RAMA IN CONSTITUTION;NEHRU AGAINST SOMNATH

Rajendra Prasad Defied Nehru and Opened Somnath Temple

It is known that while Gandhi stood for Ramarajya,Jawaharlal Nehru preached pseudo secularism.But the India constitution carried a picture of Lord Rama.
Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today tweeted with the picture:

"Original document of the Constitution of India has a beautiful sketch of Lord Ram, Mata Sita and Laxman returning to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana. This is available at the beginning of the chapter related to Fundamental Rights. Felt like sharing this with you all. "

After Rahul Gandhi’s 29 November 2o17 visit to the Somnath temple, Prime Minister Narendra Modi noted that Rahul had decided to “suddenly visit Somnath dada (the deity)” when his great-grandfather Jawaharlal Nehru didn’t even want the temple to be reconstructed. “(Nehru) had expressed displeasure with the reconstruction undertaken by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. If it wasn’t for Patel, the temple wouldn’t have been reconstructed,” Modi said.

What exactly happened in those years immediately after Independence? Was India’s first Prime Minister, indeed, uncomfortable about reconstructing the temple? Why?

The ancient Shiva temple at Somnath, close to Veraval in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district, was ravaged in 1026 by Mahmud of Ghazni, who looted its riches and broke the idol — the best known among multiple attacks by a series of raiders who were drawn by the temple’s legendary wealth over the centuries. In 1842, Lord Ellenborough, Governor-General of India, issued his famous ‘Proclamation of the Gates’. Ellenborough, historian Romila Thapar recorded, asked the British army in Afghanistan to return via Ghazni, bringing back the “sandalwood gates of Somnath” that the medieval conqueror was believed to have taken away. What his forces brought to India, however, turned out to have nothing to do with Somnath. (Somnatha: The Many Voices of A History, 2004).

In the years leading up to Independence and Partition, the narrative of Hindu pride found many takers, among them K M Munshi, a Congress leader from Gujarat with strong Hindu nationalist leanings. Somnath, whose destruction had until then been of largely regional interest, was elevated into the consciousness of a deeply divided nation as a symbol of Muslim intolerance and iconoclasm. 

Somnath in ruins before reconstruction

The first major articulation of the intention to rebuild the ruined temple is believed to have been made by Sardar Patel, Nehru’s Deputy Prime Minister, at a huge public meeting in Junagadh on November 12, 1947. The nawab of Junagadh had fled to Pakistan, and the Indian Army had moved into the estate.

In one of several blogs written between 2009 and 2014 (later compiled into a book, My Take, 2014), L K Advani, said: “After returning to Delhi, (Patel) secured Gandhiji’s blessings for the (temple reconstruction) and had Pandit Nehru have it endorsed by his Cabinet. The Cabinet’s decision implied that the Government would incur the expenditure. But that evening itself, when Sardar Patel, Dr Munshi and N V Gadgil went to Gandhiji to apprise him of the Cabinet’s decision, Gandhiji welcomed it but added: Let the people and not the Government bear the expenditure.” Accordingly, a Trust was set up, with Munshi as chairman.

With Gandhi’s assassination, the Congress lost the glue that bound a set of patriots with disparate ideologies and aspirations, but who shared the one dream of a free India. The wounds of Partition were raw, and Nehru, stridently pseudo secular, had open differences with several partymen, including Patel, on issues ranging from the treatment of minorities to the choice of President .Nehru rooted for C Rajagopalachari; Patel wanted Dr Rajendra Prasad.

In December 1950, Patel died. The “one Congress leader who was of equal standing to Nehru”, was removed, historian Ramachandra Guha wrote in , India After Gandhi: The History Of The World’s Largest Democracy. One other opposing power centre now remained: Rajendra Prasad. The differences between the President and the Prime Minister came to the fore once again in 1951, when it was time to inaugurate the rebuilt Somnath temple.

In his Pilgrimage To Freedom, Munshi wrote that after a Cabinet meeting in early 1951, Nehru called him and said, “I do not like your trying to restore Somnath. It is Hindu revivalism.” Munshi, then the Food and Agriculture Minister, wrote to the Prime Minister in reply: “Yesterday you referred to Hindu revivalism. You pointedly referred to me in the Cabinet as connected with Somnath. I am glad you did so; for I do not want to keep back any part of my views or activities… I can assure you that the ‘Collective Subconscious’ of India today is happier with the scheme of reconstruction of Somnath… than with many other things that we have done and are doing.”

He then went ahead with his plan and approached President Prasad to inaugurate the rebuilt temple. Madhav Gobole, who was home secretary when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, and the author of The God Who Failed: An Assessment Of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Leadership (2014), points out that this incident alone — when a Minister was able to go ahead with his plan despite the PM’s obvious displeasure — proves this: “We all consider Nehru to be this all-imposing, supreme leader, but the truth is, he had his limitations. In his Cabinet, he had people with all kinds of opinions, but he believed he would be able to persuade them to come around to his view. Sometimes he was successful, sometimes he was not,” Godbole said.

