Kushal Mehta

Observe. Analyse. Decode.
Geopolitics | Jain Philosophy | Bharat First 🇮🇳

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

https://t.co/OB12GdtNSk

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

No. “Har Har Mahadev” does not make Sammed Shikharji a picnic spot. That is not what I wrote, and please don’t load guns unnecessarily.

The sentence “Sammed Shikharji is not a picnic spot” was about the growing tendency of people—Jain and non-Jain alike—to treat a sacred pilgrimage site as a tourist/reel-making destination rather than a place of spiritual significance.

There are tribals, tourists and non-Jain visitors who come to the hills simply for trekking, reels, videos and entertainment. There have even been instances of people dancing and behaving inappropriately, and reports of alcohol/drinks being found around the area. That is the conduct I am objecting to—not someone’s religion.

If a Hindu comes to Sammed Shikharji with devotion and respect, he is welcome.

If a Jain comes there and behaves disrespectfully, that is equally unacceptable.

If someone comes merely to make reels, dance, drink or treat a sacred pilgrimage as entertainment, I would object regardless of whether that person is Hindu, Jain, tribal or anything else.

And please don’t turn a request for mutual religious respect into “Jains versus Hindus” or “no unity.”

I have never said Hindus are unwelcome.

I have said the opposite:

Come. Experience the tirth. Pray according to your faith. But respect the sanctity of the place.

That is not an insult to Hinduism.

It is precisely the same respect I would expect from a Jain entering a Hindu temple.

And if your conclusion is that Hindus should stay away because a Jain has asked for such respect, that is your choice—not something I have asked for.

Unity doesn’t mean pretending our sacred places have no religious identity.
Unity means respecting each other’s identities without imposing one upon the other.

🙏

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Sammed Shikharji (Parasnath Hills) is a Jain tirth, revered as one of the holiest pilgrimage sites in Jainism. 20 of the 24 Jain Tirthankaras are believed to have attained moksh here. This is a well-established fact, not an attempt to exclude anyone.

Hindus are welcome to visit. Jains are not asking anyone to stop going there. But visiting another religion’s sacred place comes with a basic responsibility: respect its sanctity and traditions.

If a Jain devotee requests that visitors don’t loudly chant a specifically Hindu invocation like “Har Har Mahadev” inside a Jain shrine, that should not be turned into “anti-Hinduism.” The question is not whether Lord Shiv is everywhere. A Hindu is free to believe that. A Jain is equally free to follow Jain beliefs.

When we visit sacred places belonging to another faith, we understand that the traditions, rituals and religious character of that place deserve to be respected. We can pray according to our own beliefs without imposing our religious expressions on a space that belongs to another tradition.

The same courtesy should apply here.

Come to Sammed Shikharji. Come with devotion. Come to experience its spiritual atmosphere. Come if you believe in karma, moksh and the spiritual quest.

But please don’t try to erase, alter or impose another religious identity upon a distinctly Jain tirtha.

Everyone respectful is welcome.

But if you cannot respect the sanctity and religious character of the place, then please don’t come.

Sammed Shikharji is not a picnic spot. It is a Jain tirth.

Respecting that is not exclusion.
It is coexistence.

#SammedShikharji #Parasnath #Jainism #JainTirth #JainDharma #Ahimsa #Anekantavada #Moksha #JainHeritage #ReligiousHarmony #RespectSacredSpaces #MutualRespect #JainPilgrimage

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Does an Indian child need a vote bank to deserve the full attention of her government?

Baby Ariha Shah has spent years in German state care, separated from her parents and growing up away from her family, her language, her culture and her religious environment.

Five years is not a diplomatic timeline. Five years is a childhood.

The Government of India has demonstrated, time and again, that when there is political will, diplomatic engagement can move with extraordinary urgency. Indians have been evacuated from war zones and brought home from extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Then why has there still been no final resolution for Ariha?

If the Government of India says that this is a complex legal matter, then Indian citizens deserve to know:

What exactly is preventing her return?
What legal obstacles remain?
What diplomatic efforts have been made?
What concrete steps are being taken today?

And most importantly—why is a five-year-old child continuing to pay the price while adults negotiate?

I say this with respect, but also with disappointment: the Jain community is small. We do not constitute a large electoral vote bank.

That should never determine the urgency with which an Indian citizen—especially an innocent child—is defended.

Would the political and diplomatic response have been equally patient if this child belonged to a community with millions of organised voters?

This is not a demand for special treatment for Jains. It is a demand for equal concern for an Indian child.

A government represents its citizens—not merely its vote banks.

Ariha does not understand diplomacy, jurisdiction or international law.

