Thread by @YearOfTheKraken

It was not a "subaltern mass movement". It was a movement led by a section of Hindu elite to topple the secular westernised Indian elite.

https://twitter.com/Abhina_Prakash/status/1359887822635737092

Ashok Singhal: His father was in the Indian Civil Service. He got a bachelor's degree in Metallurgical engineering from the BHU. And it was all before he joined the VHP in any significant position. He was not a "subaltern" by any stretch of imagination.

The RSS Chief at the time was Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras. Again, he had an LLB Degree from the University of Nagpur. He went to "New English High School" in his childhood. Again, not a subaltern by any stretch of imagination.

One of the institutions fundamental towards the success of the movement was the Gorakhnath Temple. One of the most important Temples of the Nath Sampradaya whose Mahant Avaidyanath played a very critical role. Again, not a subaltern by any stretch of imagination.

My limited point: It was the greatest movement in Independent India and it was entirely Hindu in its character. It was representative of the Hindu society as a whole. Naturally, it could not have succeeded without massive support for it among those from weaker sections too.

I am not speaking in terms of caste here. I am speaking in terms of economic and social standing and background. Kalyan Singh is from the OBC Caste if I remember correctly but he was the Chief Minister, he cannot be called "subaltern".

Murthis of Rama, Sita and Lakshman were installed within the Babri through a plot hatched between KK Nair (DM, Faizabad), Mahant Digvijayanath and another individual (can't confirm, so not naming here) and Baba Abhayram Das carried out the plan. Again, not a subaltern movement.

Since I have some time off, let's take it a bit further. If the argument is that the masses which participated in the movement were subaltern Hindus, and success should be entirely credited to them, why did the issue fade from national consciousness between mid-1950s and 1984?

The reason is simple, no movement can be successful without the participation of the elites. It is always the disgruntled elite which leads mass movements. A movement needs credible leaders for its success and the leaders inevitably come from disgruntled sections of the elite.