Sacred Confluence Of Faith And History

Whenever I plan to visit India, especially for a health checkup of my long-ailing spouse and myself, I am tempted to combine it with cultural tourism, setting out travel itineraries accordingly. For many years as a connoisseur of contemporary Indian history, I had cultivated a deep interest to visit the western states of India, including the culturally important locations in Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat. But my interest to visit Somnath was a matter of utmost priority, but it had not been materialised due to one or other reasons. I am aware of the value and importance accorded to Somnath Temple by the current ruling political dispensation in India. I was pulled by the lure of a visit to Somnath – a coveted destination of religious significance having a long history. 

I had also read about the dispute at the highest political level in India concerning the inauguration of the reconstructed Somnath temple. The cultural and constitutional controversy was provoked on the issue of inauguration in which the first president of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad, the first prime minister, Jawahar Lal Nehru, and the deputy prime minister and home minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, had clashed on value-based grounds. In fact, according to the texts of modern Indian history, the significant chapter in Somnath’s current development was opened after India got independence from the British clutch. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, himself a Gujarati freedom fighter and leader of national prominence and a devout Hindu, was deeply moved by the temple’s ruinous condition when he paid a visit to it in 1947. 

He is reported to have pioneered the cause of its reconstruction as a matter of national priority and dignity. Importantly, the reconstruction was funded through public donations – which Gujarati industrialists and businesspersons had done generously – rather than state sponsorship, underscoring its cultural value and importance. The inauguration of the rebuilt Somnath temple in 1951 had sparked off a constitutional and ideological debate between Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and President Dr. Rajendra Prasad. Nehru, as a champion of secularist India, had opposed the Indian President Rajendra Prasad’s official association with the temple inauguration. Nehru had contended that India is a secular state, and it must maintain a principled distance from religious institutions and temples. According to Nehru, such participation on behalf of the head of the state could decimate and erase the line between state and religion and send the wrong message to the larger world including the Moslems and other minorities. 

It would, according to Nehru, set a problematic precedent in the post-independence history of secularist India. However, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, on the other hand, viewed Somnath not merely as a religious structure but as a symbol of India’s historical and cultural continuity. He maintained and affirmed that attending the inauguration as an individual believer would not flout the principles of the Constitution and its secularist ground norms. Finally, the President Rajendra Prasad inaugurated the temple in his individual capacity, while the Government of India formally dissociated itself from the event. Constitutional scholars in India maintain the fact that this dignified disagreement between the president and prime minister did not weaken Indian democracy. 

Rather, it lent strength to constitutional practice by demonstrating how differing interpretations of secularism could coexist within democratic norms and practices . During the contemporary decades, Somnath has stolen the limelight when the Rath Yatra led by senior BJP leader L. K. Advani in 1990, from Somnath (Gujarat) to Ayodhya (Uttar Pradesh), had been a major political–religious mobilisation in independent India. It did not itself demolish the Babri Masjid, but it played a decisive role in creating the mass movement and political climate that ultimately led to the Babri Masjid (mosque's) demolition on 6 December 1992. Our car journey from Dwarka to Somnath—approximately 230–250 kilometres by road—is not merely a transit between two sacred shrines but a passage through some of Gujarat’s most historically and culturally significant towns. Dwarka is one of the Char Dham pilgrimage sites and the kingdom of Lord Krishna. 

Dwarka represents the Vaishnavite strand of Hindu spirituality, whereas Somnath is the Shaivite sacred sanctorum. Porbandar – birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi – is the most significant halt on this route, but as it was getting late in the evening, we were not able to stop and see the city . Our journey for the day culminated at Somnath, the first Jyotirlinga of Lord Shiva, standing splendidly by the Arabian Sea. We – my elder brother Mohan Rijal and sister-in-law Hem Kala Rijal and my spouse Pabitra Rijal and I – reached Somnath around nine o’clock at night and stayed at the Sarovar Portico hotel near the temple. The hotel environment was serene, comfortable and calm . In the morning after a delicious breakfast, we proceeded to the Somnath temple amidst tight security arrangements to offer prayers at the revered Shiva Lingam set against the vast Arabian Sea. Spiritually, Somnath holds an unparalleled place in Hindu consciousness as the first of the twelve Jyotirlingas of Lord Shiva. According to the religious text, worship here is not merely ritualistic. It evokes the deeper Shaivite philosophy of creation, destruction, and renewal. The rhythmic sound of waves beside the temple reinforces the sense of eternity. Somnath is, therefore, as discussed in the Shaivite texts, for Hindus far more than a religious shrine. We finally entered the Somnath Temple complex, negotiating through orderly queues, and stood before the Shiva Lingam, offering our prayers amid the chants of devotees and the distant sound of waves from the Arabian Sea. Geographically, Somnath is located at Prabhas Patan, near Veraval, on the western edge of the Indian subcontinent. It is a place where land meets the sea, where the known world historically seemed to end. Ancient inscriptions famously described Somnath as a point beyond which there was only the ocean. This geographic “edge” has profound symbolic meaning. Hindu sacred geography often invests such holy spaces—river confluences, seashores, forests, and mountaintops—with deep spiritual power. The temple’s location overlooking the Arabian Sea creates an atmosphere of vastness and eternity. 