Nehru persisted, writing to the President, asking him to reconsider his decision to inaugurate the temple. He wrote to Prasad: “I confess I do not like the idea of your associating yourself with a spectacular opening of the Somnath temple. This is not merely visiting a temple… but rather participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications.” (Sarvepalli Gopal, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru).

Somnath temple with Patel statue

Guha records:"Partition had just happened. Millions of Muslims had stayed back in India and Nehru said that was enough affirmation of their citizenship; they don’t need to go through some kind of loyalty test. He was very conscious of their vulnerability and insecurities. Hindus and Muslims had been at each other’s throats only a couple of years earlier, and Nehru didn’t want to polarise communities again, reopen old wounds just when India was settling down. Those were fragile times, and Nehru thought it was unnecessary for the President to associate himself with a temple that was destroyed by a Muslim invader hundreds of years ago, when Muslims of India have nothing to do with Mahmud of Ghazni.”

I don't subscribe to this.The fact is,Nehru never liked Rajendra Prasad.He had blocked Prasad when he wanted to see the discussion in the Lok Sabha from the President's enclosure.Nehru reprimanded the President by saying the enclosure was for the President's guests.

Prasad decided to inaugurate the temple anyway. On May 2, 1951, a distressed Nehru wrote to Chief Ministers: “It should be clearly understood that this function is not governmental and the GoI has nothing to do with it… We must not do anything that comes in the way of our state being secular. This is the basis of the Constitution and governments, therefore, should refrain from associating themselves with anything that tends to affect the secular character of our State.”

Prasad wrote back, saying, “I believe in my religion and cannot cut myself away from it.” (Durga Das, India: From Curzon To Nehru And After, 2004)

On May 11, 1951, the President inaugurated the grand, rebuilt Somnath temple.

Rajendra Prsad and Patel were Gandhi's true disciples,whereas Nehru was not.

    

          K. M. Munshi with archaeologists and engineers of the
         Government of India, Bombay, and Saurashtra, with the
          ruins of     Somnath Temple in the background, July 1950.

Located near Veraval, at Saurashtra in the western coast of Gujarat, the Somnath temple is believed to be the first among the 12 jyotirlinga shrines of Shiva. The site which was part of the erstwhile princely state of Junagadh, is also connected to Lord Krishna. Most historical accounts suggest that the temple was ravaged in 1026 CE by the Turkik ruler, Mahmud of Ghazni who looted its riches and desecrated the idol.

In the years preceding the Independence of the country, K M Munshi, a Congress leader from Gujarat, expressed his disappointment at the nation’s inability to rescue the spot of Krishna’s worship for all these generations. “My heart was full of veneration and shame. Millions have worshipped and worship today, Shri Krishna as ‘God himself’…none had dared to raise his voice to rescue the sacred spot where once His mortal remains had been consigned to flames… Reconstruction of Somanatha was then but the nebulous dream of a habitual dreamer,” Munshi wrote in his book, ‘Somanatha: the shrine eternal’, recollecting his visit to the ruins of the ancient temple in 1922. Munshi’s words had turned the issue of Somanatha from a largely regional issue to one of national and Hindu pride.

At the time of India’s Independence, the nawab of Junagadh decided to accede to Pakistan, even though 82 per cent of Junagadh’s population was Hindu. The Indian National Congress formed a parallel government and led an uprising against the nawab who fled to Pakistan. Consequently, the dewan handed over Junagadh to Indian administration.Soon after, on November 12, 1947, the then home minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel visited Junagadh.

A trust was created with Munshi as its chairman.

Rajendra Prasad in Somnath Temple

With the death of Patel in 1950 though, the responsibility of the reconstruction fell on Munshi’s shoulders. Since the Independence of the country, Patel and Nehru had been at odds on many issues ranging from who should be president of the country to who should take the presidency of the Congress party. On the question of minorities too, the two stalwarts were at odds. “Nehru felt that it was the responsibility of the Congress and the government to make the Muslims in India feel secure. Patel, on the other hand was inclined to place the responsibility on the minorities themselves,” writes historian Ramachandra Guha, in his book, ‘India after Gandhi’.

Guha further notes that Patel’s death “removed the one Congress politician who was of equal standing to Nehru.” But the prime minister still had to deal with differences with two other leaders — Congress president Puroshottamdas Tandon and President Rajendra Prasad. “It was clear that the prime minister and the president differed on some crucial subjects, such as the place of religion in public life,” writes Guha.

Later Munshi went ahead with his plans and asked Prasad to inaugurate the temple. When he heard of Prasad’s presence at the event, Nehru was appalled. He wrote to him expressing his disapproval. “Personally, I thought this was no time to lay stress on large-scale building operations at Somnath. This could have been done gradually and more effectively later. However, this has been done. [Still] I feel that it would be better if you did not preside over the functions,” he wrote.

While Prasad disregarded the advice of the prime minister and went ahead with the inauguration ceremony, he was sure to emphasise on the Gandhian ideal of inter-faith harmony in his speech at Somnath. He pointed out that to reconstruct the temple was “not to open old wounds”, but rather “to help each caste and community obtain full freedom”.

At Somnath, Prasad justified his idea of state and religion thus: “I respect all religions and on occasion visit a church, a mosque, a dargah and a gurdwara.”

