Can a Secular State Build Temples? Bihar Poses the Test

The Hindu

2 days ago

Published : Aug 12, 2025 17:59 IST - 8 MINS READ
Can the Indian state build a temple or a mosque? Perhaps the question needs to be reframed. In the present context, imagining the state building a mosque appears absurd. On and after December 6, 1992, it was made amply clear that the Indian state can indeed assist in the destruction of a mosque. It was once declared in an act of bravado that the state would rebuild the mosque, which was demolished in a criminal act, as clarified by the Supreme Court nearly 25 years after the crime was committed.
That obviously was never to happen. What was done instead was to usurp the land of the mosque legally for the construction of a temple. By 2025, we have come to realise that the state has consistently taken many leaps. It uses different excuses to make mosques controversial, as we see it doing in the cases of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi and the Shahi Eidgah of Mathura. It is even agreeable to participate in their removal directly or indirectly.
The Uttarakhand government has not taken any steps to prevent the demolition of hundreds of mazars in the State. It has instead come out with justification of the crime by claiming that the mazars are part of the land grab conspiracy (land jihad, as they love to call it), and it is fair to free the pious land.
Therefore, we must instead ask: 'Can the Indian state build a temple? Does it have the constitutional authority or sanction to do so?'
The powers and rights of the state and the government are derived from the Constitution. To the question, 'Can the state construct a religious site?', the constitutional answer is unambiguous: 'NO'. India is a secular republic. It cannot promote or patronise any one religion. It cannot engage directly in religious activity.
However, the state does have a role in maintaining public order when religion enters the public sphere. Its involvement in facilitating the Amarnath Yatra or ensuring the peaceful conduct of Ram Navami processions stems from this duty. Providing logistical support such as transportation, temporary shelter, or repairing roads to pilgrimage sites falls within this ambit. But the state is not to go beyond this.
Also Read | Kanwar Yatra's transformation into political weapon
And yet, we know that Prime Ministers shoot arrows at Ravana during Ramlilas, and Chief Ministers participate in the Jagannath Rath Yatra. Now governments shower flowers on Kanwariyas! Or police officers are seen massaging the feet of the Kanwariyas.
That is obviously going too far. But if we leave aside these egregious acts, we know that Indian secularism is not puritanical; it acknowledges and respects religiosity. Therefore, a Chief Minister participating in a Rath Yatra or attending Eid prayers ought not to raise eyebrows. It is often believed that such gestures nurture communal harmony. After all, when Diwali is celebrated at the White House or 10 Downing Street, Hindus in India too feel a sense of joy and inclusion. But this does not answer the core question: 'Can the state go further and build a religious site?'
The Ayodhya verdict
This question first emerged when the Supreme Court, in its Ayodhya verdict, awarded the site of the demolished Babri Masjid for the construction of a Ram temple. Even then, a certain fig leaf of propriety was maintained: the construction was handed over to a trust, not undertaken directly by the government. The state was asked to form the trust. But it was not directly made responsible for the construction of the temple. Also, apparently, state funds were not used.
Still, the credit for the temple was claimed by the BJP. The Prime Minister was thanked for the court's verdict. At the inauguration, he played the role of the principal yajman. The temple's consecration was converted into a state event, rightly criticised as not only the inauguration of a temple, but the symbolic inauguration of a Hindu Rashtra.
Since we did not pause long enough to reckon with that moment, we are now forced to confront the same question again.
Just days ago, in Sitamarhi, Bihar, the State government initiated the construction of a grand Sita temple. Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and Union Home Minister Amit Shah participated in the bhoomi pujan at 'Punaura Dham', believed to be Sita's birthplace. Both acted as chief yajmans in this religious ceremony.
Before the event, the Bihar government ran full-page advertisements in nearly every newspaper for at least three days, announcing its plans for the comprehensive development of the temple and its precincts. It has acquired 50 acres of land for Rs.165.57 crore, and has earmarked Rs.882.87 crore for the project. This number will undoubtedly increase. Periodic advertisements—each costing lakhs, if not crores—will accompany the progress of this project.
Can the Bihar government do this? Can a secular state extend such unambiguous patronage to one particular religion?
