Somnath Swabhiman Utsav: Recalling History After 1,000 Years || The Struggle of Somnath – Continuous Hostility from Ghazni to Nehru || Modi’s Presence Sparks New Discourse on Cultural Nationalism
From January 8–11, 2026, a four-day “Somnath Swabhiman Utsav” (Somnath Pride Festival) is being organized to commemorate two historic milestones: the 1,000th anniversary of Mahmud of Ghazni’s attack on the Somnath Temple and the 75th anniversary of its modern reconstruction. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be present at the Somnath Temple on January 10 and 11, participating in the celebrations.
Exactly one thousand years ago, in January 1026, the I@lamic invader Mahmud of Ghazni attacked the Somnath Temple—not merely to plunder wealth but as an act of jih@dist barbarity aimed at propagating Isl@m and asserting Islamic supremacy. This was because the Somnath Temple holds the foremost and most sacred position among the twelve Jyotirlingas dedicated to Lord Shiva. Despite repeated assaults by fanatical invaders thereafter, they could never shake India’s eternal faith—Somnath was rebuilt again and again.
**Nehru’s Letters Expose Questions About Congress’s Secularism**
Even before attending the “Somnath Swabhiman Utsav,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi shared on social media photographs of a ceremony held at the temple after 50 years, stating that India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple and actively obstructed it. The BJP has released 17 letters written by Nehru concerning the Somnath Temple, placing not only Nehru but the entire Congress party under intense scrutiny. Through these letters, the BJP has challenged Congress’s historical policies, reinforcing the narrative that Congress-style secularism effectively meant hostility toward Hindus.
**Patel’s Resolve: Rebuilding Somnath Through Public Donations**
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel took a solemn vow to rebuild the Somnath Temple just after Independence, standing before the sea on November 11, 1947—a resolution unanimously endorsed by the Union Cabinet, even in Nehru’s presence. Though Nehru remained silent during the cabinet meeting, he later vehemently opposed the proposal and tried every possible means to block the temple’s reconstruction. However, Patel’s determination prevailed over Nehru’s resistance. Nehru even complained to Gandhi about his frustration. Gandhi then advised Patel against using government funds for reconstruction. Accepting this suggestion, Patel established the Somnath Trust and raised public donations to rebuild the temple.
**President Rajendra Prasad vs. Nehru: The Consecration Controversy**
When Nehru was invited to the consecration ceremony of the reconstructed Somnath Temple, he coldly declined. He even instructed all his ministers—and notably, the President himself—not to attend the event. Nevertheless, President Dr. Rajendra Prasad decided to attend the ceremony. Nehru went so far as to indirectly order the President not to use any government resources for attending the function. Consequently, K.M. Munshi personally arranged for the President’s travel. Nehru grew so resentful toward Rajendra Prasad over this that he harbored lifelong animosity toward him. Normally, retired Presidents receive lifelong housing and allowances from the government, but Nehru deliberately denied Rajendra Prasad any official residence. In his final days, the ailing former President spent his time in a damp, moldy room at the Congress Party office—Sadaqat Ashram—in Patna, where he eventually passed away.
**Nehru Aligned with Liaquat Ali Against Somnath**
In a 1951 letter to Chief Ministers, Nehru expressed anger over the “fanfare and ceremony” surrounding the Somnath Temple’s inauguration, arguing it would damage India’s secular image abroad. He even directed Indian embassies to ignore requests from the Somnath Trust for holy river water for the consecration rituals. On April 21, 1951, Nehru wrote to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan—addressing him as “Dear Nawabzada”—and assured him that nothing like the Somnath Temple’s reconstruction was actually happening. Nehru further instructed Indian embassies not to assist the Somnath Trust in any way, including requests for river water for the abhishek (consecration). In a letter to India’s ambassador in Pakistan, Nehru explicitly ordered formal rejection of using Sindhu River water for the Somnath abhishek. He also directed the Foreign Secretary and Cabinet Secretary to ensure embassies completely disregard any such requests from the Trust.
Releasing Nehru’s letters hasn’t revealed anything new—his anti-Hindu stance was already public knowledge, backed by ample evidence.
