Tirupati Board Suspends 4 Non-Hindu Employees, Members Welcome Decision
The TTD's decision comes in the wake of internal inquiries and a report submitted by its Vigilance Department. The employees' alleged practice of non-Hindu religious faiths is considered a breach of the institution's code of conduct, which mandates that individuals employed within the TTD system must adhere to the tenets of the Hindu faith in both conduct and practice.
"In this context, after examining the report submitted by the TTD Vigilance Department, action was taken against them as per the rules and the four employees were immediately suspended," stated a press release issued by the Chief Public Relations Officer (CPRO) of TTD, Tirupati.
The TTD has a long-standing rule, reinforced in 2007, which mandates only Hindu employees for its workforce.
Bhanu Prakash, BJP TTD Board member supported the suspension and alleged that these employees lacked faith in Hinduism. He said they were using the deity's resources while maintaining faith in other religions. He said that their struggle would continue until the last non-Hindu employee is removed.
In a meeting chaired by TTD Chairman B R Naidu, the Board decided to transfer the non-Hindu employees to other government departments or offer them voluntary retirement (VRS).
Earlier this July, the Board had suspended its Assistant Executive Officer (AEO) with immediate effect for allegedly practising another faith in his hometown in Tirupati district.
In February this year, the TTD Board took action against 18 non-Hindu employees, who allegedly followed other religions despite taking an oath to uphold and follow the Hindu faith when they joined.
All of them were barred from taking part in religious activity of the temple and take a transfer to positions that are not connected to the temple.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
'We will soon see': Donald Trump seeks to broker ceasefire amid Thailand Cambodia conflict
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said he has spoken to representatives of both Cambodia and Thailand, border nations currently embroiled in a conflict. The President said both countries want immediate ceasefire, and want to hop back on a 'Trading Table' with the United States. Amid ongoing clashes between Thailand and Cambodia, Donald Trump has said both sides want a ceasefire.(AFP) "After speaking to both Parties, Ceasefire, Peace, and Prosperity seems to be a natural. We will soon see!" a part of Trump's Truth Social post read. He said he had phone calls with the Prime Minister of Cambodia and the acting Prime Minister of Thailand. It has been three days since Cambodia and Thailand's border dispute intensified, leading to clashes, with both nations claiming they acted in self-defence. Talking about his separate conversations with leaders of Cambodia and Thailand, Trump said, 'They are also looking to get back to the 'Trading Table' with the United States, which we think is inappropriate to do until such time as the fighting STOPS.' Trump said he would conclude trading agreements with both countries when peace is restored. Announcing his efforts to broker a ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand, Trump also referenced the India-Pakistan conflict from May, that he has multiple times claimed to have stopped. 'I am trying to simplify a complex situation! Many people are being killed in this War, but it very much reminds me of the Conflict between Pakistan and India, which was brought to a successful halt,' a part of another post by Trump read. Thailand and Cambodia share a 817-km long land border, and have had a dispute for years regarding the ownership of a Hindu temple, the Prasat Ta Muen Thom, located on the border. Over 30 people have lost their lives and thousands have been displaced in what is being seen as the biggest fighting between the neighbours in 13 years. In Thailand, seven soldiers and 13 civilians had been killed and Cambodia has reportedly lost five soldiers and eight civilians, according to news agency Reuters.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
BJP slams SP MLA for saying that only illiterate people go on Kanwar Yatra
Only illiterate, superstitious villagers embark on the Kanwar Yatra, Samajwadi Party (SP) MLA Ziyauddin Rizvi said on Saturday (July 26, 2025), claiming that the family members of big leaders or industrialists do not undertake this pilgrimage. 'Flowers are being showered on Kanwar Yatris. Why do no sons of an IAS officer or PCS officer, or the sons of Amit Shah, Anil Ambani or of any BJP MP or MLA go for the Kanwar Yatra?' asked the Sikandarpur MLA, addressing an SP rally at Ballia district headquarters. 'Communal polarisation' The BJP accused the SP of trying to create communal divisions, claiming that Mr. Rizvi's statement showed his religious intolerance. 'The recent remarks reflect a morally bankrupt and narrow-minded view of faith, revealing an intolerance toward religious diversity. Matters of belief should remain private, not weaponised for political gain. This rhetoric, rooted in frustration, exposes a dangerous pattern of communal polarisation. True to form, the Samajwadi Party is once again attempting to stoke division in a desperate bid to stay politically relevant,' said Pushkar Mishra, a senior BJP leader based in Uttar Pradesh. The Kanwar Yatra is a major pilgrimage undertaken during the month of Sawan, also known as Shravan, according to the Hindu calendar. The Yatra is especially undertaken by devotees of Lord Shiva, with many observing fasts and refraining from consuming meat, alcohol, and even onion and garlic during this period.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
In 1988, Vajpayee flirted with the idea of joining V P Singh but realised the cost
