In a stunning revelation that challenges long-held narratives, BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi has claimed that India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, outright refused the reconstruction of the iconic Somnath Temple in Gujarat. Speaking at a recent public event, Trivedi accused Nehru of blocking efforts to restore the ancient Hindu shrine, which had been desecrated multiple times over centuries.
The Somnath Temple, perched on the shores of the Arabian Sea, holds immense religious and historical significance for Hindus. Destroyed by invaders including Mahmud of Ghazni in 1026 AD, it symbolized resilience and faith. Post-independence, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel championed its rebuilding as a national project to heal communal wounds.
Trivedi highlighted how Patel overcame fierce opposition from Nehru, who reportedly viewed the initiative as divisive. ‘Nehru said no to Somnath’s revival,’ Trivedi asserted, quoting historical records and letters that paint a picture of ideological clash within the Congress leadership. Patel’s persistence led to the temple’s inauguration in 1951, but not without behind-the-scenes battles.
This claim reignites debates on Nehru’s secularism versus Hindu revivalism. Critics argue Nehru’s stance prioritized a strict separation of state and religion, while supporters see it as pragmatic governance. Trivedi used the anecdote to underscore Patel’s unifying vision against Nehru’s alleged appeasement politics.
Historians note that Nehru attended the 1951 ceremony reluctantly, signaling his discomfort. Documents from the era, including Patel’s correspondence, reveal tensions over funding and symbolism. The episode remains a flashpoint in India’s political discourse, often invoked in BJP narratives to contrast leaders.
As Gujarat prepares for temple-related events, Trivedi’s statement has sparked social media frenzy. Fact-checkers are poring over archives, but the core assertion aligns with known historical frictions. This isn’t just about bricks and mortar—it’s a battle over legacy in modern India.
The controversy underscores enduring divides in interpreting India’s founding years. Whether Nehru’s refusal was principled or prejudiced, it shaped the nation’s cultural landscape profoundly.