I have to respond to this tweet @AankhiGM ji. The Govt is d Usurper.Frankly, your tweet flies in d face of facts since Govt control of Temples isn't limited to one particular denomination or group within d Hindu community.The assumptions underlying ur tweet have no factual basis. https://twitter.com/AankhiGM/status/1288328522830876672

The @SwarajyaMag article does raise valid questions but unfortunately it does so with a few incorrect assumptions. For instance, it assumes or at least insinuates that only members of one group are "traditional custodians of the Temple".This is ahistoric and factually untenable.

What is actually surprising is that nobody has even bothered to read the Petitions filed by the Late Swami Dayananda Saraswathi ji or by the Priests of the Tiruchendur Petition. The Petitions will bust these misconceptions.

Neither of the two petitions challenges any provision of any Temple legislation which permits entry of Hindus of all classes into Temples. In fact, the entire challenge is limited to the State's power of appointment of Trustees.

What is indeed surprising is that people even bothered reading up either the Act or paid attention to the material out there in public domain. The TNHRCE Act contains a prescribed structure for Temple Trusts. That structure has NOT being challenged by any of the Petitioners.

The entire question of challenge in all pending petitions is limited to d question of d State's appointment of Trustees & its control over d Temple's resources.The Govt is the usurper of the Hindu community's resources. It is not State fiefdom. It belongs to the Hindu community.

What's really unfortunate is that ever since the State Govt's takeover of Temples in Uttarakhand has been questioned, some ppl have started finding ways and means to support and justify not just the Uttarakhand takeover but all State Control of Temples. This is shocking.

The @SwarajyaMag article in question, in fact, does not justify State control of Temples but is merely asking for clarity on the way forward after the State is evicted from Temples. But @AankhiGM ji, your tweet goes way beyond the legitimate concerns raised by the article.

The assumptions that some people even in the non-Left make about Temple control and who its traditional custodians are,are no different from Leftist tropes. It is indeed sad that they haven't bothered to pay attention to d sheer diversity on d subject of traditional custodians.

What is common and what is stark regardless of who the traditional custodians are of Hindu Temples,is the pernicious presence of d usurper- the State. Communities seeking to take them back are not the usurpers. It is absolutely insensitive to give Govts a free pass on this issue.

Clearly,what's been going on is that some have started to raise d false bogey of traditional custodians to question d legitimacy of d Free Temple movement. Pratap Bhanu Mehta's piece in d Indian Express did the same thing, & now members of d non-Left are resorting to this trope.

At the very least, it portrays some very erudite members of the non-Left in poor light when they latch on to unimaginative and factually baseless Leftist tropes to question the Free Temple movement.

Either they have nothing better to offer because they don't know what they are talking about, or this is deliberate. I sincerely hope it isn't the latter because if it is, they array themselves alongside the Leftists on this issue. If so, they must be responded to similarly.

In questioning the Free Temple movement, over the last few days, certain opinions of the Puri Shankarcharya ji have been cited as the reason. I didn't want to use twitter for this sensitive issue but given a few tweets, I have to call this false strawman out at multiple levels.

First is d question of basic courtesy that we as Hindus must observe when referring to traditional Acharyas.Sure, it is ur right to disagree with them and even criticise their views.But given d office or position he represents, what do you lose in at least showing basic courtesy?

One learned academic whose work I deeply respect and follow went to the extent of referring to the Shankarcharya ji as "this guy". Really? Would you address the PM Shri Modi ji in the same vein even if you bitterly opposed his views or decisions despite having voted for him?

So the basic courtesy we extend to a politician because of the office he occupies, we don't extend to traditional Gurus? Since when has this become acceptable? How different is this from the Left's deliberate use of Shri Yogi Ji's purvashrama name?

Second,which opinion of d Puri Shankarcharya ji or any other traditional Guru r most Hindus even paying attention to or attempting to live by?In light of this reality,why act as if his opinions will affect our behaviour?We have long abandoned d tradition of listening to Acharyas.

Third,d most important aspect of Hindu Dharma is d sheer diversity of Sampradayas which have their own heads and traditions.This means d opinion of the Puri Shankarcharya ji is at best limited to the tradition he has inherited and his followers.We use that to attack everyone?