**Had Nehru Prevailed, the Ram Temple Would Not Exist**
Nehru’s attitude toward Hindu sentiments is evident from his correspondence regarding the Ayodhya dispute, documented in the Nehru Papers. When idols of Ram Lalla mysteriously appeared inside the Babri Masjid on the night of December 22–23, 1949, Nehru was furious. News of the manifestation drew thousands of devotees to Ayodhya, creating a massive crowd that overwhelmed local law enforcement. Acting on Nehru’s instructions, local Congress workers—led by District Congress President Akshay Brahmachari—launched protests and indefinite hunger strikes, pressuring district authorities to remove the idols. Nehru immediately ordered Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Govind Ballabh Pant to have the idols removed. When Pant failed to act decisively, Nehru directly called Faizabad District Magistrate K.K.K. Nayar and ordered immediate removal of the idols from the sanctum sanctorum. Nayar explained that thousands had gathered at the site, making removal extremely difficult.
**K.K.K. Nayar Saved the Ram Temple**
To counter mounting political pressure, District Magistrate Nayar attached the Janma Bhoomi premises, appointed a receiver, and entrusted him with the responsibility of performing daily rituals to Ram Lalla. These rituals continued uninterrupted until the Ram Temple was finally constructed. An enraged Nehru sent a telegram to Pant on December 29, 1949:
“I am deeply concerned about developments in Ayodhya. I hope you intervene personally in this matter immediately. Dangerous precedents are being set, which will have grave consequences.”
Pant, through the state’s Chief Secretary, issued a written order to Nayar demanding immediate removal of the idols—even if it required force. Nayar firmly refused, warning that such action would provoke mass outrage and lead to large-scale casualties—an outcome both administratively and politically unacceptable. Thanks to Nayar’s alertness and courage, a civil suit over the Janmabhoomi site was filed in Faizabad court on January 16, 1950, bringing the matter under judicial review. Pant told Nehru further intervention would be improper, but Nehru remained adamant about removing the idols—even attempting (unsuccessfully) to pressure the judiciary.
On March 5, 1950, Nehru wrote another letter to Pant—originally addressed to the Faizabad administration—reiterating his order for immediate removal of the idols. Nayar expressed inability to comply with the Prime Minister’s directive. In a letter to the Chief Secretary, Nayar stated that if the government insisted on forcibly removing the idols, he should first be relieved of his post, as such action would inevitably cause mass casualties. In response, Nehru accused Nayar of defying orders and even offered to visit Ayodhya himself—but Pant, fearing backlash from Ram devotees, dissuaded him.
On May 18, 1950, Nehru wrote to Bidhan Chandra Roy:
“Thank you for your letter of May 16... A mob led by local priests and orthodox Hindus has seized an old mosque built by Babur in Ayodhya. I say with great sorrow that the UP government showed extreme weakness in handling the situation. You may have noticed the large-scale exodus of Muslims from UP.”
Nehru made every possible effort to preserve the B@bri M@sjid structure over Ram Janma Bhoomi. His numerous letters in the Nehru Papers clearly reveal his deep discomfort with Hindu religious activities and the cultural resurgence of Sanatan Dharma.
**Congress and Allies React Defensively**
Unsurprisingly, Congress and its allies have responded defensively. By questioning Nehruvian secularism, the BJP is exposing Congress’s anti-Hindu mindset while politically championing Hindu cultural revival. Undoubtedly, Modi’s visit aims to place India’s cultural heritage at the center of political discourse—a strategy that leaves the opposition looking increasingly marginalized. The Somnath issue transcends mere temple reconstruction; it symbolizes a deeper ideological clash—between Nehru’s artificial secularism and Sardar Patel’s vision of cultural nationalism.
Since Independence, Congress has consistently pursued M@slim polarization for electoral gains. Now, it faces the challenge of Hindu polarization in favor of the BJP—a trend contributing to Congress’s repeated electoral defeats. If Congress seeks Hindu support, it must understand and respect Hindu sentiments; otherwise, it will never politically rival the BJP.
In 2024, Congress boycotted the Ram Temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya. Had they participated, they could have blunted Modi’s Hindutva appeal—but instead, they reaffirmed their Nehruvian appeasement policy. Earlier, in 2007, during the Setu Samudram Project case, Congress had even submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court claiming Ram and the Ramayana lacked historical basis and were purely fictional.
There are many such instances where Congress, much like past invaders, repeatedly attacked Hindu faith. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Hindu public continues to reject Congress from power. If there’s a price to pay for appeasement, there’s also a cost for opposition—one that must now be borne.
~~~~~~~~Shiv Mishra ~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment