See All Articles

The Temple Heist and the Cracking of a Forced Consensus: How Opposition Is Rising From Within the Religious Sphere

Something remarkable is unfolding in the domain of religion. An opposition is being born. Not in parliament. Not on the streets. But inside the very sacred space that was carefully manufactured into an unchallenged monolith. And if this opposition grows—and there are signs it will—the BJP knows its support base could suffer a deep wound.

The same religion whose name was weaponized to annihilate the political opposition—where every question raised by the opposition was branded anti-Hindu, anti-Ram—that same religion is now nursing an opposition within itself. The theft at the Ram Mandir has done something no political party could achieve. It has cracked open a space for dissent inside the fortress of faith.

The Two Destructive Centers of Religious Dissent

The opposition forming within the religious sphere has two destructive centers. The first comprises prominent figures connected to religious institutions who are openly opposing the dominance of a single organization in the temple administration and Ayodhya's expanded construction. Sometimes they name names through hints and gestures. Sometimes—increasingly now—they directly name the RSS and the VHP. The manner in which these organizations have been challenged from religious platforms in Ayodhya after the temple theft, the questions raised about control—this demands our attention.

Consider what has happened since 2014. The long era of the Modi government manufactured a broad consensus in the religious sphere. A consensus enforced through power and authority, through which it was simply assumed that within the domain of religion, there existed no second opinion about Modi, about the BJP, about the RSS. But now, a second opinion is being heard. And a third.

Organizations connected to Hindu religion, religious leaders—everyone started chanting "Modi, Modi" after 2014. They still do. They will continue to. But the voice of protest arising from the temple theft does not sound like it belongs to this era. The BJP knows its political foundation is religious. It is because of religion that people overlook the government's countless failures and cast their votes. If opposition intensifies within the religious sphere itself—if the religious supporter becomes angry because of a theft at the temple—a challenge could emerge.

"Do Not Curse the House" — And Who Exactly Is the House?

Film actor Anupam Kher's statement deserves attention. He said that when a theft occurs in your house, you curse the thief, not the house. Hindus, he said, should understand this. Those who donated here did not bribe God. Donation happens without expectation. Do not curse the house.

And what is this house? The house is the RSS, the VHP, and the BJP. And who are the heads of this household? Prime Minister Narendra Modi. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. The temple incident is being framed as a family matter. But the public is reading it differently—are the accused, who are important people, being protected in the name of the family?

Anupam Kher is not alone. From the first day, the line was drawn—who are these others to level accusations? The truth is this: had Akhilesh Yadav not dared to make the allegation, had he not taken this risk, the matter of the temple theft would have been quietly pushed aside. Managed. No one would have known.

News about the theft spread like fire after Akhilesh's statement. The BJP's religious supporter became alert. Ears perked up. People started asking whether morality was being observed in this matter. Was accountability being demanded? Was action taken immediately, or delayed by months, by weeks?

The Desperation in "It's a Family Matter"

The BJP, on the other hand, was reading the meaning of this anger. That is why it repeatedly emphasized: this is a family matter. An internal matter. A theft occurred. The family members will manage it among themselves. They will catch the thieves. Wait fifteen more days. Be patient. Don't worry. But—do not, under any circumstances, fall into the trap of those who wish to defame Ayodhya, who wish to insult the Ram Janmabhoomi temple.

The BJP's restlessness is visible in these statements. It knows that all its explanations about the temple theft and the Trust's land purchases are not generating much trust. Countless questions exist in the minds of its own supporters. Some have started speaking openly. Some remain silent out of fear. But even those who are silent have questions in their hearts.

The BJP must be thinking: if, because of religion, its supporter becomes vocal, becomes enraged, or silently angry and drifts away to the margins—then there will be trouble. And if those religious organizations that were silenced before the colossal influence of the RSS start speaking, and if other religious organizations follow their lead—then the consensus imposed upon the religious sphere will shatter.

The Consensus Has Already Cracked

The consensus has cracked. And from that crack, the opposition is visible, emerging from within religion itself.

Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati of Jyotir Math is demanding the dissolution of the temple Trust. He is issuing warnings continuously. Repeatedly asking: why are RSS people sitting in the Trust? What is their work? They should be removed.

Mahant Dinendra Das, the head of the Nirmohi Akhara—which was a party in the Ram Janmabhoomi case—is saying that if a theft occurred in Ram Lalla's house, it means Ravan has reached there. He says the senior officials of the temple Trust gave him no responsibility because, perhaps, he does not belong to their ideology. Understand this: Mahant Dinendra Das says that including him in the temple Trust must have been a compulsion for these people, because the judgment clearly stated that the Nirmohi Akhara should be given effective representation.

