Ram temple’s chief priest who stood apart from Hindutva

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Mahant Satyendra Das, the chief priest of the Ram temple for nearly four decades, passed away on Wednesday at the age of 87. But his life was not just one of devotion it was a life marked by contradictions, inconvenient truths, and a silent resistance to the politics of Hindutva. For 39 years, he remained the guardian of the Ram idol, yet he was never a proponent of the movement that built the temple. He was an eyewitness to the fateful night of December 22-23, 1949, when an idol of Lord Ram was “planted” inside the Babri Masjid.

Unlike the Hindu Mahasabha and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which claimed the idol had “miraculously appeared” to mark Ram’s birthplace, Satyendra Das never wavered from the truth his guru, Abhiram Das, had placed it there, according to The Telegraph report. That moment sowed the seeds of a conflict that would ultimately change India’s political landscape, paving the way for the rise of the BJP and the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992.

Witness who spoke the uncomfortable truth: Satyendra Das was just 11 when he followed Abhiram Das into the Babri Masjid that night, unknowingly becoming part of history. While many who were involved in the early years of the Ram temple movement later justified their actions, Satyendra Das never did. He openly admitted to being a witness to the planting of the idol and remained a vocal critic of the political mobilisation that followed.

Even in 2022, speaking to PTI, he reiterated: “I was there. It happened before me. I was witness to it.” He recalled how kar sewaks demolished the north and south domes of the Babri Masjid in 1992, and how he personally carried the idol of Ram Lalla to safety. Yet, despite his association with the temple, he remained an outsider in the Hindutva movement. He chastised right-wing groups, believing they had exploited his guru for political gains, only to discard him later. But as the temple movement gained momentum, he withdrew from public debates, choosing to focus solely on religious duties. His appointment as the chief priest of the makeshift temple in 1986, following a local court’s order to allow Hindu prayers inside the Babri Masjid, came under the Congress government of Rajiv Gandhi. His presence at the site, even after the mosque’s demolition, led many to believe that he had Congress backing. His repeated criticism of the BJP and the VHP further fueled these suspicions.

However, his devotion to the temple and the respect he commanded among devotees transcended political affiliations. Despite opposition from the VHP, the Modi government retained him as the temple’s chief priest when the new Ram temple was consecrated on January 22, 2024. Some reports suggested the government initially hesitated and even considered replacing him, but later reinstated him, possibly fearing backlash from Ayodhya’s religious community. After the 2019 Supreme Court verdict that awarded the disputed land to Hindus, Satyendra Das struck a note of reconciliation. “It is good that Lord Ram will be in a temple now. But we love to live in peace and harmony,” he said, adding that he would help identify land and support the construction of a mosque for the Muslim community. Yet, in his final years, he chose silence over confrontation. A disciple revealed that in 2024, Satyendra Das made a conscious decision to refrain from criticizing any political group or leader. Whether this was due to pressure, pragmatism, or simply a desire to step away from controversy remains unclear.

Satyendra Das’s death marks the passing of a man who was at the center of one of India’s most divisive chapters but refused to be its mascot. He was a custodian of the temple yet a critic of its political appropriation. He was present at the beginning of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement but never became a foot soldier of Hindutva.

His final rites, as per the tradition of sadhus, were performed with immersion in the Saryu River—a quiet end to a man whose life was anything but. His legacy is one of contradictions, but also of courage. He spoke a truth that neither side wanted to hear. And in an era where faith is often wielded as a weapon, that may be his most radical act of all.