She only knows that she has spent a significant part of her childhood away from her parents and family.

Five years of a child’s life can never be returned.

@PMOIndia @DrSJaishankar @MEAIndia @AmitShah @MinistryWCD @IndianEmbassyBER

Please don’t let Ariha become a forgotten child simply because her community is small.

Bring Ariha Home. 🇮🇳

#BringArihaHome #SaveAriha #ArihaShah #JusticeForAriha #ChildRights #HumanRights #IndianGovernment #Jainism #JainCommunity #India #Germany

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Let’s not get into the Digambar–Shwetambar debate here. 😊

We have enough to discuss about protecting and respecting Jain tirthas without opening an internal debate among ourselves.

First, let’s preserve what is ours. We can settle our internal differences among ourselves later.

🙏 Jai Jinendra

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Brother there is no issue with Mahadev here, and certainly no hatred involved. The issue is one of context and mutual courtesy.

“Jai Jinendra” is commonly used by Jains as a traditional greeting. You will hear Jains say it when meeting one another in a temple, on the road, at someone’s home, or in many other ordinary situations. It is essentially a way of greeting another person.

“Har Har Mahadev,” as I understand it, is different. It is a devotional invocation of Lord Mahadev, generally associated with religious or temple settings. It isn’t ordinarily used simply as a greeting between two devotees.

That distinction is important.

I have no problem whatsoever with someone experiencing the spiritual atmosphere of Sammed Shikharji. Nor am I suggesting that spirituality, moksh or liberation can be claimed by one community alone. Different traditions may use different names and paths while sincerely seeking the same ultimate spiritual goal.

But let’s reverse the situation for a moment.

Suppose a Jain entered a Hindu temple and loudly recited the Navkar Mantra as a devotional expression. Would it be fair to say, “What is the problem? Let him chant whatever comes to his mind”?

Perhaps some people would have no objection. Others might reasonably feel that a different religious invocation should not be imposed upon the atmosphere of their sacred place.

That is exactly the principle being discussed here.

A visitor can pray silently, experience the spiritual energy of the place, or worship according to their own faith. But when visiting a sacred site belonging to another religious tradition, showing some sensitivity towards that tradition is hardly an unreasonable expectation.

So this isn’t about disliking Mahadev, excluding Hindus, or questioning anyone’s faith.

It is simply about recognising that a customary greeting and a devotional invocation are not necessarily the same thing.

Hindus visiting Sammed Shikharji are welcome.

The request is only that the religious character and traditions of a Jain tirth be respected.

Respecting another person’s sacred space does not weaken your own faith. It shows that you have respect for faith itself.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Perhaps because this isn’t a question of which politician a Jain should tag.

A religious community raising a concern about the sanctity and identity of its own tirth does not automatically have to tag the Prime Minister or the Home Minister.

And if someone believes there is a legal, administrative or security issue concerning Sammed Shikharji, there are proper constitutional and administrative channels to approach.

Personally, I would rather see the issue discussed on facts, history, law and mutual respect than reduced to “Why aren’t you tagging Modi or Amit Shah?”

This isn’t about getting a politician to take sides.

It is about respecting a sacred place while allowing everyone who comes with respect to visit it.

If there is a genuine grievance, let it be placed before the appropriate authority—and let the law decide.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

There is no problem with Mahadev. 🙏

The issue is not who Mahadev is. The issue is where and how a religious invocation is being made.

Jains visiting Hindu temples and respectfully worshipping Hindu deities is perfectly fine. Similarly, Hindus visiting Jain temples and respectfully participating in the atmosphere of the tirth is welcome.

But a Jain temple is a Jain religious space. If a devotee requests that a specifically Hindu invocation such as “Har Har Mahadev” not be raised at the entrance or within the sacred precincts, that isn’t an insult to Mahadev.

It simply means: please respect the religious character of this particular place.

A Jain saying “Jai Jinendra” in a Jain temple isn’t equivalent to a Hindu being prohibited from worshipping Mahadev in a Hindu temple.

We don’t need to question anyone’s faith to understand this.

Mahadev deserves respect.
Jain Tirthankaras deserve respect.
And every sacred place deserves respect according to its own traditions.

That is the whole point—not opposition to Mahadev.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Rejecting Śruti does not make Jains illegitimate in Bharat. Jainism is an ancient Indian śramaṇa tradition with its own scriptures, philosophy and sacred geography. No religious tradition gets to issue a certificate of who is legitimately Indian.

As for Sammed Shikharji, if your claim is that it is exclusively a Shivalayam because it is mentioned in the Puranas, then cite the exact Purana, chapter and verse, establish the historical context, and show that the place described is the same site we are discussing.