Mahant Dharamdas of Hanuman Garhi, also a party in the Ram Mandir case, is opposing the Trust. He demands management through the Mahanti system. Mahant Dharamdas has been leveling allegations of theft and looting against the Trust since the two-thousand-teens. He had submitted a written complaint at the police station that temple money was being invested in business.

But then, there was no uproar over his words. Because by then, the BJP, the RSS, and the Modi government had established complete control over the religious sphere. No voice of disagreement could be heard from anywhere. And if a voice emerged, it received no support.

The Silencing Machine: 2014 to 2024

After 2014, such voices stopped being heard. In 2019, no one could dare to speak. In 2024, the temple's inauguration silenced everyone. Religious institutions are considered independent of any political party. But in the atmosphere of 2024, everyone started appearing as BJP workers. Everyone started repeating the BJP's line.

The whip with which the BJP was driving all religious organizations—after the temple theft, many saints have come forward and grabbed that whip. Santosh Dubey is sitting in Ayodhya, single-handedly opening a front. Giving interviews every day. Speaking of threats to his life. His interviews are being shown. Santosh Dubey is speaking about theft and embezzlement, against the control of the RSS and BJP.

Had this same Santosh Dubey spoken in 2019, no Godhi channel would have shown him. But today, his profile is being printed. Through Anil Mishra's case, people are speaking openly against the control of the RSS and BJP.

Therefore, the opposition forming in the religious sphere—the voices of protest breaking out—should be heard. It is possible that after some time, these voices will fall silent. But one possibility is visible: the control of the RSS over religious institutions rests only on the strength of political power. Whenever that power appears weakened, such voices will be heard again.

This is why the BJP is aggressively targeting the opposition parties that exposed the temple theft. But on the other hand, when the people and saints of Ayodhya target the control of the RSS and BJP, the party falls silent. It cannot call them anti-Ram or anti-religion.

Can the BJP call Mahant Dharamdas anti-religion, anti-Ram? During the Ram Mandir movement, he accused the VHP of embezzling donations. That matter was closed. Suppressed. Now statements about that old matter are being printed again. Being shown again. It seems as if many people were waiting for this very day—for something to happen so they could vent their anger. So they could speak about the control of the RSS and VHP.

Even the Worship Is Being Questioned

A report by Nitin Mishra of Amar Ujala shows saints raising before the Trust the lack of adherence to tradition. They say the worship is not being conducted according to the Ramanandi tradition. Several standards of the Ramanandi tradition are not being followed. The Trust's treasurer, Govind Dev Giri, has said that improvements in the worship system and the arrangements for devotees will be visible in the next two to three months.

Consider this: questions are being raised even about how the worship is being conducted. Traditions are not being followed. These complaints are rising. And now they are being heard. These voices should be seen as a form of protest rising from within the religious sphere.

Was all this possible before the temple theft? Questions are being raised even about the worship. Is this a small question? There are thousands of sadhus and saints in Ayodhya, not just two or four. Only two or four are shown in the media. The day the media's camera turns toward all these sadhus and saints, you will begin to hear the voice of protest. With greater articulation.

This anger within the religious sphere was suppressed. It was crushed. It remained suppressed even when Ayodhya politically ousted the BJP.

Ayodhya's Silent Rebellion

It was the effect of this very dissent and opposition that the people of Ayodhya, in 2024, without making a noise, without raising slogans, defeated the BJP on the Ayodhya Lok Sabha seat. The year the temple was inaugurated, the BJP lost the Ayodhya seat. Samajwadi Party's Awadhesh Prasad became the hero. But Ayodhya fell silent after that. Ayodhya was watching. Watching to see if the BJP would understand the meaning of this. And whether it would withdraw the control of one organization's ideology over the temple and the city.

Doing so was not possible for the BJP then. Nor is it possible now. The neglect of local people and local traditions in Ayodhya's expansion also compelled the people of Ayodhya to become a political opposition. But now the opposition is emerging with the support of the religious sphere and religious symbols.

This is not the opposition connected to opposition parties. This is the opposition that was standing on the BJP's side.

The BJP thought the protest was political. So it engaged in trying to manage it. After Dinesh Prasad became the MP, the allegations of rigging in the Milkipur by-election were not even acknowledged. The BJP's victory was declared a great victory. Even then, the process of opposition forming in Ayodhya did not end. That same opposition is visible to you now in the religious sphere after the temple theft. Water is being poured repeatedly on that fire of opposition being formed. But the fire is not being extinguished.

Dattatreya Hosabole's Revealing Appeal

A month after the temple theft, the RSS felt it should speak. Dattatreya Hosabole's statement arrived. And observe the appeal made in that statement: "Defeat the conspiracies of anti-Hindu, anti-national forces to defame Hindu religion and society." An appeal is being made to the entire Hindu society. That means that within the religious sphere, within the religious support base, the voices of rebellion and opposition are troubling the BJP.