© Ramachandran 

THE 51 SHAKTI PEETHS

They are Located in Sati's Body Parts

In Hindu mythology, the son of Brahma, King Prajapati Daksha had a daughter named Sati.

Princess Sati grew up adoring the legends and tales of Shiva, and when finally her age of getting married came, she knew it was only the ascetic Lord Shiva of Kailash where her heart and soul resided.

Soon enough, Daksha’s daughter left her father’s luxuries and palace and began her meditation to win Shiva’s heart.She performed intense penance in dense forests and renounced food completely. When she finally pleased Shiva through her austerities, the lord of Kailash appeared in front of her and agreed to marry her.

The legend goes that Sati and Shiva were happy in their marital bliss, but their marriage had not gone down too well with King Daksha, who considered ascetic Shiva nothing short of an uncouth lad who lives a hermit’s life not worthy of his daughter.

So when Daksha organized a great yajna, he invited all the deities, gods and sages–but consciously excluded his son-in-law Shiva to insult him. Hurt by her father’s decision, Sati decided to visit her father and demand the reason for not inviting them. When she entered Daksha’s palace, she was bombarded with insults directed towards Shiva.

Haughty and proud King Prajapati Daksha called him all sorts of names right from a dishevelled god who hung out in a graveyard to the supposed ‘lord of the beasts’. Unable to bear anything against her husband, a devastated Goddess Sati threw herself in the glowing sacred fire of yajna.

When Shiva’s attendants informed him about the demise of his wife, he grew enraged and created Veerbhadra from a lock of his hair. Veerbhadra created havoc in Daksha’s palace and killed him.

Meanwhile, mourning his beloved soulmate’s death, Shiva tenderly held Sati’s body and started his dance of destruction (taandav). To save the universe and bring back Shiva’s sanity, Lord Vishnu cut Sati’s lifeless body using Sudharshan Chakra into 51 pieces.

These pieces fell on earth at various places and came to be known as Shakti Peeths. All these 51 places are considered to be holy lands and pilgrimages.

1.  Amarnath: Shakti Mayamaya, Body part–Throat

One of the most famous temples of India, the Amarnath Shakti Peeth is located in India’s Jammu & Kashmir. Situated near Pahalgam in Anantnag district, this temple opens for pilgrimages during July/August when the Shivling is available for darshan. The throat of Goddess Sati is said to have fallen here. The devi resides here in the form of Shakti Mahamaya with Trisandhyeshwar as Vairabh.

2.  Attahasa : Shakti Phullara, Body part–Lips

This Peeth is located in Attahasa Village of Labhpur in Birbhum district of West Bengal. The goddess appears as Shakti Phullara and her lower lip is said to have fallen here. It is compulsory to offer sour eatables whenever bhog is offered to the Shakti. 

3.   Bahula: Shakti Bahula, Body part–Left Arm

Located on the banks of Ajay River, this holy land is situated in Ketugram, roughly eight kms from Katwa of Bardhaman district in West Bengal.  The goddess resides here in the form of Devi Bahula and is accompanied by Bhiruk as the Bhairava. The left hand of Sati fell on this land.

4.    Bakreshwar : Shakti Mahishmardini, Body part–Centre portion between eyebrows

This Peeth is located on the banks of Paaphara River, approximately 24 kms south west of Siuri town.  The centre portion of Goddess Sati had fallen here and she is worshipped in the form of Shakti Mahishamardini The temple is renowned for its eight natural hot springs which are enriched with healing powers.

5.    Bhairav Parvat: Shakti Avanti, Body part–Elbow

Maa Sati resides here in the form of Goddess Avanti.  This peeth is located near Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh at the Bhairav hills on the banks of Shipra River. In this temple, the goddess’s upper lip had fallen. 

6.    Bhawanipur: Shakti Aparna, Body part–Left anklet

Goddess Sati appears as Devi Aparna with Vaman as Lord Shiva in the Bhawanipur peeth, located in the Sherpur Village of Bangladesh.  Here, the left anklet (ornament) of Sati had fallen.

7.  Gandaki: Shakti: Gandaki Chandi, Body part–Forehead

Near the bank of Gandaki river, lies the Muktinath, Dawalagiri Peeth in Nepal.  Maa Sati resides here in the Gandaki Chandi form with Chakrapani as the Bhairav.  Here, her forehead had fallen and hence, the importance of this holy land can also be found in Vishnu Purana which is an ancient text of Hinduism.

8.    Janasthaan: Shakti Bhramari,  Body part–Chin

In the Godavari river valley in the Nasik city fell both parts of the chin of Goddess Sati. Devi is known as Shakti Bhramari or Chibuka (meaning Chin) here.

9.    Hinglaj:  Shakti Kottari, Bodypart–Top of the head

Sati’s   Brahmarandhra (top of the head) fell in Hinglaj, around 125 kms away from north-east of Karachi. The goddess here is in the form of Shakti  Kottari.

10.    Jayanti: Shakti Jayanti, Body part–Left Thigh

Locally known as Nartiang Durga Temple, the Jayanti Shakti Peeth is where the left thigh of Sati fell. Located in Kalajore, Bourbhag village in Bangladesh, Devi resides here in the form of Jayanti Shakti.

