The recent incident at the sacred Kadiri Sri Narasimha Swamy Temple has triggered serious concern among Hindu devotees across Bharat. During the inauguration of eight police vehicles and surveillance drones on December 21, 2025, religious prayers from non-Hindu clergy were reportedly conducted at the entrance of a centuries-old Hindu temple, a space consecrated exclusively for Hindu ritual and worship. This act, carried out under the watch of state authorities and political representatives, raises fundamental questions about selective secularism and institutional insensitivity toward Hindu religious spaces.
A temple is not a neutral platform
Hindu temples are not generic public halls; they are Agamic, consecrated spaces governed by precise ritual traditions. A Hindu pujari’s prayer traditionally invokes cosmic balance, agricultural prosperity, social harmony, dharmic values, and collective welfare, reflecting a civilizational ethos rooted in lokasangraha (the well-being of all). Introducing alien religious invocations within such spaces, especially during official functions, violates the sanctity of the temple and disregards the sentiments of devotees.
It is equally troubling that the pastor and the maulana involved displayed no sense of self-respect or religious maryada, agreeing to recite prayers of their faith at the entrance of a consecrated Hindu temple. Any person of spiritual integrity would understand that true interfaith respect begins with honoring boundaries, not by intruding into another tradition’s sacred space.
State power and religious boundaries
According to reports by The Hans India, the event involved senior police officials, including S. Satish Kumar, and was facilitated by the local MLA Kandikunta Venkata Prasad. While the procurement of public safety equipment through CSR funds is commendable, the location and manner of religious conduct were ill-chosen. The state is duty-bound to ensure neutrality, but neutrality does not mean overriding the identity of Hindu temples.
Even more alarming is the fact that a sitting TDP MLA himself appears to have organized and permitted this act, in blatant violation of Andhra Pradesh GO Ms. No. 746, which explicitly mandates the protection of Hindu temple sanctity and strictly prohibits non-temple religious activities within temple premises.
Would this be permitted elsewhere?
A simple question exposes the asymmetry: Would prayers of another faith be permitted inside a church or mosque during a state function? The answer is self-evident. Yet Hindu temples repeatedly become sites where such boundaries are blurred, often justified under the guise of inclusivity, which in practice becomes one-sided accommodation.
Hindu dharma demands respect, not apology
This is not a call for exclusion or hostility. Hindu Dharma has always embraced coexistence. But coexistence does not mean erasure. Respecting diversity begins with respecting boundaries. The state and elected representatives must ensure that Hindu religious institutions are treated with the same dignity and restraint afforded to all other faiths.
What is unfolding before our eyes is not secularism but systematic double standards directed against Hindu Dharma. Hindu temples, sacred, consecrated spaces governed by Agama and tradition, are repeatedly treated as open playgrounds for political symbolism, while the same audacity is never shown inside churches or mosques. This asymmetry exposes a deeper rot: appeasement politics where Islamism and aggressive Christian proselytism are indulged, while Hindu traditions are expected to adjust, compromise, and remain silent.
For decades, vote-bank compulsions have emboldened political actors to override Hindu maryada (dharma-bound conduct) in the name of inclusivity, turning tolerance into one-sided submission. Hindu Dharma never opposed coexistence; it has always stood for Sarva Dharma Sambhava. However, coexistence does not mean the erasure of boundaries, nor does tolerance mean the humiliation of the sacred. When Hindu institutions alone are forced to bend, it ceases to be secularism and becomes institutionalized discrimination.
