Beheaded but Not Forgotten: The Khajuraho Vishnu Verdict

Paromita Das

New Delhi, 19th September: In the heart of Bharat’s spiritual heritage lies a broken symbol—a seven-foot idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari Temple, Khajuraho, beheaded centuries ago yet never restored. For millions who find solace and strength in their faith, this is not just stone and sculpture but a sacred embodiment of their reverence and identity. To see this divine figure remain mutilated is to witness an unfinished prayer, a wound that refuses to heal. The recent Supreme Court ruling dismissing the plea for its restoration has deeply shaken the bond between faith and justice. When the highest court advises a devotee to simply “go and pray,” it stirs a profound question: can centuries of spiritual wounds be set aside as mere archaeology?

The Legacy and Loss at Khajuraho

The Khajuraho temples have survived as silent witnesses to conflict, artistry, and devotion. Among them, the Javari temple hosts an idol of Lord Vishnu—beheaded and incomplete since the time of foreign invasions. Decades after independence, the damage remains, leaving worshippers with not just physical scars but a persistent sense of historical injury and loss of dignity. The attempt to restore the idol was not merely about stone, but about the faith and the right to worship in wholeness, a principle deeply cherished by countless devotees.

When Legal Lines Meet Faith’s Boundaries

In dismissing the restoration plea, the Supreme Court highlighted the boundaries between what the judiciary can decide and what falls within the realm of administrative bodies. The reasoning was clear: matters of heritage management belong to the Archaeological Survey of Bharat. Yet, the tone of the rejection—seen as flippant by some—struck a nerve. Devotees questioned the empathy of the system when requests deeply rooted in faith are sidelined or, worse, taken lightly.

The essence of the petition pointed to a gap in the universal application of rights. Restoration was sought not only to repair a statue but to restore the dignity of a faith community and uphold their right to worship, which the Constitution protects deeply. The issue, thus, was not just one of law, but of emotion and belonging.

The Uneven Balance of Secularism

The aftermath of the verdict underlines a recurring unease: does the secular framework of Bharat truly weigh all community grievances equally? Many feel that if similar remarks were made about the symbols or sensibilities of other groups, the backlash would have been swift and intense. In this view, the muted official and public response to dismissive comments about Hindu petitioners reflects a bias—intentional or otherwise—towards the majority’s sensitivities.

Such perceptions fuel the argument that secularism’s guardianship sometimes fails to engage with the heritage and hurt of the community that has historically borne the brunt of desecration and marginalisation. This sentiment deepens when compared with the seriousness given to other religious disputes and claims before courts and governments.

The Idol Is More Than Stone

For millions, the broken Vishnu idol at Khajuraho is a symbol of wounds left open for centuries. Seeking restoration is a part of attempting to heal not just a faith monument, but a civilisational psyche. Bharatiya courts have, in other landmark cases, recognised the living nature of deities and the unique legal status this grants to temples and their icons. Such recognitions carry weight, reaffirming that these issues are not merely technical, but touch upon the heart of cultural identity.

Why Judicial Sensitivity Matters

The law has its limits, but the judiciary wields enormous influence through both its decisions and the way those are communicated. Sensitivity and empathy towards matters of faith are not weaknesses; they’re instrumental to building trust in constitutional processes. When the faithful come to the courts for justice rather than resorting to agitation, it marks a triumph of Bharat’s democracy. But casual or dismissive language in such matters risks undermining both institutional credibility and social cohesion.

A more considerate approach from the bench—even when denying relief—could have acknowledged the pain while directing the petitioner to the right administrative body. Such gestures would strengthen, rather than weaken, the faith of citizens in the impartiality and wholeness of Bharatiya justice.

Towards Sensitivity in Justice

The controversy around the Khajuraho verdict is a call for deeper reflection on the responsibility of Bharat’s institutions—to respect, acknowledge, and where possible, restore symbols carrying centuries of devotion and collective memory. For a civilisation that venerates both heritage and justice, leaving deities in ruins is not simply about derelict stone, but about unhealed wounds. Moving forward, greater compassion and fairness—in both administration and judiciary—can foster a sense of inclusion, trust, and shared respect, upholding the true ethos of Bharat’s pluralism and its living faiths.