The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the autonomous body overseeing Ram Mandir, constituted by the Government of India six and a half years ago in accordance with Supreme Court directives alongside the influence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has taken steps to address the issue of the theft of offerings at the Ayodhya temple by appointing a chief executive officer (CEO). This move has sparked considerable debate.Firstly, by making this appointment, the Trust has – albeit indirectly – acknowledged the flaws in its management, which it had previously denied and ignored for years. It is well known that this deliberate ignorance resulted in serious corruption allegations against the Trust, not only regarding the misappropriation of donations but also involving land transactions and various other matters.Secondly, despite the significant passage of time, the Trust maintains that there should be no compromise on the dominance of the RSS in the management of the temple. It is not without reason that even Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand remarked that what has actually been constructed in Ayodhya is not a temple, but rather an office and asset of the RSS.In line with this, the three newly appointed trustees along with the CEO, general secretary, and treasurer all hail from families associated with the RSS. However, the most unexpected appointment is that of Govind Dev Giri as the general secretary. He served as the treasurer of the temple when the theft of offerings was uncovered.His change of role as general secretary comes even though it is widely known that the case is sub-judice before the Supreme Court and is being investigated by a freshly-constituted Special Investigation Team (SIT). It would have been appropriate to wait for the outcome of this investigation before awarding this post to Giri, in order to ascertain the findings regarding his involvement as the treasurer.It is worth recalling that when the donation theft, estimated at Rs 3 crore, came to light, Giri had expressed that he felt “deeply hurt, saddened, and ashamed,” while simultaneously distancing himself from any accountability for the incident. He had asserted that he had never been directly involved in the area where the hundi (donation box) offerings were counted, as he only visited Ayodhya from his Pune residence once or twice a month and he was not an authorised signatory for the Trust’s financial transactions.An attitude riddled with contradictionsSuch a stance effectively demonstrated his detachment from the responsibilities inherent in the role of Treasurer. Yet, he failed to acknowledge any moral responsibility for the matter, nor did he agree to resign on those grounds. Furthermore, he repeatedly asserted that he was neither personally responsible for the theft nor had he committed any wrongdoing.He also absolved Champat Rai, then general secretary of the Trust, of any involvement in the theft, claiming that Rai’s sole mistake was trusting the wrong individual. This raises a question that still demands an answer: was he right?If he was indeed right, what prompted Champat Rai and Anil Mishra to resign from the Trust? Why is the Trust now going to such lengths by appointing the treasurer as general secretary, introducing a new trustee as treasurer, and designating a former military officer as its first CEO?Moreover, what assurance is there that the new Treasurer, 68-year-old Mahesh Bhagchandka from Delhi, will be any different from Giri? Although he is described as an industrialist and the chairman of a corporate group, his primary identity within the Trust is that of a relative of the late Vishwa Hindu Parishad supremo Ashok Singhal, a manager of the ‘Ashok Singhal Foundation’, and the author of Singhal’s biography, titled Hindutva ke Purodha (Standard-bearer of Hindutva).Had lessons been learned from the previous treasurer’s tenure – who, residing in Pune, was unable to oversee the trust’s daily financial operations in Ayodhya – a local treasurer capable of handling this responsibility would have been appointed instead.The irony of appointing retired Air Marshal Jitendra Mishra as CEO is that instead of reassuring the devotees who are upset about the offerings being stolen, with his qualifications and capabilities to eliminate the ‘scam’ in the Ram Temple management and prevent such thefts, there is a focus on glorifying his valour in military operations like ‘Operation Sindoor’ against Pakistan. Clearly, it is an attempt to convey that this appointment has also been marked with the banner of nationalism, compelling ‘ungrateful’ opponents to adopt a defensive stance, implying that any opposition to Mishra’s actions will be perceived as opposition to nationalism.Despite this, the fact remains that the committee formed for selecting the CEO, which created the panel of the final three names including Mishra (to whom they have also expressed gratitude), consists of three members – Suresh Howde, Lieutenant General (retd) Vishnukant Chaturvedi and retired Justice Pramod Kohli – all of whom have been associated with the RSS.This single fact speaks volumes about the transparency exercised in their selection, the priority adopted and the criteria established.Did the prime minister choose the CEO?Senior journalist and commentator A.J. Prabal claimed in a commentary that Prime Minister Narendra Modi may have made the decision regarding Mishra’s selection several weeks before the announcement by the Trust. According to him, there seems to be no other explanation for Mishra’s more than one and a half hour long interview by ANI last August regarding the role he played in ‘Operation Sindoor’. During that interview, Mishra praised the achievements of the Indian Air Force and lauded PM Modi’s leadership.According to sources, Prabal also said that it is possible the prime minister may have identified a ‘devotee’ in Mishra who could serve as his ‘yes man’ in Ayodhya. He already had a ‘yes man’ in his former principal secretary Nripendra Mishra, within the Trust. It is noteworthy that, like Nripendra, Jeetendra Mishra also