Yes, we don't stop at 3. 40,000 is the goal

After that prana pratishta of Rama Janmabhoomi temple, J Saideepak made a statement on primetime TV that Hindus should reclaim the 40,000-odd temples usurped by the Islamists.  

Both @Vishnu_Jain1 and I are not just looking at Kashi and Mathura; we are looking at 40000 sites; and no third party professing to represent Hindus can make any concession on behalf of those who want to reclaim these sites: @jsaideepak

Undaunted. Unflinching. Unshakable. pic.twitter.com/90720ZpO8o

— Anand Ranganathan (@ARanganathan72) January 30, 2024

As expected, a few elite Muslims argued against it that it would keep the country in a threatening confrontational mode.

In complete disagreement with this, it will keep the nation state of India in a 24/7 threatening confrontational mode. https://t.co/xSAFVKGZKX

— Khalid Baig (@KhalidBaig85) January 30, 2024

Then the neo Hindutvavaadis and the sundry Savarkarite began attacking Saideepak and Anand Ranganathan.  They stand for Hindu unity and economic development.   They are less concerned about the traditions - rather they use the term 'trad' derogatorily to refer to the traditionalists.   They are probably afraid of differences within the Hindu communities or the impact of such a statement on international relations.  There is a need to explain Saideepak to the opposing group.

40,000-odd temples were usurped by force, not by negotiating with the erstwhile Hindu rules or even the dharmakartas.  The currency that helped in the act was obviously the military strength and political power of the Muslim rules.  Centuries have elapsed since then.  We have a legal system, a constitution, and a more or less functioning law and order machinery.  These were jokes in the first 60 years of Indian democracy.  The legal system was constantly influenced by the ruling government, the constitution was violated at the drop of a hat; law and order used to disappear when there were riots.  No rioter was apprehended or punished till 2002.  No government officials were pulled up for failing to act.  

It has not changed altogether since 2014, but there are signs that law and order could be enforced; the judiciary can be independent; and the Constitution is respected.  We may have to go a long way.  But we have to improve these in the coming years.  The point here is - confrontation expressed as street fights is no more easy.  Average Muslims must understand this.  

Saideepak's statement gives a fair chance to Muslims - to fight the cases in the courts of law.  They have equal access to the judiciary, unlike the unfortunate Hindus during the Mughal and other Islamic periods.  But I think his statement is directed more towards Hindus - to wake them up and not be content with electoral wins.  There is work to be done on the civilizational side.  

An average "educated" Hindu is at best, indifferent towards his tradition.  In most cases, he hates his tradition of castes and rituals.  Saideepak's stance on the Sabarimala issue was an eye-opener for most Hindus.  I, as an indifferent Hindu began talking about the Sampradaya to my son who was looking at the issue as a liberal Hindu.  There is a need to convert the hater to at least the indifferent level and the indifferent to an activist.  By activist, I mean someone knowledgeable about his tradition, and has a balanced view of castes, rituals, and customs.  We need to elevate Hindus from being Whatsapp-message-forwarding uncles and aunties.  More Hindus need to create more good quality content; to start with, they should be able to engage with opposing views within the family on topics like rituals and customs.  Or they can start with knowing the temples that must be reclaimed near their homes; read about their history, look for documentary proofs of demolition or illegal occupation, and so on. 

At a political level, we need to have goals.  Advaniji set the goal of one temple, Modiji influenced the masses to set the goal of 3 and Saideepak is setting the goal for 40,000.  Without such goals, the energy of the political Hindu will be wasted in hairsplitting conversations on economic policies and election strategies.

It might take us a hundred years to win back the 40,000 temples.  Most of us would have been gone by then.  But having such a goal is important for the Hindus.  One may disagree with Saideepak on the direction in which he wants Hindus to proceed; express that disagreement, and be civil about it.  Abusing him or ridiculing his cause would in no way help the Hindu agenda.