11.    Yogeshwari: Shakti Yogeshwari, Body part–Palms of Hand & Soles of Feet

Dedicated to Maa Kali, this Shakti Peeth is located in Iswaripur village, in the Khulna District in Bangladesh.  The goddess resides here in the form of Devi Jashoreshwari and Lord Shiva appears as Chanda. 

12.    Jwala: Shakti Ambika/Siddhida,  Body part–Tongue

Situated 30 km south to the Kangra Valley in Himachal Pradesh is the  Jwala Shakti Peeth. Discovered by the Pandavas, here the Goddess Sati resides in the form of Devi Ambika or Siddhida. Tongue of Sati is said to have fallen here. She sits in the form of a flame, which miraculously keeps burning, even under the layer of rocks.

13.    Kalighat: Shakti Kalika, Body part–Right Toes

This Hindu temple is in Kolkata, West Bengal. Kalighat is the site where Maa Sati’s toes of the right foot had fallen. The goddess resides here as Shakti Kalika.

14.    Kalmadhav: Shakti Kali, Body part–Left Buttock

Left buttock of Goddess Sati fell in Kalmadhav, Amarkantak in Shahdol district of Madhya Pradesh.  Devi appears in the form of Shakti Kali.

15.    Kamakhya: Shakti Kamakhya, Body part–Genitals

One of the fiercest incarnations of Goddess Sati is Maa Kamakhya.  Situated in the hills of Neelgiri in Guwahati, Assam, it is one of the most famous Shakti Peeths. The Yoni (genital organ) of Sati had fallen here. During June/July  the goddess’s menstrual course takes place for three days. The doors of the temples are closed during this period, and Angabastra is used to cover the Yoni-stone of the Devi.

16.    Kankalitala: Shakti Devgarbha, Body part–Pelvis

Located on the bank of Kopai River, in the Birbhum District of West Bengal, this temple is locally known as Kankaleshwari.  The Goddess is worshipped here as Devgarbha or Kankaleshwari.

17.    Kanyashram: Shakti Sravani, Body part–Spine

This famous temple is located in Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu.  Devi is in the form of Shakti Sravani.

18.   Chamundeswari:  Shakti JayaDurga, Body part–Both Ears

In the Chamundi Hills of Mysore is the Shakti Peeth where both the ears of Sati had fallen. The devi resides here and is worshipped in the form of goddess Jaya Durga.    

 19.   Kireet: Shakti Vimla, Body part–Crown

Crown of Sati had fallen in Kireet, near Lalbagh court road of Murshidabad district in West Bengal. Maa is worshipped here as Goddess Vimla.

20.    Ratnavali: Shakti Kumari, Body part–Right Shoulder

Locally known as the Anandamayee Temple, Kumari Shakti Peeth is situated on the bank of Ratnakar River in Khanakul, West Bengal.  Here, the right shoulder of goddess Sati had fallen. She is worshipped in the form of Shakti Kumari.

21.     Trisrota: Shakti Bhraaamari, Body part–Left Leg

This Shakti Peeth is on the bank of Teesta River in Jalpaiguri of West Bengal, and is locally known as Bhramari Devi Temple. Sati’s left leg had fallen here and she resides in the form of Shakti Bhraamari.

22.    Manasa: Shakti Dakshayani, Body part–Right Hand

This Shakti Peeth is located near the foot of Kailash Mountain in Mansarovar, Tibet, China. It is in the form of a stone slab. The devi is in the form of Shakti Dakshayani. Here, Sati’s right hand had fallen.

23.    Manibandh:  Shakti Gayatri, Body part–Wrists

Situated near Pushkar at the Gayatri Hills in Ajmer, Rajasthan, this Shakti Peeth is where two manivediakas or wrists of Sati had fallen.  The Goddess is worshipped here as Gayatri.

24.    Mithila: Shakti Uma, Body part–Left shoulder

Near the Janakpur Railway Station on the border of India and Nepal lies Mithila, where the left shoulder of Sati had fallen. Here, Sati is in the form of Shakti Uma.

25.    Nainativu: Shakti Indrakshi, Body part–Anklets

This Shakti Peeth is in Nainativu, Manipallavam, 26 kms from the ancient capital Jaffna, Nallur in Sri Lanka.  The idol of the goddess is  believed to be made by Lord Indra and was worshipped by both Lord Rama and King Ravan. The anklet of Maa Sati is said to have fallen here.

26.    Guhyeshwari: Shakti- Mahashira, Body Part- Both Knees 

Situated near to the PashupatiNath Temple in Kathmandu, Nepal, this temple is where both the knees of Maa Sati had fallen.  She is worshipped here as the Devi Mahashira. King Pratap Malla built this temple in the 17th century.

27.    Chandranath: Shakti Bhawani, Body part–Right Arm

Situated on the top of Chandranath hills near Sitakunda station, this Peeth is in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Goddess is worshipped as Devi Bhawani here. Sati’s right arm had fallen here.