hails from Deoria district of Uttar Pradesh.On the other hand, the appointment of three new trustees, a treasurer and CEO is being seen as an effort to clear obstacles in the path of BJP’s politics in Uttar Pradesh, rather than to improve the management of Ram Temple. While there may be no doubt regarding Mishra’s abilities and commitment to enhance the temple’s administration, there are concerns about whether he will have autonomy in decision-making.According to experts, he will report to the general secretary of the Trust, and in the event of a dispute, the general secretary’s decision will be final. So, there remains a constant apprehension of ‘returning to the starting point’. This concern is further amplified by the fact that standard operating procedures to clarify their rights and responsibilities are yet to be established.Indeed, the positive aspect is that despite being in Ayodhya, Mishra has chosen to understand his role and responsibilities before assuming charge. However, his intolerant behaviour towards media personnel has also become a topic of discussion.Following the appointment of three new trustees, it is now being said that the Trust has achieved representation from all sections and communities, including women. However, two pertinent questions arise from this claim: Why was this representation not there earlier, leading to the Trust becoming a symbol of dominance for a particular caste? Why is Nirmala Yadav, a resident of Shikohabad in Firozabad district, still the only one to represent both women and backward classes?If Uttar Pradesh were not headed for assembly elections soon, one might wonder whether this representation would have materialized at all.Temple Trust fraught with ironiesIncidentally, when the Union government established this Trust in February 2020, many quarters observed the neglect of women, Dalits and backward classes, and the dominance of ‘Brahminical superiority’ at their expense, which frustrated even RSS volunteers from these communities.The reason is that after participating in various movements for the Ram temple, including Karseva, there was hope that as the good days of the movement had arrived, and that lessons learned from the issues of untouchability and inequality would ensure adequate representation of their communities in the Hindu religious authority. However, this did not happen, and within the Brahminical structure of the Trust, they saw a repetition of the very historical contradictions they hoped to overcome.In conversation with this reporter, a swayamsevak from Ayodhya could not conceal his disappointment as he remarked that it was said that Lord Ram belongs to everyone, not to any specific class, caste or community. Not only have sages Valmiki to Tulsidas sung his praises, but many Muslims have also celebrated his story. Numerous nawabs and their wives have also been his devotees. Under this understanding, the Trust should have represented all or most of the Hindu castes. However, except for one formally included Dalit, the dominance of a single caste was evident.When asked if he would raise his voice against it on any platform, he responded after a moment of helpless silence, “This issue needs to be addressed at a higher level. What can I, as an ordinary volunteer, do by raising my voice at such a low level?”Another “helpless” volunteer recited a poem by the renowned Hindi poet Sachchidanand Hiranand Vatsyayan Agyeya to express his state of mind: Jo pul banaayenge / ve anivaaryatah peeche reh jaayenge / senaayein ho jaayengi paar / maare jaayenge Raavan / jayi honge Ram / jo nirmaata rahe / itihaas mein / bandar kahlaayenge.(Those who build bridges / they will inevitably be left behind / armies will be crossed / Ravana will be killed / Ram will be victorious / those who are the builders / will be called monkeys in history)Many other Ayodhya residents saw neglect in the representation of Dalits and backward classes in the Trust, despite the fact that the foundation stone of the Ram temple was laid by a Dalit. It reflects the old evil of untouchability in Awadh, where a Dalit labourer may transport fresh jaggery made from sugarcane from the crusher and place it in the large earthen pot of an upper caste owner’s home, yet is prohibited from touching the pot after doing so.‘Hindu-Pad-Padashahi’Many experts still perceive the reflection of the ‘Hindu-Pad-Padshahi’ in the trust, which was established by the second Maratha Peshwa, Baji Rao I (1720-1740 AD), with the aim of ending Muslim rule in India through the “unity of all Hindu kings and the establishment of a Hindu state across the entire country”. In order to accomplish this goal, it was essential to foster friendship, generosity, and equitable treatment with the Hindu kings throughout the nation. However, the third Maratha Peshwa Balaji Bajirao (1740-1761 AD) disregarded this concern and opted to establish the hegemony of the Marathas. During his military campaigns, he began to treat all rulers, regardless of whether they were Hindu or Muslim, with equal cruelty. Not only this, he did not accept any “discrimination” on the basis of religion while plundering his subjects.Experts say that in the conduct of RSS family organizations and their governments in Ayodhya, a glimpse of the third Peshwa Balaji Bajirao is visible since the time of the formation of the Trust. Similar to the third Peshwa, following the “much awaited victory of Hindus” in the Ram Mandir case, they are making no distinction like the third Peshwa in marginalizing or showing “the way out” to the ranks of Kevats, Dhobis and Shabaris staking claim on it – whether inside or outside them. Nonetheless, they occasionally referred to them as “Hindutva Rakshak Hiraval Dasta”.In such a situation, the question is whether the Trust, which opted for CEO rule to stop theft of offerings, will still continue to pretend and create illusions about changes or will it genuinely consider altering its customs and policies.Krishna Pratap Singh is a senior journalist based in Faizabad, Ayodhya.This article was first published in The Wire Hindi and has been translated by Naushin Rehman.