhya, but achieved nothing. Even then, it tried to stop the November 9th program. Convoys of the army and police were deployed, a reign of fear was created, the propaganda machinery was misused extensively, threats were issued, and despicable attempts were made to dissuade the saints and religious leaders through all means possible, yet the Congress government achieved nothing. Their numerous attempts to throw bones into the sacrificial fire completely failed,” he added.
Describing the broader significance of the events, PM Modi said, “The Ayodhya incident is an event signifying the defeat of state power in the face of cultural forces,” and termed it “a slap of truth on the hollowness of the Congress party’s so-called secularism.”
The article further stated that the developments in Ayodhya exposed what it described as “the political conspiracies of 43 years of Congress culture”, portraying the Ram Shilanyas as the outcome of sustained collective consciousness rather than a momentary political decision.
