‘Temple visit is my personal right, not soft Hindutva,’ says Kerala CM VD Satheesan.

Temple Visit Sparks Political Debate: Kerala CM V.D. Satheesan Rejects ‘Soft Hindutva’ Allegation, Calls Worship a Constitutional Right.

B Upendran | HENB | Thiruvananthapuram | July 16, 2026:: Kerala Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan has firmly rejected allegations that his recent visit to the Kollur Mookambika Temple in Karnataka reflects a “soft Hindutva” political strategy, asserting that his religious practices are a matter of personal faith and are fully protected by the Constitution of India.

Addressing reporters on Wednesday, Satheesan described the criticism as baseless and emphasized that his visits to the renowned Mookambika Temple predate his entry into high public office by several decades. According to the Chief Minister, he has been a devotee of Goddess Mookambika for approximately 37 years and has regularly offered prayers at the temple since the late 1980s or early 1990s.

“When I go to the Mookambika Temple, it is my personal right. I have the constitutional right to believe in God. How can that be called soft Hindutva?” Satheesan said during the press conference.

Reaffirming his long-standing religious association with the shrine, he added, “I have been going to Mookambika Temple for the last 37 years. I am a devotee of Kollur Mookambika. I am very happy to say that.”

The Chief Minister argued that assuming public office does not require an individual to abandon long-held personal beliefs or religious traditions. He questioned the logic behind the criticism directed at his temple visit and suggested that such arguments undermine the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

“The majority of people visit temples, churches and mosques. Can anyone say that I should stop going to a temple because I have become the Chief Minister?” he asked.

Satheesan further alleged that the controversy had been manufactured by his political opponents to divert public attention from challenges within their own political ranks. According to him, the accusations were driven more by political expediency than by genuine ideological concerns.

The remarks have reignited discussions on the relationship between personal religious faith and public office in Indian politics. While some critics interpreted the Chief Minister’s temple visit through a political lens, Satheesan maintained that an individual’s religious observances should not automatically be viewed as political messaging.

At the same time, some commentators have argued that describing the public practice of Hindu religious traditions by political leaders as “Hindutva” reflects a broader political trend that they believe unfairly conflates personal religious observance with a specific political ideology. They contend that such characterization may contribute to the perception that expressions of Hindu faith by elected representatives are inherently political. Others, however, maintain that scrutiny of public religious symbolism by political leaders is a legitimate subject of political debate, particularly in the context of India’s secular constitutional framework.

The episode underscores the continuing national conversation on secularism, freedom of religion, and the extent to which the personal faith of political leaders should influence—or be distinguished from—their public and political identities.

Critics argue that labelling Hindutva on practicing Hindu Dharma by any political leader is nothing but a filthy trend to alienate Hindu Dharma from politics. Such anti-Hindu trends in politics have concretized Hindutva in Indian politics in recent times, according to Newton’s Third Law of motion.
,,
_Inputs from PTI.