The BJP is afraid that its political foundation—which is, in fact, a religious foundation—could crack. Who are these "opponents of Hindu religion"? Will you call those who exposed the temple theft opponents? How can they be opponents of Hindu religion?

It was the effect of this very opposition and dissent that in the case of the theft at the Ram Mandir—which the BJP was trying to make a family matter, appearing indifferent—as soon as the news of theft at the Badrinath temple arrived, the party realized the matter could slip out of hand. Immediately, an FIR was filed. The Chief Minister started issuing statements. An inquiry committee was formed.

But recall: in 2023, senior priest and vice-president of the Char Dham Teerth Purohit Samaj, Santosh Trivedi, alleged that a scam of one hundred twenty-five crore rupees had occurred in the maintenance of the Kedarnath temple. The sanctum sanctorum's wall was plated with copper instead of gold. The administration's inquiry gave a clean chit to the temple administration. It was said that the gold wall exists. At that time, the Badrinath-Kedarnath Temple Committee denied these allegations and said there was a conspiracy to damage the temple's reputation.

But this time, on social media, it started circulating that the offering money was being spent on politicians. This information was not provided by the Chief Minister. Not by any leader connected to the BJP. Not by any religious leader connected to the RSS. This information came out through an RTI. Immediately, the Badrinath-Kedarnath Temple Committee swung into action. An inquiry committee was formed. An FIR was lodged. And the accused personal assistant, Pramod Nautiyal, was even suspended.

Whereas in the Ram Mandir theft case, it took eighteen days for an FIR to be filed. It took a month for Champat Rai and Anil Mishra to resign from the Trust.

The Meaning of the Delay

The meaning is clear. Someone was sensing. Someone was feeling that if the anger of the people in the religious sphere grew, the support base the BJP possesses on the foundation of religion could crack.

The theft at the Ram Mandir is being called a great sin. By saints. By the public. The offerings made at the temple of Lord Ram—what would you call their theft? And this great sin has been committed by the BJP and RSS together.

The saint's words are scathing: the temple of Lord Ram was taken under control, but the work done was "Ram on the lips, dagger under the armpit." Theft was committed in the name of Lord Ram. And the reality is that only forty days of theft have been caught. In forty days, the temple was looted seventy times. They have left even Ghazni behind. And these self-proclaimed, so-called protectors of Hindutva—the RSS and BJP—neither cared nor were troubled.

But this time, opposition has been born within religion.

The Ghosts That Are Returning

The story of Praveen Togadia, expelled from the Vishwa Hindu Parishad organization, is surfacing again. How he was removed. What happened to him. Suddenly, Praveen Togadia's voice is becoming relevant.

In Guwahati, Togadia said that a theft has occurred at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya—the Trust and the police have admitted it. For millions of Hindus, this is an assault, a sorrow, and an outrage. We had not imagined even in our dreams that a dacoity would take place at the center of Hindu faith. We are stunned. His demand: not a single person should be spared. A fast-track court case should be run, and a sentence of life imprisonment or death by hanging should be given.

And another event has occurred. The old history of Nripendra Mishra, connected to the temple construction committee, is being dug up. Prakash Sharma, an RSS-BJP member and spokesperson for Champat Rai, wrote on Facebook that Nripendra Mishra served innocent Ram devotees with gun bullets during the Janmabhoomi movement. Santosh Dubey is also giving statements—that the bullets on Karsevaks were ordered by Nripendra Mishra. Only the late Mulayam Singh Yadav was defamed for this.

Now think: why is Nripendra Mishra being targeted? Through him, whose control is being targeted? You will arrive at the control of the RSS, VHP, and BJP.

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, in his speeches, talks about the Samajwadi Party—that in their government, bullets were fired at Karsevaks. Why is Yogi Adityanath reviving this memory? Is it so that Nripendra Mishra's history is dug up? So that the Samajwadi Party is forced into a debate, making Nripendra Mishra an issue?

Nripendra Mishra himself has stated that the bullets were not fired on the orders of Mulayam Singh Yadav. The district administration fired them. In administrative procedure, the Chief Minister gives directions. Orders are given by the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary. Nripendra Mishra was the Principal Secretary in Mulayam Singh Yadav's government.

Yogi Adityanath should ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi why the Modi government awarded the Padma Vibhushan to that same Mulayam Singh Yadav—whose name he takes in his gatherings, the person he says ordered bullets fired at Karsevaks. Why was he honored? Can the Modi government honor a person it believes ordered bullets fired at Karsevaks connected to the Ram Mandir? Nripendra Mishra was also given the Padma Vibhushan by the Modi government.

Now the RSS, BJP, and VHP—all three—should clarify what Nripendra Mishra's role was in the matter of firing bullets at Karsevaks.

"House" Whose Walls Are Crumbling

The BJP says this is a family matter—ghar ki baat. People know whose family matter this is. It is the family matter of the RSS, VHP, and BJP. But people want to see whether you can take action against the big people of your own house.

