# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
India's stock market is shut for the day. Central government offices are only open for half the day. Neighbourhood watch parties have been organised across the country. And tens of millions of Indians are tuned into one event: the consecration of a temple to the Hindu god Ram in the city of Ayodhya.

On Monday, just past noon local time, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will join priests to inaugurate the temple, whose launch in many ways also serves as the start of his campaign to be re-elected for a third term in office in national elections due to be held between March and May.

Keep reading

The trust in charge of the temple, whose construction is still under way, has invited an estimated 7,000 people - politicians, leading industrialists, sports stars and other public figures.

But while Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has pitched the event as a national celebration, the temple's history is grounded in what many have dubbed one of modern India's darkest chapters - one that has shaped the country's politics and that cracked open deep religious fault lines in its society.

Here's a look at the tortured history of the spot where the temple is being built - and the controversies surrounding it.

What is the controversy behind the Ram temple?

The temple is being built on a contentious piece of land in the northern Indian city of Ayodhya, at a spot that many Hindus believe was the birthplace of Ram, a much-worshipped god who in the religion epitomises the victory of good over evil.

But until the morning of December 6, 1992, it was the Babri Masjid, a mosque built in 1528 and named after the Mughal king Babur, that stood at that place. A mob of Hindu nationalists pulled down the mosque, chanting religious slogans, after more than a decade of an angry, and at times violent, campaign.

After years of being closed to the public, in November 2019, India's Supreme Court ruled that the site must be handed over to a trust that would be specially set up to oversee the construction of a Hindu temple.

A separate piece of land in Dhannipur village on the outskirts of Ayodhya, was allocated to Muslims for a mosque that may serve as a replacement for the Babri Masjid. Its construction is yet to begin.

"Through the highest court now, we have established a principle of creating an unbreakable divide between Hindus and Muslims, that they cannot live side by side," said writer and academic Apoorvanand on the "five-acre justice," a term Indians have penned over the size of the reallocated land.

While some segments of India's population cheered on the judgement, others criticised it for lacking a sound legal basis and compromising on India's secular and democratic constitutional ethics.

Locals have also pointed to the history of harmonious co-existence between the two communities in Ayodhya, even at places of worship. The ruling also sparked fears that it was emboldening right-wing Hindus across the country to launch similar efforts to raze other mosques.

Although the Ram Temple controversy goes back decades, Apoorvanand says that Monday's event is "also a final announcement of, in a way, Hindus handing over their religion to the will of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh." The RSS is the Hindu-nationalist mothership of the BJP and its far-right partner organisations.

The temple's inauguration seals the site as a place of Hindu worship, and comes after years of legal tussles and even violent riots over the land and its legacy.

Major events in the divide over the Ram temple

The first recorded instance of conflict over the site was in 1853, when a Hindu sect asserted that a temple had been demolished during Babur's era to make way for the mosque.

Tensions especially started to take a turn in 1859 when British colonial rulers partitioned the building into separate sections - the inside for Muslims, and the outer court for Hindus.

In 1949, just two years after the subcontinent won independence, the mosque turned into disputed property. Police reports show that Hindu idols were brought into the mosque and its gates were closed. No Muslim prayers were offered at the mosque after that. In 1950, several civil suits were filed with both communities laying claim to the site.

But it was outside the courts that the fate of the Babri Masjid was ultimately decided.

In the 1980s, the BJP that now dominates Indian politics was largely a fringe party. But it built political momentum around a nationwide campaign to build a temple in the place of the mosque, led by then party chief Lal Krishna Advani, who would later serve as India's deputy prime minister (1998-2004).

Under pressure from the BJP and its Hindu majoritarian allies and the support they were galvanising, the government of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, of the Indian National Congress, allowed a court decision to open the locks of the Babri Masjid site to go unchallenged in 1986.

That, however, only emboldened the BJP-led agitation. In 1990, Advani led a long rally over more than a month through the heart of India, building support for the Ram temple. Modi, then a young and rising party worker in the western state of Gujarat, helped organise the rally.

Then, on December 6, 1992, Hindu mobs tore down the Babri Masjid. Ensuing riots across the country killed about 2,000 people.

Following years of back and forth in court, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in 2019.

The court acknowledged that both the surreptitious manner in which idols were brought into the mosque in 1949 and the demolition in 1949 were crimes. Still, by essentially ordering no consequences for those offences, the court created a scenario where Indian Muslims are "disappointed to see no remorse", and feel there is little recourse for their concerns, says Apoorvanand.

Where exactly is the contested site?

The Ram temple is being built near the banks of the Sarayu River, which runs past Ayodhya and is mentioned in ancient Hindu scriptures. Ayodhya is in India's northern and most populous state, Uttar Pradesh.

Officially known as Shree Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, it has been constructed in the Nagara style of architecture, which is common in northern India and features tall steeples and a stone platform with steps leading up to the temple.

When will the Ram temple consecration take place?

The consecration is scheduled for just after 12pm local time (06:30 GMT) on Monday, January 22.