28.    PanchSagar: Shakti Varahi, Body part–Lower Teeth

Located near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh, this Shakti Peeth is dedicated to “Maa Varahi”.  Devi Sati’s lower teeth fell here. 

29.    Prabhas: Shakti Chandrabhaga, Body part–Stomach

It is believed that the stomach of goddess Sati fell in Prabhas-Kshetra, near Somnath Temple in Guajarat’s Junagadh district. Here, the devi is in the form of Chandrabhaga.

30.    Prayag: Shakti Lalita, Body part–Finger

Fingers of both the hands of Goddess Sati fell in this Shakti Peeth. Goddess is worshipped here in the form of Lalita. There are three temples, namely, Akshaywat, Mirapur and Alopi. 

31.    Kurukshetra: Shakti Savitri, Body part–Ankle Bone

Maa Sati appeared as Savitri, also known as Bhadra Kali in Thanesar, Kurukshetra, Haryana.  The ankle bone of Sati had fallen here. 

32.    Maihar: Shakti Shivani, Body part–Right Breast

Maihar is an amalgam of two words; Mai meaning mother and Har meaning necklace. According to the Hindu Mythology, Sati’s necklace fell down in this city situated in Satna district of Madhya Pradesh, and hence people started calling it “Maihar”. The temple is situated at the Trikoota hill. Devi is worshipped here.

33.    Nandikeshwari: Shakti Nandini, Body part–Necklace

Located in Sainthia town in Birbhum district of West Bengal, this temple is where the necklace of Maa Sati had fallen.  This Shakti Peeth is only 1.5 kms from the railway station.  Devi is worshipped here Nandini.

34.    Vishweshwari: Shakti Rakini, Body part–Cheeks

This Shakti Peeth is located at Kotilingeshwara temple on the banks of Godavari River. Sarvashail is a famous Shakti Peeth where the cheeks of Goddess Sati fell. Maa Sati is worshipped here as Rakini.

35.    Shivaharkaray: Shakti Mahisha-Mardini, Body part–Eyes

This Shakti Peeth is situated near the Parkai Railway Station, near Karachi in Pakistan. Goddess Sati’s eyes fell here and she is worshipped as Mahisha-Mardini.

36.    Shondesh: Shakti Narmada, Body part–Right Buttock

At the source point of Narmada River, at Shondesh in Amarkantak of Madhya Pradesh fell the right buttock of Goddess Sati. Here, the devi is in the form of Narmada.

37.    SriSailam: Shakti Sundari, Body part–Right Anklet

Located in Tripurantakam, Sri-Sailam in Andhra Pradesh, this Shakti Peeth is where the right anklet of Maa Sati fell. The goddess is worshipped here in the form of Sundari and Sri Sundari.

38.     Sri Shail: Shakti Maha-Lakshmi, Body part–Neck

The Shakti Peeth is located at Sri Shail at Jaunpur Village in Bangladesh. Devi Sati’s neck is believed to have fallen here. Here, the goddess appears in the form of Maha-Lakshmi.

39.    Shuchi: Shakti Narayani, Body part–Upper Teeth

This temple is located at Suchindram, which is 11 kms on the  Kanyakumari  road of Tamil Nadu. Sati resides here as Devi Narayani.

40.    Shikarpur: Shakti Sugandha, Body part–Nose

Situated on the banks of river Sonda, Shikarpur is 20 km away from the Barisal town in Bangladesh. Here, the devi is known as Maa Sunanda or Devi Tara.

41.    Tripura: Shakti Tripur Sundari,  Body part–Right Foot

Situated in RadhaKishorepur Village, a few kms away from the Udaipur town, Tripur Bhairavi Shakti Peeth is where the right foot of Sati had fallen. The goddess is in the form of Devi Tripur Sundari.

42.    Ujjani: Shakti Mangal Chandika, Body part–Right Wrist

Located at Ujjani village in Guskara station of Burdwan district, West Bengal, this Shakti Peeth is where the right wrist of Devi Sati had fallen. She is worshipped here as Devi Mangal Chandika.

43.    Varanasi: Shakti Vishalakshi, Body part–Earrings

This temple is located in Manikarnika Ghat, in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. It is where the earrings of Goddess Sati had fell. Devi is worshipped here as Vishalakshi and Manikarni.

44.    Vibash:  Shakti Kapalini, Body part–Left Ankle

Located in Tamluk in Medinipur district of West Bengal, this Shakti Peeth is where the left ankle of goddess Sati had fallen. Goddess is worshipped as Kapalini.

45.    Bharatpur: Shakti Ambika,  Body part–Left Toes

It is believed that the fingers of the left feet of Goddess Sati fell in the Biraat Nagar, Bharatpur district of Rajasthan. Sati is worshipped here as Ambika Shakti.

46.    Vrindavan: Shakti Uma, Body part–Ringlets of Hair

In the Bhuteshwar Temple in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh lies this Shakti Peeth. The goddess Sati’s ringlets of hair are said to have fallen here. The goddess is worshipped as Devi Uma.

47.    Jalandhar: Shakti Tripurmalini, Body part–Left Breast

This Shakti Peeth is located in Jalandhar, Punjab. Devi Sati’s left breast fell here. The goddess resides here as Tripurmalini.

