Blog

When Tolerance Becomes a Burden: The Lesson from the CJI’s Lord Vishnu Remark

Editor September 18, 2025

Share News that unites, stories that inspire!

The recent remarks by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on a petition seeking restoration of a Lord Vishnu idol at Khajuraho are more than courtroom banter. They cut to the heart of a larger question: why is it that, 75 years after Independence, casual dismissal of the Hindu faith remains acceptable in India’s public discourse?

When the petitioner pleaded for restoration of a mutilated idol — a symbol not only of worship but of heritage and identity — the CJI remarked that the devotee should “pray now” and “go ask the deity itself.” For millions who revere Vishnu, this sounded less like legal restraint and more like mockery.

The Double Standards of Respect

In India today, any perceived slight to minority religions — be it Islam or Christianity — sparks instant outrage, legal complaints, and political defence. Leaders and intellectuals scramble to issue clarifications. But when Hindu symbols are demeaned, dismissals are routine: “Don’t overreact, it’s just a remark.”

Why is sensitivity a one-way street? Why must Sanatanis alone bear the burden of silence in the name of tolerance?

The Accommodation Trap

Tolerance is the soul of Sanatan Dharma. Hindus have absorbed countless traditions, languages, and practices over millennia. This is a strength — but in today’s political culture, it is increasingly seen as a weakness. Accommodation has become an expectation. Peace has become passivity.

The result? Others feel emboldened to cross lines they would never dare to with different faiths. Whether it is a Chief Justice in court, or a politician like Tamil Nadu’s M.K. Stalin making derogatory comments, Hindu sentiment is treated as expendable.

What Is at Stake

This is not merely about one idol in Khajuraho or one remark from the bench. It is about the dignity of the majority, about whether 80% of Bharat’s population is expected to accept every insult with folded hands in the name of “tolerance.”

The Supreme Court has a constitutional duty not only to interpret the law but to uphold the spirit of equality. When words from the highest judicial office trivialise devotion, they erode faith not just in gods but in institutions.

Rethinking Silence

Perhaps it is time for Sanatanis to reconsider their strategy. Tolerance should never mean surrender. Peace should never mean invisibility. Respect must be mutual, not conditional.

The Hindu majority of Bharat has, for too long, believed that time and patience will correct imbalances. But time has shown otherwise: the more silent the majority, the louder the dismissals become.

The Way Forward

This controversy should be a wake-up call. Not for reactionary anger, but for assertive dignity. Devotees must insist — legally, socially, and culturally — that their faith be treated with the same respect extended to all others. Institutions, especially the judiciary, must recognise that careless words can wound centuries of belief.

India’s pluralism will survive only when its majority faith is not asked to sacrifice dignity at the altar of tolerance. The CJI’s remark is not just about Lord Vishnu. It is about whether Sanatan Dharma continues to bend endlessly, or finally insists that respect is non-negotiable.