As we stood on the sea-facing walkway after Darshan to Shiva Lingam, the endless horizon evokes the Shaivite idea of the infinite—Shiva as both formless and eternal, beyond time and destruction. The rhythm of the waves mirrors the cosmic cycles of creation, dissolution, and regeneration that lie at the heart of Hindu metaphysics. Spiritually, Somnath occupies a position of seminal importance in Hinduism. It is revered as the first of the twelve Jyotirlingas of Lord Shiva. A Jyotirlinga is not merely a religious symbol . It is a manifestation of Shiva as an infinite pillar of light, representing the supreme and formless reality. According to Hindu tradition, Somnath means “Lord of the Moon” (Soma–Nath). Mythology narrates that Chandra, the Moon God, built the original temple in gold to atone for a curse by Daksha Prajapati. Over time, the temple was believed to have been rebuilt by Ravana in silver, by Lord Krishna in wood, and later by King Bhimdev Solanki in stone. These legends are not historical accounts in the modern positivist sense. But they express an important belief that Somnath has existed continuously across historical ages. 

According to history, Somnath was repeatedly attacked and destroyed during mediaeval invasions, most notably by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1025 CE, and later during the Delhi Sultanate period. Each time, the temple was rebuilt by devotees and rulers, restoring worship. Somnath teaches, according to Hindu canons, that faith is not confined to stone walls but lives in collective memory, ritual practice, and moral continuity. Politically, Somnath has long been a charged symbol. Mediaeval chroniclers recorded its wealth, its prominence, and its destruction, making it an enduring reference point in narratives of conquest and resistance. During colonial rule, Somnath entered nationalist discourse as a symbol of India’s subjugation and resilience. 

British historians often portrayed its destruction as evidence of decline, while Indian thinkers reinterpreted it as proof of cultural endurance. Soon after paying homage to Somnath around 12 PM, we embarked our eight-hour road ride to Ahmedabad (Gandhi Nagar) – the capital city of the Gujarat state of India – where I took part not only in the Lions Club conference but also visited Sabarmati Ashram, among others. I was excited to learn that our journey to Ahmedabad would pass through Junagarh – a princely state of pre-independence India associated with one of the most important and sensitive accession controversies at the time of India’s independence in 1947. I had read about it in the India-Pakistan partition literature. The dispute had revolved around whether Junagadh should join India or Pakistan. Junagadh is dominated by the sacred Girnar hills, one of Hinduism’s most ancient pilgrimage sites. 

It is said that the climb to Girnar is spiritually demanding but deeply rewarding, representing ascetic endurance and devotion. Our driver-cum-guide Karan Singh informed us that Girnar Hill draws tourists from around several states of India. Before independence, Junagadh was a princely state under British tutelage ruled by Nawab Muhammad Mahabat Khan III, a Muslim ruler. Over 80 per cent of the people living here are Hindus. In a surprise move on 15 August 1947, the Nawab announced Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan, encouraged by his personal religious affiliation and advice from his Dewan – prime minister Shah Nawaz Bhutto – father of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Bhutto later became the prime minister of Pakistan. 

This decision was controversial because Junagadh had no geographical contiguity with Pakistan. Moreover, the will of the overwhelming Hindu population was ignored. India strongly rejected the accession on legal, geographic, and moral grounds. However, economic blockade by India led to administrative collapse. Popular unrest grew inside Junagadh. The Nawab fled to Pakistan in October 1947. India took over administration and conducted a plebiscite in February 1948. Over 99 per cent voted in favour of joining India. Junagadh was formally merged into India and later became part of Saurashtra and eventually Gujarat. In the history of the partition between India and Pakistan, the Junagadh case is historically important. It contrasts sharply with the Kashmir and Hyderabad accession cases. My interest in revisiting Junagadh has not been satiated. I would love to visit it again.

(The author is presently associated with Policy Research Institute (PRI) as a senior research fellow.  rijalmukti@gmail.com)