Row Over Inauguration Of Jagannath Temple In Bengal's Digha As Puri Servitors Decline Mamata's Invite
The Puri servitors raised concerns regarding the inauguration of the newly constructed Jagannath Temple in Digha, stating that the sanctity of the Puri Jagannath temple must be preserved.
Controversy has erupted over the inauguration ceremony and rituals of the newly constructed Jagannath Temple in Digha, West Bengal. Puri Jagannath temple servitors, researchers, and intellectuals have raised concerns regarding the Digha Jagannath temple.
The inaugural ceremony of the Digha Jagannath temple, modelled after the renowned Jagannath Temple in Odisha's Puri, is scheduled to take place in Digha on April 30, on the auspicious occasion of Akshaya Tritiya.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has extended an invitation to Puri servitors to attend the ceremony and has also invited Chunara sevayat to tie the flag on the temple. However, the Niyog has declined the invitation and imposed restrictions on its members, warning that any member who participates in the flag-tying rituals in Digha will be banned from service.
Moreover, the Mahasuar Nijog has announced plans to protest if the prasad is sold under the name of Mahaprasad. Several questions have been raised about the newly constructed Jagannath temple in Digha.
Puri Servitors Raise Concerns
The Puri servitors raised concerns regarding the inauguration of the newly constructed Jagannath Temple in Digha, stating that the sanctity of the Puri Jagannath temple must be preserved. The Shrimandir is irreplaceable, and no other temple dedicated to Lord Jagannath around the world can claim to be an alternative to the Shrimandir. Hence, the inaugural ceremony in Digha cannot replicate the rituals performed at the Puri Jagannath temple.
The temple in Digha should worship Lord Jagannath like other temples, where devotees receive darshan without the commercialisation of Mahaprasad, the servitors stated. Selling Prasad under the name of Mahaprasad would diminish its sanctity, they noted.
Further, they demanded that the West Bengal government should restrict the entry of Muslims into the temple, allowing access only to Hindus to preserve its sanctity. Otherwise, the temple may lose its religious significance and become akin to a museum.
First Published:
April 22, 2025, 13:49 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
34 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
A critical test for institutions
The Supreme Court stopped short of instituting an internal probe into the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, following a March letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat raising issues of jurisdiction, this newspaper reported Monday. The letter reiterated the process as referred to by Rajya Sabha chairperson and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar previously in February in Parliament — that only Parliament and the President have the jurisdiction to proceed against the judge, who is in the dock for alleged hate speech against Muslims delivered in December 2024. Even as the Supreme Court took note of that speech, a group of 55 opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics'. As per the law, the removal of a high court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must go through Parliament. The chairperson will now have to decide on the admissibility of the motion and if an inquiry needs to be held. The Rajya Sabha chairperson, who has been vocal about judicial integrity and institutional probity, should ensure that the complaint against the judge is now processed in a transparent manner and concluded before the judicial officer retires in April next year. A timely closure in the matter is necessary to ensure that there is no reputational damage to the judiciary, Parliament, or the concerned judge, in case he is found innocent of the alleged hate speech. Interestingly, while Justice Yadav, reportedly, regretted his conduct and assured the Supreme Court collegium that he will render a public apology in a closed-door meeting with it in December, he has not issued one and instead defended his speech, delivered in a meeting of Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists in Prayagraj, as reflecting India's cultural ethos. A judge is bound by oath to protect constitutional values, not articulate majoritarian sentiments or populist views, even if they are part of some perceived cultural ethos. Any deviation is a violation of the oath and compromises the integrity of the judiciary. The Justice Yadav case presents a critical test. It is not merely about the conduct of one judge but will have wider implications for the principle of separation of powers and commitment of public institutions to constitutional ideals. How this matter is now handled by the Rajya Sabha will set an important precedent for the future of India's democratic institutions.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Man who filed case against influencer Sharmishta Panoli arrested in Kolkata
The man whose police complaint led to the arrest of social media influencer and law student Sharmistha Panoli in Gurugram on May 30 has himself been arrested by the Kolkata Police. Wajahat Khan, who had allegedly been on the run since June 1, was arrested following a series of raids after multiple summons were ignored.A case was registered against Khan at the Golf Green Police Station in Kolkata for allegedly spreading hate speech and hurting religious sentiments through his social media activity. Following the FIR, police served three notices at his Garden Reach residence, directing him to appear for questioning. However, Khan remained on the run until his Panoli was arrested late on May 30 in Gurugram by Kolkata Police after a video she posted on social media drew strong reactions. In the video, Panoli used abusive language and made communal remarks criticising Muslim Bollywood celebrities for their silence on Operation Sindoor. She was subsequently presented before a magistrate and sent to 14-day judicial custody. The video in question was later deleted, and Panoli issued a public Panoli's arrest, Khan was reportedly missing, with his father Saadat Khan telling the media that Wajahat had not returned home and that the family had been receiving threatening calls accusing them of "ruining Panoli's life".Meanwhile, a formal complaint was also filed against Wajahat Khan with the Kolkata Police by the Shree Ram Swabhiman Parishad. The complaint, dated June 2 and addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Garden Reach Police Station, accused Khan of using derogatory, inflammatory, and sexually explicit language targeting Hindu deities, religious traditions, and the community at letter alleged that Khan referred to Hindus using terms such as "rapist cultures" and "urine drinkers", and called for action under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as the Information Technology Panoli was granted interim bail in connection with the Operation Sindoor post case. As part of the bail conditions, she has been barred from leaving the country without prior permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. She was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs 10, court, while refusing to grant her interim bail earlier, had said that freedom of speech is not absolute and does not allow anyone to hurt religious sentiments.
