[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Mudda panellists feel that SP founder’s Krishna-Rama comparison opportunistic but not incorrect, emphasise that politicians should focus only on development while avoiding communally divisive talk
Samajwadi Party patriarch Mulayam Singh Yadav’s unexpected statement in Ghaziabad that Lord Ram is worshipped only in north India while Lord Krishna is revered all over the country as well as abroad has triggered a debate of sorts.
The SP leader was in fact echoing his son Akhilesh Yadav‘s sentiment, who has announced his intention to install a 50-feet tall statue of Lord Krishna in his native village Saifai.
Anchorperson Anant Tyagi took up this issue in APN’s popular debate Mudda with panellists Omkar Nath Singh of the Congress, Dr Chandra Mohan of the BJP, Manoj Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Govind Pant Raju, consultant, APN, and Ranjana Agnihotri, president of the Hindu Samrajya Parishad.
Manoj Yadav said that the SP leader made the statement while he was amidst the Yadav community, as the Yadavs consider themselves to be closest to Lord Krishna.
He said that there is nothing wrong in Mulayam’s statement as Lord Krishna was revered globally, as is evident in the numerous ISKCON temples all over the world.
Chandra Bhushan welcomed Mulayam’s statement since, according to him, it showed he is now sensitive to the Hindu cause.
Raju said the question is not one of faith. “Political parties make an issue out of such non-issues from time to time in a bid to rake in the electoral moolah,” he said, adding that such statements are divisive by nature.
Manoj Yadav said that by saying that Lord Krishna is a big god Mulayam did not mean that the SP considers Lord Rama a lesser god. “Who can talk about God in such a light-hearted manner?” he said.
Not wanting to be dragged into any controversy, Omkar said that he felt no need to make any comment about any gods.
Manoj Yadav found it ironical that the BJP had so far considered Mulayam to be an “atheist” just because he had been taking up the Muslim cause.
Raju said these statements have been made for the sake of personal gains. He said that the SP is known to indulge in caste politics. He found it very strange that Mulayam should say that Lord Rama is known only in north India. “What about the Rameswaram temple of Lord Rama, and of Rama devotees in Tibet and Malaysia?” he asked.
Manoj Yadav said that no one should dismiss Mulayam’s contribution or question his intelligence, since he has steered UP politics for many decades.
Ranjana Agnihotri said that as far as the Hindu faith is concerned Rama or Krishna are one, and any attempt to see them as separate is purposely divisive.
Chandra Mohan said that Ayodhya was a national movement that the BJP took upon itself to promote in a big way, and the party has never indulged in factionalism.
Ranjana Agnihotri asked in a lighter vein if Mulayam would now go on a Krishna ratha just as Advani had toured the nation on the Rama ratha?
Raju questioned the intention of parties who rake up such issues periodically, instead of just focusing on development.
Manoj Yadav said that his party was never against a Rama statue installation in Ayodhya, so no such questions should now be raised on Mulayam’s statement.
In an obvious reference to the proposed statue of Lord Krishna in Saifai, Omkar said that no statute of a god should be so tall that worship is impossible.
Agnihotri felt that for installation of any deity, scriptures should be followed strictly.
Compiled by Niti Singh Bhandari
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]