Yashovarman then defeated Herambapala’s son, Devapala, and took it away to Khajuraho. The Pratihara ruler Herambapala defeated the Sahis and wrested the image of the deity. This image was initially obtained from Mount Kailash by the “Lord of Tibet”, from whom the Sahi King of Orissa wrested it. In 950 CE, the Chandella ruler Yashovarman built the Lakshman temple at Khajuraho to house the Vishnu Vaikunth, made of gold. The image acquired the sobriquet of Vatapi Ganapati.ī. In 642 CE, the Pallava ruler Narasimhavarman I defeated the Chalukyas, sacked their capital of Vatapi, and brought the image of Ganesha to his kingdom in Tamil Nadu.
Instances of image appropriation by Hindu kings:Ī. Though the Gaudas failed to achieve the desired result, their act of retribution does illustrate the symbolism inherent in destroying the image the ruler worshipped. However, they mistook a silver image of another deity for Parihasakesava, and took to grounding it to dust even as Kashmiri soldiers fell upon them. They clandestinely entered Lalitaditya’s capital and made their way to the temple of Vishnu Parihasakesava, the principal deity of the Kashmiri kingdom. When the Kashmiri ruler Lalitaditya treacherously killed the king of Gauda (Bengal), his attendants sought to seek revenge. In the early 10th century, the Rashtrakuta king Indra III destroyed the temple of Kalapriya, which was patronised by his arch enemy, Pratiharas.ī. Instances of demolition of temples by Hindu kings:Ī. Roman installation of the Temple of Jupiter in place of the Second Temple on Temple Mount in 70 CE. Destruction of a Jewish temple in Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II in 587 BCE. Some common instances in this regard are as follows: This phenomenon was rife between not only different religions, but between different denominations in such religions/belief systems as well as sections thereof. The phenomenon of shared sovereignty of the king and the deity, or the king as the appointee of the deity was a common occurrence in ancient and medieval times, and the advent of any new king resulted in the demolition of deities of the previous ruling class. It is important to emphasize that the idea of constitutionalism and modern constitutions, including our Constitution, provide a fortuitous escape from such barbarous and authoritarian societies. The Act enforces non-retrogression of one of the basic features of constitutionalism, that is, secularism.Īlso read: Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991: A shield for Indian secularism?Īny attempt at ‘undoing’ the perceived injustices of the past shall open a Pandora’s box of history, and is not only impracticable but may also result in chaos and anarchy known to ancient and medieval times. Thus, the Act enforces non-retrogression of one of the basic features of constitutionalism, that is, secularism. #The rare occasions notion free#
Enjoyment of one’s rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others. Where in a free play of social forces it is not possible to bring about a voluntary harmony, the State has to step in to set right the imbalance between competing interests and there the Directive Principles of State Policy, although not enforceable in courts, have a definite and positive role introducing an obligation upon the State under Article 37 in making laws to regulate the conduct of men and their affairs.” (emphasis supplied by author) “ No rights in an organised society can be absolute. In Acharya Maharajshri Narandraprasadji Anandprasadji Maharasj versus State of Gujarat (1974), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court observed: The Act, thus, puts into practice a constitutional mandate, and it is unimaginable to term it as unconstitutional. The right of one person to freely practice their religion is subject to right of another person to exercise the aforesaid freedom.
It is germane to note that the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons equally under Article 25 of the Constitution. Thus, the Act is based on the principle of equal entitlement of persons belonging to any religious denomination or section thereof. THE Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 protects places of worship of all denominations and sections thereof equally.
Response to Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay’s petition before the Supreme Court
0 kommentar(er)