. The man mourned by both Shah Rukh Khan and Vladimir Putin, and whose legacy has only grown since his death, is at the heart of Abhishek Choudhary's expansive biography of Atal Behari Vajpayee. In an interview with Neelam Raaj, the author, who has just released the second volume titled 'Believer's Dilemma,' reflects on his eventful life and poignant final years It's the centennial year of both Vajpayee and the RSS. Does the dilemma in the title allude to Vajpayee's complicated relationship with the Sangh Parivar? Yes. In phases of ascendancy, Vajpayee outgrew the RSS to become a national figure; in moments of crisis, he was pulled back into the fold by the Parivar's organisational muscle. Tensions sharpened in 1979, when he publicly blamed the RSS for the Janata govt's collapse. They floated the BJP in confusion, but the relationship remained convoluted. The title also gestures beyond Vajpayee- to broader dilemmas in the right-wing ecosystem: the tension between power and responsibility versus ideological purity. It also hints at the predicament of the average Hindu believer: how to inhabit one's religious identity without surrendering to its chauvinistic articulations. You call Vajpayee a 'classic doublethinker'... Only in a specific context. Vajpayee saw himself as both a swayamsevak and a democrat and convinced himself the two were not only compatible but complementary: that a gentle kind of Hindutva was the only sustainable model of secularism. Flip the conviction slightly, and yes, one could call him a classic doublethinker. But that tendency isn't unique to him. Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Ambedkar too had moral dilemmas, but not this kind of double-speaking. Yet, the same traits that made Vajpayee a doublethinker also kept him consequential, while more progressive voices of his generation faded from public memory. You write that in 1988, Vajpayee came close to quitting the BJP- a moment V P Singh also alluded to in his memoir. But Vajpayee later laughed this off. How did you confirm this, and what brought him to that point? The late 1980s were a confusing, event-packed phase, and Vajpayee's worst period. Marginalised after the 1984 rout, he let Advani and Nagpur steer the party rightward. After Shiv Sena won Vile Parle in 1987, the BJP sought collaboration. Simultaneously, Bofors broke out and V P Singh was floating a new party. Vajpayee flirted with joining him. The BJP's founding president proposed a new party with select moderates. But he realised the cost: his political capital and emotional investment were tied to the Sangh ecosystem. If the alternative had been more robust, Vajpayee may have quit. I would not judge him. He would deny it later, but several people I spoke to confirmed that it did happen. You start the book by saying you wanted to set some facts straight. What were these myths? Let me mention three here. First, he wasn't as culpable in the 1983 Assam violence as some make out. Second, his obfuscations during the Ayodhya movement — especially his defence of the BJP in Parliament — helped spread the impression that the razing of Babri was a freak accident, despite much evidence to the contrary. Third, that the 1998 nuclear tests were a political stunt by the right-wing govt. In fact, by this time, with the CTBT deadline looming, nuclear testing had ceased to be a moral question for the political class. The Treaty was seen as the P5 (permanent members of the UN Security Council) freezing the nuclear apartheid status quo. Even the CPM thought the P5 were being hypocritical. Any stable govt might have tested. The protests from Communists and Congress later were mostly tactical. Why has Brand Vajpayee become bigger after his death? Because the ideological project he served has grown far bigger. We forget how often he was overshadowed by Congress prime ministers. In 2004, he completed a full term, helping turn India into a multi-party democracy. At this moment of paranoid polarisation, it's easy to forget that three decades ago, few believed that a party other than Congress could steer this mindbogglingly disparate country. There's a PR aspect too: the current dispensation wants his name on welfare schemes etc, minus his civility and sagacity. Some of the posthumous glow also comes from liberal nostalgia — for a more conciliatory era. But that, too, is selective memory. You describe how Vajpayee voted against the Indo-US nuclear deal he helped lay the groundwork for. What made him do that? It had everything to do with the BJP's desperation by mid-2008. As poll defeats piled up, survival instincts trumped foreign policy. Vajpayee, stroke-battered, wanted to help Advani bag the top job. If the UPA lost a trust vote, a bypoll might follow. If the NDA grabbed power, Advani told allies he'd renegotiate the deal. And so, the patriarch was stretchered into Parliament to vote against the deal — a pathetic final visit for India's longest-serving parliamentarian. You write with empathy, especially in the final chapters. How did you navigate the balance between biographical detachment and empathy? Navigating the balance is not my chief concern. I gather the material, then let it lead me; both take depressingly long. Yes, I try to understand my subjects on their own terms, especially when I disagree with them. Vajpayee's final years, stripped of voice and agency- were tragic, and I tried to capture that. In one of his last appearances, he wondered if a human being could ever truly liberate oneself. Asked to recite a poem, he said he'd turned into a kavi ka bhoot, a poet's ghost, the title of the last chapter. For his peers, his end also intimated the nearing of their own. The last bits are, therefore, about the tolls of ambition and the burden of history.
