Delving into historical archives, BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi accused Jawaharlal Nehru of vetoing the Somnath Temple’s reconstruction, crediting Sardar Patel for overriding the decision. The assertion, part of a broader critique of Nehruvian policies, has electrified political circles.
The Somnath Temple’s saga is etched in tragedy and triumph. Razzed to the ground by Ghazni and later Mughals, its 1947 revival symbolized India’s rebirth. Patel, as Home Minister, championed it passionately, viewing reconstruction as reasserting civilizational pride post-Partition trauma.
Nehru, however, demurred. Trivedi quoted Nehru’s statements decrying the project as ‘retrograde’ and a drain on resources needed for modernization. Cabinet debates reportedly grew heated, with Patel accusing Nehru of alienating Hindu sentiments at a fragile time.
Undeterred, Patel mobilized trusts and industrialists, bypassing central hurdles. The temple’s pran pratishtha in 1951 drew lakhs, a vindication of Patel’s resolve. Nehru’s lukewarm involvement—sending Rajendra Prasad instead—underscored the schism.
This episode fuels ongoing BJP campaigns reframing independence icons. Trivedi framed it as Nehru’s secularism morphing into minorityism, contrasting Patel’s ‘Bharat-first’ approach. Historians corroborate the opposition via declassified papers, though Nehru’s defenders cite his role in temple protections elsewhere.
In contemporary context, Somnath’s grandeur—now with modern amenities—belies the struggles of its rebirth. Trivedi’s speech amplifies calls for balanced historiography, challenging dominant narratives in textbooks and discourse.
As elections loom, such revelations sharpen ideological battles. They compel a revisit to 1940s decisions that molded India’s soul, reminding us that nation-building involved reconciling diverse legacies amid chaos.