A prominent Hindu seer has stirred controversy by demanding the declaration of the Moon as a “Hindu Rashtra” (meaning “Hindu Nation”), complete with its own capital at the proposed “Shiv Shakti Point.” The call comes on the heels of India’s ambitious space endeavors, particularly the anticipated Chandrayaan-3 landing. While this proposition has ignited fervent debates across the nation, it has also garnered significant backlash from various quarters.
The seer’s audacious demand, stated in the form of a resolution, proposes the Moon’s designation as a Hindu Rashtra, with the unique choice of “Shiv Shakti Point” as its capital. Advocates argue that this move would symbolize the strong spiritual and cultural heritage of Hinduism, expanding its influence beyond terrestrial boundaries.
The proposal has sparked intense discussions about the intertwining of religion, nationalism, and space exploration.
Since the inception of India’s Chandrayaan program, the nation’s prowess in space technology has captured global attention.
The impending Chandrayaan-3 landing has injected fresh impetus into discussions about space’s role in cultural and religious narratives. This seer’s proposition adds a new dimension to these conversations, as they urge Parliament to pass a resolution endorsing the Moon’s transformation into a Hindu Rashtra.
However, the seer’s demand has not been without its critics. Many have raised concerns about the practicality and feasibility of such an endeavor.
Skeptics argue that the focus should remain on scientific advancements and exploration, rather than mixing space exploration with religious undertones. This sentiment has resonated across diverse sections of society, including intellectuals, scientists, and religious scholars.
The proposal has drawn sharp responses from several quarters, including the All India Hindu Maha Sabha. While acknowledging the seer’s right to express his opinion, the organization emphasized that the Moon, as a celestial body, transcends religious and national boundaries. Such a renaming, they argue, could detract from the objective pursuit of knowledge and exploration that space missions represent.