This is a question that the media ought to have asked, and political parties in Bihar, too, should have done that. But the media, silenced by advertisement revenue and its growing alignment with the BJP and the State government, has abdicated its responsibility. Otherwise, it could have posed a simple question: 'Why are taxpayers' funds being used to build a site belonging to a particular religion?'
Hindutva and public indifference
No one objected to Amit Shah or Nitish Kumar attending the event in a personal capacity. But how can they act as chief yajmans while holding public office?
How can the state itself build a temple?
India's political landscape is now so deeply suffused with Hindutva that even self-professed secular parties lack the courage to ask these questions. More troubling still is the public indifference. As a society, we no longer find these questions necessary.
No one now reminds us that, in the early years of Independence, Mahatma Gandhi had opposed the use of public funds for the renovation of the Somnath temple. Prime Minister Nehru had even objected to President Rajendra Prasad attending the temple inauguration.
At the temple's groundbreaking in Sitamarhi, hundreds of sadhus were in attendance. Was their travel and accommodation arranged by the state too? The media ought to have shown interest in such questions. But to do so, it must reacquaint itself with the basic principle that India is a secular republic.
That Nitish Kumar has occasionally donned a Muslim skullcap offers no defence of his current actions. Nor is this the only instance. The Bihar Transport Department has announced that it will subsidise fares for people travelling to and from the State during the 'festive season lasting three months'—specifically for Durga Puja, Diwali, Chhath, and Holi. Its calculation is wrong. From Durga Puja to Holi is not three months, but nearly six months of the calendar year.
'If the fate of Bihar's people was truly tied to a temple, why have they been made to endure Nitish Kumar's government for nearly two decades and the BJP's at the Centre for 11 years?'
Why is public money being used exclusively to support Hindu festivals? Again, this policy was advertised in full-page newspaper ads, the cost of which must also be counted.
Governments often justify such expenditures under the guise of 'religious tourism'. They argue that these initiatives generate revenue for the state and also provide employment to local people residing in those religiously significant places.
Thus, the state's participation in religious activity is repackaged as secular—a convenient fabrication. The devotee earns spiritual merit, and the state earns money: a win-win, apparently. But would the state demonstrate the same generosity during Eid or Bakrid? Does it do so?
Shortly after Nitish Kumar returned to power, one saw advertisements inviting people to perform pind-daan in Gaya. The Bihar government was essentially claiming that performing these Hindu rituals in Gaya would liberate the souls of ancestors.
Clearly, it was peddling spiritual inducements, positioning Gaya as a rival to Kashi—as though salvation were a matter of competitive marketing. That it can do this is a reflection of how deeply eroded public consciousness has become around the idea of a secular state. In the past eleven years, governments have participated so often and so directly in Hindu religious events that it now appears normal.
Sita temple: Spiritual or political endeavour?
The announcement of the Ram temple in Ayodhya had triggered protests from opposition parties in Bihar, who claimed that Sita was being ignored—that she was not being given an equal place alongside Ram. Thus began the groundwork for a Sita temple in Sitamarhi. Now, that project is under way.
At its inauguration, the Union Home Minister declared that this was not merely the beginning of a temple but the beginning of Bihar and Mithila's fortune. But if the fate of Bihar's people was truly tied to a temple, why have they been made to endure Nitish Kumar's government for nearly two decades and the BJP's at the Centre for 11 years?
Also Read | Mohan Bhagwat's call for religious harmony reflects the duplicity of RSS
Is the Sita temple a spiritual endeavour, or a political one? The Home Minister made it clear. Its purpose or objective is entirely worldly. Instead of speaking about why Sita is significant to the Hindu mind, he used the occasion to attack the opposition and criticise their objections to the Special Intensive Revision, the recent drive by the Election Commission to update the election lists. He vowed to keep out 'infiltrators'.
This was not a religious speech; it was a political campaign speech. It confirmed what many had suspected—this temple is a part of a Hindutva political project, akin to the Ram temple in Ayodhya. It has nothing to do with devotion to Ram or Sita.
The only discernible development is this: Nitish Kumar has now enthusiastically joined the BJP's Hindutva project.
Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University and writes literary and cultural criticism.