Ram Temple debate: Acharya Pramod Krishnam says only Hindus have right to speak
Synopsis
Spiritual leader Acharya Pramod Krishnam has declared that only Hindus have the right to speak on the Ram Temple, accusing Congress and the Samajwadi Party of cynically weaponising the issue to split Hindu voters ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections — a claim that puts religious identity squarely at the centre of UP's political battlefield.
Key Takeaways
Acharya Pramod Krishnam stated on 11 July in Moradabad that only Hindus have the right to speak about the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple .
He accused Congress and the Samajwadi Party of exploiting the Ram Temple issue to divide Hindus ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections .
Krishnam backed CM Yogi Adityanath's claim that previous governments planned attacks on temples, directly implicating the SP.
He dismissed Akhilesh Yadav's comparison of Sanatan Dharma and socialism, likening the SP chief's relationship to Ram Manohar Lohia as similar to Rahul Gandhi's to Mahatma Gandhi .
On Waqf Committees , he argued that any board under the Constitution of India is open to all Indians regardless of religion.
Spiritual leader Acharya Pramod Krishnam on Saturday, 11 July asserted that only Hindus hold the right to speak about the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and Lord Shri Ram, arguing that the opposition forfeited any moral standing on the issue by never supporting the temple's construction. His remarks, made in Moradabad, came amid heightened political activity around religious identity ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.
Opposition Accused of Political Opportunism
Krishnam directly targeted the Indian National Congress (Congress), the Samajwadi Party (SP), and the broader opposition bloc, accusing them of attempting to exploit the Ram Temple issue for electoral advantage. 'The opposition has no right to comment on the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple because it never supported the construction of the Ram Temple,' he said.
He further alleged that opposition parties were trying to divide Hindu voters to improve their electoral prospects. 'They believe that if Hindus remain united, they will not be able to win the 2027 elections,' he added, framing the opposition's engagement with the temple issue as a calculated political manoeuvre rather than a principled stance.
On Yogi Adityanath's Remarks About Temple Attacks
Krishnam also backed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's recent statement that previous governments had allegedly planned attacks on temples. 'Attacking temples has been the habit of the Samajwadi Party. Therefore, whatever the Chief Minister has said is correct,' he claimed, directly implicating the SP in a pattern of anti-temple conduct — a charge the party has not accepted.
Akhilesh Yadav, Lohia, and the Socialism Comparison
Reacting to Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav's claim that Sanatan Dharma and socialism are philosophically aligned, Krishnam was dismissive. 'Akhilesh Yadav has nothing to do with the ideals of socialism. The relationship between Ram Manohar Lohia and Akhilesh Yadav is much like the relationship between Mahatma Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi,' he said — drawing a pointed comparison suggesting a disconnect between iconic founders and their political heirs.
Vande Mataram, Waqf Committees, and Other Remarks
On the Union Home Ministry's reported guidelines regarding 'Vande Mataram', Krishnam described the slogan as a cornerstone of India's freedom movement. 'It is the honour of every Indian, and every Indian should say it,' he said, adding that the Ministry's guidelines would 'reinforce the spirit of Indianness.'
Responding to controversial remarks attributed to All India Imam Association president Sajid Rashidi, Krishnam criticised what he described as a failure to uphold Islamic values on the treatment of women, urging Rashidi to 'first become a true Muslim' before commenting publicly. On the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Committees, he argued that any board constituted under the Constitution of India belongs to the nation and that every Indian has the right to serve on it.
With the 2027 UP polls drawing closer, Krishnam's remarks signal that the Ram Temple will remain a charged flashpoint in the state's political discourse — and that religious leaders are increasingly entering the electoral conversation directly.
Point of View
And Krishnam's willingness to validate it signals coordination between religious voices and ruling-party narratives. What mainstream coverage misses is the escalatory logic here: as each side claims custodianship of Ayodhya's legacy, the space for non-communal political debate in UP continues to narrow. The Lohia-Akhilesh comparison is also a deliberate attempt to delegitimise socialist credentials — a move that could resonate with OBC voters who revere Lohia but are uncertain about the SP's current direction.
NationPress
11 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Acharya Pramod Krishnam say about the Ram Temple?
Acharya Pramod Krishnam said on 11 July in Moradabad that only Hindus have the right to speak about the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and Lord Shri Ram. He argued that the opposition — including Congress and the Samajwadi Party — has no moral standing on the issue because it never supported the temple's construction.
Why did Krishnam accuse the opposition of exploiting the Ram Temple issue?
Krishnam alleged that Congress, the Samajwadi Party, and the broader opposition are using the Ram Temple issue to mislead and divide Hindus ahead of the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections. He claimed the opposition believes a divided Hindu vote is their best chance of winning the polls.
What did Krishnam say about CM Yogi Adityanath's remarks on temple attacks?
Krishnam endorsed Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's statement that previous governments had allegedly planned attacks on temples. He specifically accused the Samajwadi Party of having a pattern of 'attacking temples' and said whatever the Chief Minister had stated was correct.
How did Krishnam respond to Akhilesh Yadav's comment on Sanatan Dharma and socialism?
Krishnam rejected Akhilesh Yadav's claim that Sanatan Dharma and socialism are one and the same, saying Yadav has 'nothing to do with the ideals of socialism.' He compared Yadav's relationship with Ram Manohar Lohia to that of Rahul Gandhi with Mahatma Gandhi — implying a disconnect from founding principles.
What is Krishnam's position on non-Muslims serving on Waqf Committees?
Krishnam said that any board constituted under the Constitution of India belongs to the nation as a whole, and that every Indian has the right to be part of and serve on any such board. He was responding to debates around the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Committees.