Fourth, no opinion of any traditional Acharya justifies State control of Temples. If it does, then u might as well accept the Leftist trope that Mohd Bin Qasim invaded Somnath to save the common Hindu from Vile Brahmins. That's how atrocious your logic is.

Fifth, has anyone bothered reading up on the rights enjoyed by various castes and communities in the Shri Jagannath Temple? If not, they should. That will just quite a few myths about how who are the so-called traditional stakeholders.And that example is not an isolated instance.

Sixth, you can't honestly mouth platitudes about the diversity of the Hindu faith in responding to the Left's Hinduphobia, and then approach the question of Temple management as if it is a monolith. Hindu diversify is not ur ammo against the Left,it is the very reality of Dharma.

Seventh,if ur grouse is that d question of State Control of Temples should not be raised in BJP ruled States,sorry - deal with it. No party can be treated as an exception to this question of principle. In fact, the BJP must lead by example and Free Temples in States ruled by it.

When d BJP comes out with a structure that balances d autonomy of Hindus over their religious institutions & all legitimate concerns,including d question of caste-based hegemony of any caste along with rights under Article 26,to me that wud truly be a civilisational masterstroke.

Ever since the State Govt's takeover of Temples in Uttarakhand has been questioned by the Free Temple campaigners, the response has been to introduce a North South divide and now caste has been added to this mix. How different is this from the Left's strategy? Utterly shameful.

It is not wrong to want to defend a dispensation which you have voted to power. It's understandable. But if you can't see beyond d dispensation on matters of Civilisational interest and you employ d Left's strategy to respond to key issues, you have fallen to unbelievable depths.

Those who cite the Puri Shankarcharya Ji's views don't wish to or don't know of other Gurus who have different views? And one swallow makes a summer? Especially in the context of a diverse non-centralized faith such as Hinduism? Can you really tie urself up in more knots?

Some have objected to the challenge to the Uttarakhand takeover of Temples on the ground that Dr. Swamy has filed the Petition. Honestly, I don't know what to say. To say that everyone who has a legitimate grievance with the Uttarakhand takeover is part of some camp is unfair.

If someone other than Dr. Swamy had filed the Petition challenging the Uttarakhand takeover, would they be OK with such a petition? If yes, their problem is with an individual and not the issue? Doesn't seem like it because they seem intent on defending the takeover.

If a non BJP dispensation had watered down Article 370 or introduced the CAA, would they have objected to it? I don't think so. So why is the issue less important than the individual when it comes to freeing Temples? And why can't we separate the issue from the individual?

I have personally defended the Government's move on Article 370 and the CAA, and have opinions on the UCC. So is my position issue based or entity based? People know who I wanted elected in 2014 & 2019. So which basket are you now going to create to slot people like me? Trad?

What do you think is being protected in Sabarimala? Tradition.If you have such problem with tradition because u have bought into the notion that tradition=regressive,it is a textbook case of coloniality. So pls stop taking a sanctimonious position and using pejoratives like trad.

I do believe that tradition itself holds the key for reform and innovation.I will never be guilt tripped for my belief in Hindu tradition nor am I going to defend anything that lacks contemporary purchase or relevance,but in doing so I will abide by the traditional way of reform.

What is indeed surprising is that we are being told that elected politicians must be trusted without question or doubt, but we must all exercise our rational faculties in questioning every Guru and tradition. Really? Don't you see the problem?

The Left has dragged a pious word such as Bhakt in the mud with its pejorative use, and some want to use words such as Trad and Free Temple Gang to refer to Free Temple campaigners. How is this fair? How is this right? Is this how we intend to deal with ppl within the non Left?

I have never shied away from debating any issue on which I have a position, but if name calling and ad hominem attacks have become the modus instead of a civil dialogue, especially within the non-Left, it is disheartening and bodes ill for everyone.

Just to clarify,I don't think name-calling has happened by any one side alone.Whoever has done that is wrong & it is inexcusable.I typically don't attack individuals unless pushed beyond acceptable limits.I wud prefer to respond on merits because I don't think an ego battle helps