People are asking: it is a family matter. The house was in your hands. Those in whose hands it was—will their accountability be demanded? It took a month just to resign. Anil Mishra and Champat Rai were removed. No FIR has been filed till now. The needle of suspicion also points toward Gopal Rao. When Champat Rai breaks his silence, against whom will he speak? What will he say? Against Gopal Rao—or against those people who stopped him from filing an FIR? Who were those people? Will Champat Rai ever be able to say all this?

This is why the BJP is deeply troubled by the formation—by the very possibility of the formation—of opposition within the religious sphere.

The Three Centers of Emerging Opposition in Religion

The opposition forming in the religious sphere has three centers:

• Within religious institutions
• Within the BJP's religious support base
• Within the narrative of Hindu unity

After Prime Minister Narendra Modi's electoral successes, the narrative of Hindu religious unity was exaggerated and amplified. It was shown that the RSS and Prime Minister Modi had transformed caste-divided politics into Hindu unity. An atmosphere was created in the name of this unity. Questions related to caste were dismissed.

These people never tried to understand what kind of religious issues were emerging within that religion, within that unity. Thousands of religious institutions may have one purpose, but everyone's religious and economic influence is different. There is competition among them. There are clashes of interests. Disputes occur. Murders happen.

The politics of religion cannot appear one-sided and monolithic. The voices of dissent within it were suppressed. Crushed. Those same voices are now rising again.

This is not only about Ayodhya. In Mathura too, a section of the saint community is opposing the beautification plans. But no one is listening. In Banaras too, there is resentment. In 2024, like Ayodhya, resentment was visible there too. But there too, silence dominates. The people there are unable to voice their concerns. The people of Dal Mandi are troubled. But the prominent people of the city, out of fear, are not standing with them. The heads of religious institutions can no longer voice the concerns of the public.

When Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati of Jyotir Peeth started speaking continuously against the government, a case was fraudulently imposed on him. The same way the political opposition was frightened with cases and litigation, voices from the religious sphere were also silenced. Because of this fear, many saints and mahants fell silent. But the restlessness within many is now growing.

Why Did No One Speak for So Many Years?

In the religious sphere, apart from the public that practices religion, there are institutions connected to its management. Akharas. Ashrams. Heads of maths. Several saints have said that theft had been ongoing at the Ram Mandir for years. Then why, for years, could no one say anything? How did the heads of religious institutions keep sitting with so many questions? Were they afraid of the E.D.? Did they see the threat of their ashram's control being snatched away?

After the temple theft, everyone has found an opportunity to speak. Those who appeared hesitant on the side of the ruling establishment are now appearing vocal on the side of the opposition.

We were shown that the opposition had been eliminated from politics. But the opposition had also been eliminated from within the religious sphere. Now opposition is forming in the domain of religion. The BJP is becoming restless.

Do not connect these matters to elections. The election results have no relation to these matters. Elections are now won through other means. But the BJP's supporters stay silent about that victory because of this very religious unity. If opposition begins forming in the religious sphere, if restlessness increases—the questions of all of them could also become connected to electoral victory.

If theft at the temple is a great sin, then stealing votes and snatching away the right to vote is no act of virtue either.

---

Criticisms

• A forced consensus was manufactured in the religious sphere after 2014, silencing all dissenting voices through power and authority.
• Religious institutions were effectively converted into extensions of a political party's machinery.
• The temple theft was attempted to be managed and suppressed as a "family matter" rather than treated as a criminal act demanding immediate accountability.
• Eighteen days were taken to file an FIR in the Ram Mandir theft case, while an FIR in the Badrinath case was filed almost instantly—revealing selective urgency.
• The RSS and its affiliated organizations are accused of exercising total control over the temple Trust, sidelining legitimate stakeholders like the Nirmohi Akhara.
• A Padma Vibhushan was awarded by the government to an individual whose own party's narrative holds responsible for bullets fired at Karsevaks—a contradiction never explained.
• Religious leaders who dared to question the administration were threatened with fabricated legal cases, mirroring the treatment of political opposition.
• The narrative of "Hindu unity" was used to bury legitimate questions of caste, tradition, and local rights under a monolithic political project.
• No FIR has been filed against senior Trust officials even a month after resignations, suggesting protection rather than accountability.
• Offerings and donations at major temples were allegedly diverted, with oversight mechanisms either absent or controlled by the same organizations benefiting from the opacity.
• Local populations and local traditions in Ayodhya were neglected in the rush to construct a political symbol, turning residents into an opposition force.
• A climate of fear was systematically created where saints and mahants remained silent about years of alleged misconduct, afraid of losing control of their own institutions.
• The distinction between a religious institution and a political organization was deliberately erased, making independent religious voices nearly impossible to hear.