top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Broken Faith

For generations, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was about far more than bricks and mortar. It was sustained by faith, sacrifice and an unwavering belief among millions of devotees that one day a grand temple would rise at what they regarded as the birthplace of Lord Ram. After decades of political battles, social upheaval and legal contestation, that dream finally became reality. For countless Hindus, it marked the fulfilment of a civilisational aspiration. This is precisely why the allegations...

Broken Faith

For generations, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was about far more than bricks and mortar. It was sustained by faith, sacrifice and an unwavering belief among millions of devotees that one day a grand temple would rise at what they regarded as the birthplace of Lord Ram. After decades of political battles, social upheaval and legal contestation, that dream finally became reality. For countless Hindus, it marked the fulfilment of a civilisational aspiration. This is precisely why the allegations now emerging from Ayodhya are so disturbing. The Special Investigation Team constituted by the Uttar Pradesh government is probing serious irregularities in the handling of donations offered by devotees, to the tune of Rs. 7-7.5 crores missing. Investigators are examining the procedures governing donation boxes, cash counting and the movement of personnel entrusted with handling offerings made in good faith by worshippers. The details are deeply troubling. Individuals involved in counting donations are under scrutiny for sudden and unexplained financial growth. Authorities have allegedly recovered substantial sums of cash. Questions are being asked about assets accumulated by persons linked to temple operations. When a devotee places money into a donation box, it is an act of faith. The offering is made not to an institution but to the deity. Those entrusted with managing such offerings carry a responsibility far greater than that borne by ordinary administrators. They are custodians of sacred trust. The allegations that have emerged have wounded the emotional bond that millions have forged with the temple. While a scandal in a government department is unfortunate, a scandal involving a sacred institution is even more corrosive. It risks breeding cynicism where reverence should exist. The Ram Mandir is too important an institution to be shielded from scrutiny. In fact, because of its significance, it must be subjected to higher standards of transparency than almost any other public body in the country. While the temple itself remains a symbol of faith, what requires examination are the actions of those entrusted with managing a sacred institution. For years, devotees contributed money, labour and emotional energy to a cause they believed transcended politics. They did not do so to enrich temple employees or power brokers. The SIT investigation must therefore proceed without fear or favour. Every allegation must be examined. Every financial trail must be followed. Every individual, regardless of proximity to powerful figures, must be held accountable if wrongdoing is established. The Ram Mandir was built through the devotion of millions. Its sanctity cannot be compromised by the greed of a few. The greatest threat to the temple today does not come from outside its walls. It comes from the possibility that those entrusted with protecting faith may have betrayed it. And for devotees, that is the most painful betrayal of all.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page