48.    Ambaji: Shakti Amba, Body part–One part of the Heart

Guarded by the Aravalli Hills from all sides, this gorgeous temple is situated in Gujarat. The temple is located on the peak of Gabbar Hill. It is said that the heart of Sati Devi’s fell here.  Aadi Shakti appears here as Goddess Amba.

49.     Jharkhand: Shakti Jai Durga, Body part–Second part of the Heart

Situated in Deogarh in Jharkhand, Baidyanath Jayadurga Shakti Peeth is one of the most revered temples of India. It is the temple where Goddess Sati’s heart had fallen and she is worshipped as Jai Durga.

50.    Danteshwari:  Shakti Danteshwari, Body part–Tooth

Located in Chhattisgarh, Danteshwari Temple is dedicated to Danteshwari Devi.  It is believed that Goddess Sati’s tooth fell here when Lord Shiva was carrying her charred, lifeless body around the earth.

51.    Biraj: Shakti Vimla, Body part–Navel

This Shakti Peeth is located in Jajpur, near  Bhubaneswar. This Peeth is also known as Nabi Gaya as the Nabhi (Navel) of Goddess Sati fell here. Sati is worshipped here as Devi Vimla.

© Ramachandran 

THE DEITY AND THE RIVER HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS

A New Zealand River is a Legal Person

With the landmark verdict on Padmanabhaswamy temple, the Supreme Court has recognized the privileges of a deity in India; this verdict will have a far-reaching impact, since in the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court had denied the rights to the deity. The current verdict can even reverse that verdict when the review petitions are finally heard.

The Travancore covenant signed by the Government of India was with Lord Padmanabhaswamy. This was made clear by the then ruler Chithira Thirunal to V.P. Menon and Sardar Patel that he was only acting on behalf of the Deity as His servant, Padmanabha Dasa.

The rights and privileges of all such rulers including the Ruler of all Rulers, Lord Padmanabhaswamy Deity was protected in our Constitution by the Constituent Assembly, as advised by Sardar Patel in his address to the Constituent Assembly.

Padmanabhaswamy Temple

The Supreme Court, in the famous Privy Purse judgement in 1971 interpreting the Constitutional guarantees given to rulers held that “The Rulers who were before integration of their States aliens qua the Dominion Government are now citizens.”

Even though the 26th Amendment to the Constitution removed the privileges and rights due to all rulers in an immoral act, the Supreme Court in a 1993 judgement upheld the 26th Amendment of the Constitution, approving the statement of objects of the amendment as “The distinction between the erstwhile Rulers and the citizenry of India has to be put an end to so as to have a common brotherhood.”

Prior to the 26th amendment of the Constitution, only Lord Padmanabhaswamy Deity, who was the ruler of the Travancore State, became Citizen as per the ratio of the Privy Purse judgement, by virtue of the 26th Amendment of the Constitution.

The SC judgement ratio upholding the conversion of Ruler to Citizen of Anantha Padmanabhaswamy under Article 14 of the Constitution is to create a common brotherhood. From this decision, all temple deities should now be considered as citizens, as there cannot be a distinction between one Hindu deity and another in our Constitution under Article 14.

In the Citizenship Act of 1955, Section 2(f) reads as follows: “‘person’ does not include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not”.

In Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act of 1961 “person” was defined including “artificial juridical persons” and the SC held in a 1969 judgement that Hindu deities can be taxed as per this definition.

In view of the above, since Section 2(f) of the Citizenship Act of 1955 did not bar Hindu deities as juristic persons from the definition of the term “person”, clearly there is no bar for the Central government to register Hindu deities as citizens under Section 5(a).

In view of the fact that the Central government granted citizenship to Lord Padmanabhaswamy Deity as Ruler when the Travancore kingdom was integrated, as held by the SC in its 1971 judgement, and due to the 26th Amendment of the Constitution and the ratio of the SC judgement of 1993 upholding the same under Article 14, it is now duty bound to register all Hindu deities as citizens under Section 5(a) of the Citizenship Act.

The Union Government should apply the same rule as that of the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna and register all the temple deities as citizens so that many issues can get resolved with this one stroke.

A river is a legal person

A New Zealand river, Whanganui, revered by the Maori has been recognised by Parliament as a “legal person”, in a move believed to be the world’s first. The river has been granted the same legal rights as a human being.

“The Great River flows from the mountains to the sea. I am the River, the River is me.”

With these words, the Maori tribes of Whanganui, New Zealand, declare their inseverable connection to their ancestral river. The river rises in the snowfields of a trio of volcanoes in central North Island. The tribes say that a teardrop from the eye of the Sky Father fell at the foot of the tallest of these mountains, lonely Ruapehu, and the river was born.

Swelled by myriad tributaries, it twists like an eel through a mountainous country—part of it a national park—on its 180-mile journey to the sea. Travel the precipitous River Road, and far below you will see canoeists drifting down the placid reaches, at one with the current and its cargo of flotsam and foam, then digging their paddles deep to hurtle through a rapid.

