Inane objections to PM's Mahakal visit

It is high time we the Indians learnt to respect ourselves, our religion, our culture and our heritage. This does not mean that the country would give up the path of secularism. The narrow-minded politicians should read at least a few books written by saints like Vivekananda, Adi Sankaracharya, Sant Kabir and Goswami Tulsidas among others to understand that India has always been a great secular country and despite various attempts by invaders, the fabric of secularism continues to remain intact.

But it has become a fashion for the neo or shall we say pseudo secularists and so-called rationalists to demean Hinduism in the name of secularism. Many are finding fault with the Prime Minister Narendra Modi for participating in the inaugurations of Kashi Vishwanath temple, and, the latest, the Mahakal temple in Ujjain which has been renovated at cost of Rs 856 crore. Earlier they criticised him for inaugurating the Statue of Equality (Ramanujacharya) in Hyderabad. They feel it is anti-secular, especially if it related to be Hindu religious practices. Some say that PM should comply with the oath he has taken under the constitution and declare publicly that he is attending the event in his personal capacity. These intellectuals need to answer why they did not object when Modi went to participate in the Sikh projects at Kartarpur, celebrations of Jain community at Sharvanabalagula in Karnataka. They should not look at these events merely as religious-centric.

There are some who quote an incident in the first few years of the republic, when, on the eve of the inauguration of the newly built Somnath temple, India's first PM Jawaharlal Nehru, had certain disagreements with the first president, Rajendra Prasad, regarding the latter's acceptance of an invitation to inaugurate the Somnath temple. Nehru presumably meant that the inauguration of a temple by the President would be a challenge to the secular fabric of the Indian republic. May be because of the colonial legacy the country had inherited. But Prasad ignored Nehru's advice and said, "I would do the same with a mosque or a church if I were invited." That's true secularism.

What if Modi had gone to inaugurate any other religious place of worship? Would that make him secular and but inaugurating a temple as Hindu would turn him into non-secular person?

Non-Sikhs who visit Gurudwara have to cover their head with a scarf or some cloth. That is their tradition. Similarly, those who go to temples apply vermillion though no temple will stop entry of any person if he or she does not apply it. Can there be greater secularism? Modi rightly said, "This Mahakal will encourage India's tradition and culture and give it new life. In this period of Independence, India's glory is being reconstructed."

Also how can renovation of temples with public money be called non-secular activity? Renovation of any religious place has always been a continuous process irrespective of who ruled the country. Renovation of temples will give a boost to tourism and will create employment opportunities to many. Why do our intellectuals or so-called secularists look everything from a negative angle? One should understand that the government in India can appropriate money of only Hindu religious places, but not of any other religion. Hence it should be looked as a tiny repayment of money appropriated by the government.