Many of the wings of the temple are still under construction, and some of Hinduism's foremost seers, the four Shankaracharyas, have objected to the opening, saying that consecrating an incomplete temple goes against Hindu scriptures.

Nonetheless, the government, and the trust in charge of the temple, have insisted that the consecration does not violate any tenets of the faith.

Monday's event will include a grand procession of idols to be taken into the building, and a four-foot statue of a child Ram being placed in the inner sanctum. Priests will join Modi for the actual ceremony, expected to last for half an hour.

Modi's government has also planned live screenings of the event across the country. Some Indian embassies have also invited members of the Indian diaspora to screenings.

As Hindus across Ayodhya decorate streets and join celebratory rallies, messages are circulating among Muslims to remain at home as a precaution for their safety.

The constructed portion of the temple will be open to devotees and the public starting January 23. And as the temple's doors open to them, so does a path to an economic boost for Ayodhya.

About 100 private jets are expected to touch down in Ayodhya ahead of the inauguration and retailers say they have run out of gold and gold-plated statues of Ram.

Property prices in Ayodhya have also skyrocketed as the city is set to become a pilgrimage and tourism hotspot.

Building the Ram temple at the spot where the Babri Masjid once stood has been one of the BJP's three foundational promises - the end of Jammu and Kashmir's semi-autonomous status, which was scrapped in 2019, and a uniform civil code for personal laws are the others.

Modi's consecration of the temple fulfils that decades-long pledge, and comes just weeks before national elections.

The Ram temple movement has already paid rich dividends to the BJP's political fortunes. The party won just two seats out of 543 in the lower house of parliament in 1984. A little more than a decade later, in the first national elections after the Babri Masjid's demolition, it surged to become India's single-largest party, winning 161 seats.

Its first stint in office lasted just 13 days - because of its association with the mosque demolition, most other parties were unwilling to form alliances that the BJP needed to get to the majority mark of 272 seats in parliament.

But as its brand of Hindu nationalism slowly gained acceptability, it came to power again in 1998, and ruled with allies until 2004. After a decade out of power, it stormed back into office under Modi, the most unapologetically Hindu nationalist leader the party has had.

On Monday, Modi will look to cement that legacy still further.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is India's Ram temple in Ayodhya controversial?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The BJP's Prime Minister Modi will be opening the temple on Monday, three years after laying its first stone.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gravitas: 'Animal' too violent? Why the Ranbir Kapoor movie has angered so many

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 3 - Damien Hirst sculpture of giant uterus

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 3 - Damien Hirst sculpture of giant uterus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Health authorities at a hospital in Qatar are braced for an outcry after unveiling 14 giant bronze sculptures by British artist Damien Hirst that graphically chart the voyage from conception to birth.

The vast open-air installation greets patients arriving at the $8bn (£6bn) Sidra medicine hospital and is the centrepiece of a modern art collection that officially opened this week in Doha. Named The Miraculous Journey, it shows a foetus growing in the womb and culminates with a 14-metre (46ft) newborn.

The sculptures were originally unveiled in October 2013 but then covered from public view until recent weeks following an outcry on social media. The official reason was to protect them from building work at the hospital.

The finishing touches are put to the sculptures, which were originally unveiled in 2013. Photograph: -/AFP/Getty Images

Hirst acknowledged that the set might prove controversial when they were first unveiled in 2013. "You know culturally, it's the first naked sculpture in the Middle East... It's very brave," he told Doha News.

Officials also arranged for a young boy to recite a passage from the Koran about the formation of life in an apparent effort to assuage critics.

But Layla Ibrahim Bacha, an art specialist at the government-supported Qatar Foundation, which owns most of the artwork, said this month: "We are not expecting everyone to like them. We are not expecting everyone to understand them. This is why they are there to actually create this element of debate, this element of thinking.

"We believe it reflects very much the mission of Sidra, taking care of the healthcare of woman and babies," said Bacha. "I think it's perfect for the location, as you can see a lot of people are taking pictures, I think it's becoming iconic."

Among the 65 works at the special facility for children's and women's health are pieces by high-profile international names and artists from across the Arab world, including Qatar.

A fourth-floor outpatient clinic is decorated with a neon installation entitled I Listen To The Ocean And All I Hear Is You by Tracey Emin, one of Hirst's ground-breaking British contemporaries.

Bacha said the art was chosen with "very specific themes" in mind. "They are not meant to be decorative, they are meant to be more creating debates, helping with the patient to keep calm," she said.

Syrian artist, Jaber al-Azmeh, whose pictures hang in the hospital, said it made him smile to imagine his photographs on display in a place where new lives were starting.

Sidra received its first patients in January and last month successfully conducted Qatar's first separation surgery on conjoined twins.