This is the river that for more than 700 years the Whanganui tribes controlled, cared for, and depended on. It is their awa tupuna—their river of sacred power. But when European settlers arrived in the mid-1800s, the tribes' traditional authority was undermined—and finally extinguished by government decree.

The local Maori tribe of Whanganui in the North Island has fought for the recognition of their river—the third-largest in New Zealand—as an ancestor for 140 years. Hundreds of tribal representatives wept with joy when their bid to have their kin awarded legal status as a living entity was made into law.

This legislation was passed on 15 March 2017. The legislation passed combines Western legal precedent with Maori mysticism.

"[It] will have its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person," Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said.

"The approach of granting legal personality to a river is unique."

The river, known by Maori as Te Awa Tupua, is the third longest in New Zealand.

Finlayson said the local Maori iwi, or tribe, had been fighting to assert their rights over the river since the 1870s, in New Zealand's longest-running legal dispute.

"This legislation recognises the deep spiritual connection between the Whanganui iwi and its ancestral river," he said.

It deems the river a single living being "from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements".

In practical terms, it means the river can be represented at legal proceedings with two lawyers protecting its interests, one from the iwi and the other from the government.

The iwi also received an NZ$80m ($56m) settlement from the government after their marathon legal battle, as well as NZ$30m to improve the river's health.

Based on the Whanganui precedent, 820 square miles of forests, lakes, and rivers—a former national park known as Te Urewera—also gained legal personhood. Soon a mountain, Taranaki, became the third person.

In recent years, New Zealand’s primary industries—the country’s economic backbone—have come in for close scrutiny and mounting criticism over their negative environmental impacts on waterways. Severe weather events connected to a warming climate—here torrential rain in the middle section of the Whanganui River, in an area of plantation forestry of Monterey pine—exacerbate those impacts, sending tons of soil and debris into the river.

In February 2017, voters in Toledo, Ohio, voted to grant legal standing to Lake Erie. In the wake of these initiatives, the question uppermost in many minds is whether such legislative devices will prove to have teeth in the courtroom.

Since 1975, a commission of inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal, has been steadily investigating, reporting, and recommending ways the Crown can resolve grievances brought by the more than a hundred tribes of Aotearoa-New Zealand.

The treaty guaranteed Maori the paramount authority they had exercised for time immemorial over their lands, habitations, and all that they treasured. Without question, the Whanganui chiefs who signed the treaty in 1840 would have considered the river a treasure—a treasure beyond price. It was their food basket, their medicine cabinet, their highway, and their defensive moat. It was their healer, their priest, and their parent. It was the source of their prestige and the core of their being. It was, as the Waitangi Tribunal explained in its report on the Whanganui River treaty claim, the central bloodline of their one heart.

In the new legislation, the Crown issues an apology for its historical wrong-doing, acknowledging that it breached the treaty, undermined the ability of Whanganui tribes to exercise their customary rights and responsibilities in respect of the river, and compromised their physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being.

Whanganui River

The Crown says it “seeks to atone for its past wrongs and begin the process of healing.” The Te Awa Tupua Act, it says, represents “the beginning of a renewed and enduring relationship,” with the river at its centre.

It’s a humbling statement for a government to make. But it doesn’t restore ownership of the river to the Whanganui tribes. Politically, that remains a bridge too far, even for a country that believes its future lies in a genuine “treaty partnership” between Maori and non-Maori.

Ganga has legal rights

In India, the Ganga River, considered sacred by more than 1 billion Indians, has become the first non-human entity in India to be granted the same legal rights as people. A court in Uttarakhand ordered that the Ganga and its main tributary, the Yamuna, should be accorded the status of living human entities. The decision, which was welcomed by environmentalists, means that polluting or damaging the rivers will be legally equivalent to harming a person. The judges cited the example of the Whanganui River in this context. It was on 20 March 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared that the Ganga and Yamuna would be legally treated as “living people,” and enjoy “all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person”. The order was stayed by the Supreme Court in July of that year because it “raised several legal questions and administrative issues”.

In the Ayodhya case, the Ram Lalla deity has been recognized as a juristic person. A juristic person, as opposed to a “natural person” (that is, a human being), is an entity whom the law vests with a personality. In Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Som Nath Dass and Others (2000), the Supreme Court said: “The very words Juristic Person connote recognition of an entity to be in law a person which otherwise it is not. In other words, it is not an individual natural person but an artificially created person which is to be recognised to be in law as such.” Gods, corporations, rivers, and animals, have all been treated as juristic persons by courts.

The treatment of deities as juristic persons started under the British. Temples owned huge land and resources, and British administrators held that the legal owner of the wealth was the deity, with a shebait or manager acting as trustee.

In 1887, the Bombay High Court held in the Dakor Temple case: “Hindu idol is a juridical subject and the pious idea that it embodies is given the status of a legal person.” This was reinforced in the 1921 order in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar, where the court said, “under the Hindu law, the image of a deity… (is) a ‘juristic entity’, vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property”.

This idea is now established in Indian law.

However, not every deity is a legal person. This status is given to an idol only after its public consecration, or pran pratishtha. In Yogendra Nath Naskar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1969), the Supreme Court ruled: “It is not all idols that will qualify for being ‘juristic person’ but only when it is consecrated and installed at a public place for the public at large.”

