While the Ayodhya movement had rekindled religious sentiments, which many described as a symbol of Hindu assertion, the Maha Kumbh has intensified the resurgence of religiosity. The ongoing controversy over Aurangzeb’s tomb in Maharashtra seems to be pointing to the same very direction. It seems that the BJP is on the path to reconsolidate the Hindu vote bank that had developed cracks during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi described Maha Kumbh as “maha yagya of unity”, which promoted social cohesion and economic empowerment. Connecting it to Sanatan Dharma, which he called the national religion, chief minister Yogi Adityanath, said: “Maha Kumbh is a symbol of divinity, unity and the vastness of Sanatan Dharma.”

Also Read: Kumbh reflected a new awakening: Modi in LS

Though the 2029 General Elections and 2027 Uttar Pradesh (UP) state assembly polls are still a long way away, the BJP is keen to win Bihar, the state the party has so far ruled only by proxy. Thus, the impact of the congregation – and whether it actually had any impact on the community -- will be tested in October-November this year when the Bihar election is expected to be held.

The long Ayodhya campaign concluded with the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya in January 2024. Though the Kumbh ended in February, the governments both at the state and the Centre are attempting to keep the enthusiasm around the event alive through various public outreach programmes.

For one, Modi gifted Ganga water drawn from the river in Prayagraj during Maha Kumbh to Mauritius President Dharam Gokhool on March 11. Ganga water from Gangotri in Uttrakhand, from where the Ganga river originates, is sold across Hindu pilgrimage sites but the hype over the water from the Sangam, the confluence of the rivers Ganga, Yamuna and the mythical Saraswati, makes it special to the devout.

Also Read: Swachh Survekshan: After Mahakumbh work, Praygaraj civic authorities hope for better ranking

The state government had initially sent the Ganga water from Maha Kumbh by tanks to all the jails in the state’s 75 districts. Now, the ministers plan to celebrate the completion of the Yogi government’s eight years on March 25 by distributing the water in their allotted districts.

Somewhat similarly, the Ram temple movement was also built brick by brick, starting with Shila Pujan in all the villages across India in 1988, Shila Yatra in 1990 and Shila Daan in 2002.

Political analyst M Hasan said: “The water of zam zam was miraculously discovered by the Prophet’s son Ishmael. Since it is considered holy water, the Haj pilgrims from all over the world collect it in cans and take it to their countries. All the airlines have allowed every Haji to carry five litres in a can. There is the belief that it has medicinal values and people use it for various ailments. Hajis distribute it to their relatives and others for this purpose. It is also considered as ‘prasad’ from Mecca. What holy water of the Ganga is to Hindus, ab-e-zam zam is to Muslims globally.”

A broad comparison of the two campaigns

Both movements were different in character and in duration, notwithstanding the analogy and their aim.

Firstly, Ayodhya was largely driven by various Hindu organisations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Rashtriya Swayan Sewak Sangh (RSS). The BJP did not appear as belligerent as the campaign picked wind. In fact, both the former UP chief minister Kalyan Singh and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee mooted formulas to resolve the tangle. Singh had suggested rebuilding of the mosque and temple side by side in the Ram Janmabhoomi complex and had offered to lay the first brick of both the Ram temple and the Babri mosque if the Muslims agreed to his formula.

Also Read: HC dismisses PIL seeking CBI probe into ‘irregularities’ in Mahakumbh

The late Zafaryab Jilani, former convenor of the All-India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) had said: “Rebuilding of a mosque is not an issue at all as already several mosques exist in the temple city. Nor the issue is the co-existence of mandir/masjid. Why can’t we have the mosque where it had actually existed before its demolition? Negotiations for land to build temple alongside it could be held.”

In contrast, the Maha Kumbh was purely a government show with the chief minister, his cabinet ministers, and the state machinery at the forefront. Neither the RSS nor the BJP, seemingly, had much role in organising the Maha Kumbh or in the ongoing distribution of Ganga water.

Second, it took many years for the Ayodhya campaign to mobilise the community. The campaign to build a Ram temple simmered until the mid-1980s and gained momentum with an intense battle in court. The Kumbh was a 45-day affair, the build-up to which lasted for a few months when the ministers held road shows across the country and the chief minister sent invites to the President, Prime Minister and other dignitaries. Unlike for the Ayodhya temple momentum, technology also played a critical part in creating an unprecedented hype for Kumbh.

Third, while Muslims had vehemently opposed the Ayodhya campaign, they were almost invisible in the run-up to and during Kumbh at or around the venue. Still, members of the community, opened doors of their mosques and homes, to provide help to stranded pilgrims.