On 1st January, Times Now’s Group Editor Navika Kumar hosted a discussion with former Chief Justice of India, UU Lalit, and Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, revolving around the notion of whether the Constitution of India and democracy are under threat. The debate touched on several topics, including constitutional inclusivity, justice, and equality; however, it was Dave’s comments on Hindu temples and history that sparked controversy on social media.
"Every Hindu Temple was built on top of a Jain Temple or a Buddhist Temple." Are you even serious Dushyant Dave Ji ? 🤷 pic.twitter.com/SzwWToQlxK
— Eklavya Singh (@eklavyajpr) January 6, 2025
During the conversation, Dave quoted dubious self-proclaimed historian Devdutt Pattanaik and claimed that Hindu temples were often built over Jain and Buddhist temples. The assertion was made while discussing religious and historical tensions prevailing because of petitions filed in different courts over conflicts arising from interpretations of the Places of Worship Act. Dave claimed that such issues are merely distractions and insisted that people and governments should focus on modern problems like poverty and unemployment. However, in doing so, he echoed claims familiar with Marxist rhetoric aimed at undermining Hindu traditions.
Dushyant Dave remarked, “I have no doubt that every Islamic monument perhaps was built on a Hindu temple, but then every Hindu temple was built on a Jain temple or a Buddhist temple, as Devdutt Pattanaik rightly points out. Are we going to start digging all this? Should we dig up the Taj Mahal or Red Fort? We don’t need it. This country has a larger role to play in the world, which is being derailed by such distractions.”
The temple narrative – Dave’s claim versus historical evidence
What Dave asserted, while referring to Pattanaik’s rhetoric, is a deeply flawed narrative often used to discredit Hindu history. The idea that Hindu temples were constructed over Jain and Buddhist sites lacks historical grounding. It mostly relies on ideological bias rather than evidence.
In fact, this rhetoric is not new. In 1986, Marxist historians like Romila Thapar dismissed reports about the Islamic destruction of Hindu temples, claiming it was a “communal” notion. They countered the facts of Islamic invasions and destruction with baseless claims about Hindu desecration of Buddhist and Jain sites. However, the claims, which lacked scholarly evidence, were demolished by historian Sita Ram Goel.
Goel sent a detailed questionnaire to historians like Thapar and demanded concrete proof of such claims. He asked for inscriptions, Hindu scriptures, or records of rulers celebrated for such acts. In return, he received only silence from the Marxist historians, and this silence has persisted for decades.
Goel, during his research, established that Hindu kings, while often reconstructing or renovating temples, did not engage in the widespread destruction suggested by Marxist historians as part of their propaganda against Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma. On the other hand, Islamic conquests left clear records of temple destruction. In fact, there is no documentation that exists for the so-called destruction carried out by Hindu rulers. Goel also highlighted how these baseless claims created psychological pressure by portraying Hindus as intolerant to avoid being labelled “communal”.
Dave, in his assertion, heavily relied on Pattanaik, who has a long history of distorting Hindu traditions and peddling false claims. He lacks credibility and mirrors the long-standing tactic of ideological intimidation by Marxist liberals. Interestingly, when someone counters Pattanaik on his claims on social media, he often replies with abuse or blocks the person instead of providing any proof for whatever fiction he presents in the name of “history”, or in his own words, “mythology”.
If such accusations were based on genuine evidence, they would withstand scrutiny—but decades of silence from their proponents suggest otherwise.
The broader debate – inclusivity, reservation, and governance
A major part of the discussion, however, revolved around inclusivity, reservation, and governance among other topics. Former CJI UU Lalit celebrated India’s journey towards inclusivity and said, “The Constitution has expanded its reach to uplift marginalised sections of society, from Scheduled Castes and Tribes to women and economically weaker sections. We are moving in the right direction.” He highlighted landmark constitutional amendments, such as the 73rd and 74th, which brought women into the democratic framework at the grassroots level, and newer provisions aimed at increasing their representation in legislatures.
However, Dave did not agree with him, stating that despite the measures taken in the past few decades, the reality is bleak. He gave the example of the government providing free grains to 85 crore people to support his argument. He said, “Can we call this progress when such large sections of society remain impoverished?”
Uniform civil code – an elusive reform?
While Justice Lalit supported the idea of a Uniform Civil Code, asserting it aligns with Article 14’s principle of equality, Dave expressed doubts about the feasibility of the UCC in the current political climate. He said, “The UCC has often been weaponised as a political tool rather than pursued as a genuine reform. It risks becoming more divisive than unifying if approached insensitively.”
Judiciary and justice delivery – an unfulfilled promise
Discussing the judiciary’s role, Justice Lalit emphasised its importance as a safeguard for citizens, stating, “The courts remain the ultimate refuge for those seeking justice. Even when errors occur, the judiciary has mechanisms to correct them.” Dave, however, criticised systemic inefficiencies, pointing out, “With over five crore cases pending, justice delayed is justice denied.” He accused the judiciary of being silent on alleged “human rights violations”.
Reservation versus merit
Justice Lalit acknowledged the need for affirmative action but stressed balance, saying, “Affirmative action must continue until marginalised communities achieve parity. However, integrating economic criteria into the framework can ensure fairness for all.”
However, Dave repeated the same “5,000 years of oppression” argument, claiming the marginalised communities were denied dignity and are still being denied the same. He asserted, “Reservations are not a favour—they are a necessity for justice. Yet, we turn a blind eye to the privileges of the wealthy, particularly in private institutions.”
Conclusion
Dave’s claim that Hindu temples were built over Jain and Buddhist sites, quoting Devdutt Pattanaik, is yet another example of Marxist propaganda aimed at undermining Hindu heritage. No credible evidence supports this narrative, as shown by historian Sita Ram Goel’s detailed research. Unlike the well-documented destruction of Hindu temples during Islamic invasions, there is no record of systematic destruction by Hindu rulers. By repeating such baseless claims, Dave distorted history and unfairly targeted Hindus while ignoring proven facts.