Apart from owning property, paying taxes, suing, and being sued, what else do deities as ‘legal persons' do?

In the Sabarimala case (Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs The State of Kerala & Ors, 2018), one of the arguments presented against allowing women of menstruating age entry into the temple was that this would violate the right to privacy of the Lord Ayyappa, who is eternally celibate.

A lawyer who worked on the Sabarimala case said: “Deities have property rights, but not fundamental rights or other constitutional rights.” This was upheld by Justice D Y Chandrachud in the Sabarimala judgment: “Merely because a deity has been granted limited rights as juristic persons under statutory law does not mean that the deity necessarily has constitutional rights.”

Generally, the shebait is the temple priest, or the trust or individuals managing the temple. In the 2010 Allahabad HC judgment in the Ayodhya title suit, Justice D V Sharma had said: “As in the case of minor a guardian is appointed, so in the case of the idol, a Shebait or manager is appointed to act on its behalf.”

What if some parties feel that the shebait is not acting in the interest of the deity? In Bishwanath And Anr vs Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors (1967), the Supreme Court allowed a “suit filed by the idol represented by a worshipper” in a case where the shebait was found “alienating the idol’s property”. The court held that if a shebait does not discharge their duties properly, a devotee can move court as a “friend of the deity”. 

Shebait

In the Padmanabhasway temple case, the Supreme Court upheld the Shebait (കാരായ്‌മ) rights of the Travancore royal family in the administration. Shebait is a person who serves a Hindu deity and manages the temple. The court said as per custom, Shebaiship survived the death of the ruler and his death didn’t result in escheat in favour of state government despite the 26th amendment to the Constitution that abolished privy purse paid to former rulers of princely states which were incorporated into the Indian Republic after Independence. Allowing the appeal filed by the Travancore Royal Family Maharaja, the top court accepted the Shebaitship of the royal family over one of the richest Hindu temples in India. The Supreme Court’s verdict effectively means the “Ruler” under the Instrument of Accession signed by the Princely state ruler with the Government of India at the time of independence is “Ruler” by succession and will not end with the death of the ruler who signed the instrument of accession.

In this verdict, the court defines 'Shebait' thus: "The expression 'Shebait' is derived from 'Sewa' which means service, and in the literal sense, means one who renders 'sewa' to the idol or a deity. Every ruler of Travancore would call himself 'Padmanabhadasa', ie, one who is engaged in the service of Padmanabhaswamy."

In the law dictionary, Shebaitship, property dedicated to an idol vests in it in an ideal sense only; ex necessitats, the possession and management has to be entrusted to some human agent. Such an agent of the idol is known as shebait in Northern India. The legal character of a shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactitude. Broadly described, he is the human ministrant and custodian of the idol, its earthly spokesman, its authorised representative entitled to deal with all its temporal affairs and to manage its property. As regards the administration of the debutter, his position is analogous to that of a trustee; yet, he is not precisely in the position of a trustee in the English sense, because under Hindu Law, property absolutely dedicated to an idol, vests in the idol, and not in the shebait. Although the debutter never vests in the shebait, yet, peculiarly enough, almost in every case, the shebait has a right to a part of the usufruct, the mode of enjoyment; and the amount of the usufruct depending again on usage and custom, if not devised by the founder. Shebaitship being property, it devolves like any other species of heritable property. It follows that, where the founder does not dispose of the shebaiti rights in the endowment created by him, the shebaitship devolves on the heirs of the founder according to Hindu Law, if no usage or custom of a different nature is shown to exist, Profulla Chrone Requitte v. Satya Chorone Requitte, AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431.

(ii) Shebaitship is in the nature of immovable property heritable by the widow of the last male holder unless there is a usage or custom of a different nature in cases where the founder has not disposed of the shebaiti right in the endowment created by him. Shebaitship is a property which is heritable. The devolution of the office of shebait depends on the terms of the deed or the Will or on the endowment or the act by which the deity was installed and properly consecrated or given to the deity.

The Travancore Kowdiar Palace

A mosque has never been held as a juristic person, because it’s a place where people gather to worship; it is not an object of worship itself. Neither has a church.

In Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Som Nath Dass and Others (2000), the SC ruled that the “Guru Granth Sahib… cannot be equated with other sacred books… Guru Granth Sahib is revered like a Guru… (and) is the very heart and spirit of gurudwara. The reverence of Guru Granth on the one hand and other sacred books, on the other hand, is based on different conceptual faith, belief and application.”

However, the court clarified that “every Guru Granth Sahib cannot be a juristic person unless it takes juristic role through its installation in a gurudwara or at such other recognised public place.”

In May 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the “entire animal kingdom” has a “distinct legal persona with corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person”. On March 20, 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared that the Ganga and Yamuna would be legally treated as “living people,” and enjoy “all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person”. The order was stayed by the Supreme Court in July of that year because it “raised several legal questions and administrative issues”.

Albert Einstein wrote in 1950 that the presumption that humans are separate from nature is “an optical delusion of consciousness,” and something of a cultural prison. “Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison,” he wrote, “by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

© Ramachandran