Has DBKL a role in the relocation of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliaman Temple?
P Ramasamy, Mar 21
Misleading narrative
The ongoing dispute between the 130-year-old Dewi Sri Pathrakaliaman Hindu temple and .. Trading Sdn Bhd is being framed by the Kuala Lumpur City Council (DBKL) as a private matter. However, this narrative is misleading.
DBKL’s historical involvement in the temple’s relocation and its subsequent sale of the land to ... proves that it cannot simply absolve itself of responsibility.
DBKL’s Role in the dispute
Kuala Lumpur Mayor Maimunah Mohd Sharif has attempted to mediate the issue by presenting DBKL and the government as neutral parties. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
While she may be new to her role, she must acknowledge DBKL’s historical role in the temple’s forced relocation and its failure to secure the temple’s permanence.
History
• 2008: DBKL directed the temple to relocate to its present site, giving the impression that it would be a permanent location.
• 2014: DBKL sold the land to .. Trading without informing the temple, setting the stage for the current dispute.
• 2014–Present: For the last ten years, ... Trading has engaged in discussions with the temple committee regarding relocation.
However, .. made no mention of a mosque being built on the vacated land until recently, raising concerns that this is being used as leverage to force the temple’s eviction.
The sale of the land was a letdown, disregarding the temple’s long-standing historical and cultural significance.
DBKL’s failure to protect a historical landmark
DBKL’s decision to sell the land without securing the temple’s legal status was a gross oversight.
Given that the temple predates Merdeka and even DBKL’s own establishment, it should have been granted ownership or heritage status. Instead, the temple has been left vulnerable to the whims of private landowners, making its future uncertain.
Why should the temple be forced to relocate again simply because a new landowner has different plans? The temple has already moved once—what guarantee is there that another relocation would be permanent?
Systemic displacement
This situation mirrors historical injustices, such as the displacement of indigenous communities in the United States.
A Sioux elder once lamented that white settlers wanted to put Native Americans “on wheels” so they could be moved at will.
Are Hindu temples in Malaysia now facing the same fate—relocated whenever authorities or private entities demand?
Federal government’s responsibility
DBKL falls under federal jurisdiction as Kuala Lumpur is a Federal Territory. This means the responsibility for the temple’s fate ultimately lies with ...
In response to the crisis, .. dispatched an Indian minister and several Indian MPs to “amicably” resolve the standoff.
However, in this context, “amicably” appears to mean enticing or pressuring the temple to relocate to an unspecified site.
These MPs, acting on instructions, fail to grasp the deep historical and cultural significance of the temple and why Hindus in the area insist that it remains where it is.
..contradictory stance
He frequently speaks out on the Palestinian cause, yet remains silent on the plight of Malaysians struggling to protect their places of worship.
If he is the great leader he claims to be, he could end this injustice with a single stroke of the pen. Instead of dispatching his Indian lieutenants to broker an unfair compromise, he should take decisive action to protect the temple’s rightful place.
Call for accountability
Urimai maintains that the temple must remain at its present site unless the Madani government intends to adopt undemocratic measures to erase a historic and heritage landmark.
- DBKL must acknowledge its role in this injustice and take corrective action.
- The Dewi Sri Pathrakaliaman Temple is not a temporary structure that can be uprooted at will.
- If Malaysia truly values religious harmony and heritage, it must act now to protect this sacred site from yet another forced displacement.
P. Ramasamy, Chairman, Urimai
My Comments:
Usually places of worship (temples, suraus and even masjid) are relocated to make way for development projects like roads, highways, housing etc.
It is very rare for a place of worship to be demolished and then be replaced by another place of worship.
Historically these things have happened before and they cause great controversy, conflict and even war.
1. In Jerusalem, the Muslims built the Al Aqsa Mosque around 692 AD on an elevated spot above the ruins of the Jewish Temple (aka the Wailing Wall). Until today this is a point of great dispute between the Jews and the Muslims.
Now the Jews want to reconstruct the Jewish Temple again exactly on top of the foundations of their old Temple. This will cause even more controversy.
2. In 1992 the Hindus in India demolished the Babri Mosque in the Indian city of Ayodhya. This caused a lot of controversy, rioting and protests. And now a Hindu temple, the Shri Ram Mandir, is being built on the site of the former Babri Masjid.
This is from Wikipedia - 'In Hindu tradition, the city of Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama. In the 16th century a Muslim Mughal commander, Mir Baqi, had built a mosque, known as the Babri Masjid at a site identified by some Hindus as Ram Janmabhoomi, or the birthplace of Rama. The Archaeological Survey of India states that the mosque was built on land where a non-Islamic structure had previously existed"
3. The Hagia Sophia was a huge Christian church in Istanbul. It had been built in 537 AD by the Christians. The site had been used for Christian worship since before - from around 360 AD. Then more than a thousand years later in 1453 AD the Muslims conquered Istanbul and converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. In the early 20th century it was converted into a museum but today it functions as a mosque.
Without a doubt, taking over or demolishing religious places of worship - of any religion - and building another place of worship of another religion at the same spot - has been extremely contentious. Especially religious places which have been there for a very long time.
The Jews built their Temple about 3,000 years ago. The Masjid Al Aqsa was built about 1,600 years later.
The Babri Mosque was there since the 16th century. The Hindus claim that Ram the most widely worshipped Hindu deity was not only born in Ayodhya but he was born at the same site as the Babri Mosque. That would have happened thousands of years earlier.
The Christians built the Hagia Sophia church in 537 AD. The Muslims conquered Istanbul in 1453 AD.
So this is religion.
- The Masjid India area in Kuala Lumpur already has THREE plus 1 mosques.
- The first one is the Masjid India itself which gives the place its name.
- The second one is the Masjid Jamek whose main entrance is across Jalan Tun Perak.
- Then there is the Masjid Besar IPD Dang Wangi (at Jalan Dang Wangi).
- All these three mosques are within walking distance of each other.
- And all three mosques conduct the Friday prayers.
Just beside the Masjid India area is Dataran Merdeka. And at the end of Dataran Merdeka is the huge Masjid Negara. Also within walking distance.