Energy-rich Qatar has become a major buyer of contemporary art. It is seeking to portray itself as one of the most progressive states in the region against the backdrop of a bitter standoff with Gulf rivals led by Saudi Arabia.
Agence France-Presse contributed to this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Damien Hirst delivers controversy with giant uterus sculptures at Qatar hospital

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Showpiece outside women's healthcare centre culminates with 14-metre newborn which has previously raised eyebrows

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 4 - The Dinner party by Judy Chicago

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 4 - The Dinner party by Judy Chicago

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 5 - Dead Animal Sculptures by Daniel Hirst

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 5 - Dead Animal Sculptures by Daniel Hirst

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The image of a real shark suspended in formaldehyde and caged by an uncharacteristic metal and glass tank has defined modern British art and pop culture from the 1990s onwards. Jaws wide open, the shark, though dead, seems frozen in time, allowing museum-goers to inspect close-up, and first hand, what has come to be known as a symbol of deathly fear. Though the very ability to capture fear itself and put it on display in museums, confirms the absurdity of the animal's symbolic association, confronting one's fear without the danger of harm is a rare opportunity, yet one that Damien Hirst does constantly. Damien Hirst has been confronting viewers with death, an intrinsically human fear since he first began creating art, pushing the use of natural materials in art to new, ethically obscure territories in the process.

Though the theme of mortality present in the overwhelming majority of his works is nothing new, his materials are what catapulted the artist into fame. Sharks, cows, butterflies, fish, flies, and countless more creatures sit among the artists' paint and canvases. As seen in multiple works such as his pop art inspired Til' Death Do Us Part (2012), Hirst doesn't need the bodies of dead animals to express his fixation on death, and although his artistic intentions are speculated to be for shock-value, the use of once-living creatures in his art has created artworks on the topic of mortality more effectively than perhaps any before it. The animals or insects and how they are presented bring a confrontational perspective from which to look at death: face to face, an irreplicable experience.

Damien Hirst didn't invent the use of animals in art, in fact, Hirst's use of animals could be considered ethical in comparison to others. However, Hirst is perhaps the only artist to reach the status of multi-millionaire through his use of real animals in art, inevitably finding himself at the center of criticism from animal rights activists outraged with the killing of animals and insects for artistic means. Though some creatures died before Hirst claimed them for his work, many have died because of it, totaling an estimated 913,450 creatures. Hirst is no stranger to controversy and embraces the strong divide his art evokes, stating in a 1996 interview that "The work should attract you and repel you at the same time." However, for many, the killing of animals and their subsequent objectifying treatment as features in museum exhibitions overshadow the meaning of his works.

Though gruesome and shocking, Hirst's work honestly displays the role that the death of animals plays in the art industry. Pigments, wetting agents, canvas glue, and artist brushes are all derived from a variety of animals and insects. Even if Hirst's work abided by more conventional standards and omitted the use of full carcasses of animals and insects, his art would still likely result in harming and killing creatures, a fact that he puts on full display in his real work. Hirst confronts the viewer with the reality that the beauty of art comes at the sacrifice of the lives of living creatures whether they are aware of it or not. Still, being honest in the fact that animals are killed for art by further showcasing the problem doesn't make the act any more ethical, but contributes to the cruelty.

Hirst has contributed greatly to the increase of both live and dead animals used for sculpture and installation in the past few decades, a trend that has taken the use of natural materials to the extreme. However, at a more subdued level, the use of natural materials in art often found in the works of land artists hold the same effective qualities as the works of Hirst. The acclaimed land artist, Richard Long, is much like Hirst in many ways. He too allows nature to speak for itself, rearranging and presenting natural materials in new ways to place a simplicity in his work that evokes strong personal feelings. Long, however, encounters natural materials with love and respect for nature, drawing the line between what makes Hirst and Long's work so different. Using nature as his limitless canvas, Long brought sculpture to new territories in the 1960s, specifically with A Line Made By Walking (1967) by individually intervening with nature to create sculpture specific to a landscape and time, commenting on the impermanence of nature. Whereas Long appreciates and respects nature in both his art and the creation of it, Hirst's approach to using natural materials is in no way appreciative. When showcasing dead creatures for his own artistic means, regardless of if they died for the art or not, Hirst is treating the living creature as a mere object, reducing their life to a sculpture or installation and exploiting their remains in the process, whether it be for money or artistic expression, neither justifies Hirst's objectifying use of animals and insects in his art.

Art from artists such as Richard Long demonstrates how nature and art can unite without unnecessary harm towards it. When done ethically, the use of natural materials in art adds another dimension to the work, connecting the viewer to the powerful forces of nature. Though Hirst's work achieves this to a great degree, the disrespect and exploitation towards the once-living creatures he uses in his art undermine his artistic intention. Hirst himself said it best: "It's Beautiful. Only problem is that it's dead."

Read more posts by this author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Beautiful. Only Problem Is That It's Dead: On Damien Hirst

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The image of a real shark suspended in formaldehyde and caged by an uncharacteristic metal and glass tank has defined [https://damienhirst.com/] modern British art and pop culture from the 1990s onwards. Jaws wide open, the shark, though dead, seems frozen in time, allowing museum-goers to inspect close-up, and