A Puranic reference, even if genuine, does not automatically erase the centuries-old Jain religious identity of Sammed Shikharji or establish exclusive ownership.

Jains regard this as one of their holiest tirthas, where 20 of the 24 Tirthankaras are traditionally believed to have attained moksha.

You are free to worship Shiva there. But you cannot convert your theological belief into a unilateral declaration that another tradition has “no primacy.”

If there is a genuine historical claim, produce the evidence. If there is a legal claim, let the court decide.

“Case closed” is not evidence. Evidence closes cases.

And remember: Jains are not guests in Bharat. They are part of its ancient civilisational history.

Distinct traditions can share a civilisation without one having to erase the other.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

I agree with you and that is precisely what I said.

I have never said Hindus are not allowed inside Jain temples or Jain tirths. In fact, my position is the opposite: everyone respectful is welcome.

The distinction is between visiting a sacred place and altering its religious character.

A Hindu visiting a Jain temple with respect is welcome. A Jain visiting a Hindu temple with respect is equally welcome.

What should not happen is using one’s presence there as a reason to impose another religion’s rituals, slogans or identity upon that sacred space.

Welcoming people and preserving the identity of the place are not contradictory.

We can visit each other’s sacred places, appreciate each other’s traditions and still respect the fact that a Jain temple is Jain and a Hindu temple is Hindu.

That, to me, is genuine coexistence.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

https://t.co/21mLMFTVwL

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

I agree with the first part: Jainism is a distinct religion, and there is no need for Jains to deny that identity.

But the rest of your argument doesn’t follow from that.

If Jainism is distinct, then so is Hinduism. And precisely because we are distinct, we should respect each other’s religious spaces, practices and beliefs—not demand that one community stop visiting the other’s sacred places.

If a Jain behaves badly in a Hindu temple, criticise that Jain’s conduct. If a Hindu behaves disrespectfully at a Jain tirth, criticise that Hindu’s conduct.

But saying that “Jains are toxic” or that Jains should collectively stay away from Hindu holy places because of the alleged behaviour of some people is simply stereotyping.

I don’t want Hindus to stay away from Jain tirths. I have explicitly said everyone respectful is welcome at Sammed Shikharji.

And the same standard applies to Jains visiting Hindu places.

Come with respect. Follow the rules of that sacred place. Don’t impose your religious practices on others.

That’s not exclusion. That’s basic coexistence.

Jainism being distinct does not require Jains to become hostile to Hinduism.

And Hinduism being distinct does not require Hindus to reject Jainism from the shared civilisational landscape of Bharat.

Distinct religions. Shared civilisation. Mutual respect.

That should solve far more problems than telling communities to stay away from one another.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Security at a sacred pilgrimage site should certainly be strengthened where necessary—but not because Jains “have money” or because a Jain tirth must somehow compete with other religions.

Sammed Shikharji deserves professional security, proper crowd management, regulated access, medical facilities, sanitation and protection of its ecology and religious sanctity—just like any major pilgrimage centre in India.

And if the concern is that its religious character may be diluted over time, the answer is not to “lose slowly” or to exclude others.

The answer is simple:

Protect the tirth. Preserve its traditions. Improve its infrastructure. Follow the law. And welcome every visitor who comes with respect.

Jains should absolutely invest in preserving their sacred heritage.

But Sammed Shikharji is not merely valuable because Jains have money.

It is invaluable because of what it means to Jain civilisation.

And protecting that heritage is not communalism. It is preservation.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

If by “inside” you mean beyond the doorway, that is a technical distinction. The video clearly shows the slogans being raised at the entrance/door of the temple. So the issue is not being invented.

1. The trekking route and the separate dispute involving Hindus and ST communities are matters that can be adjudicated independently. They do not determine the religious character of the Jain temple at the summit.
2. If there are competing claims regarding the route, access or rights, let the courts decide them. I have no interest in making an abusive person anyone’s “hero”. Abuse is wrong, irrespective of who does it. But condemning abuse does not require us to ignore what is actually visible in the video.
3. And I am not teaching Hinduism to Hindus. I am simply asking for a principle that should apply to everyone: when you visit another faith’s sacred place, respect its religious character.

A Hindu does not become less Hindu by respecting a Jain tirth.
A Jain does not become less Jain by respecting a Hindu temple.

We can be different without being hostile. We can share a civilisation without erasing each other’s religious identities.

That is the point.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Let’s separate facts from allegations.

Bird feeding and dietary rules in housing societies are not matters that can simply be dismissed as “Jain nuisance.” They involve questions of individual liberty, public health, society bye-laws and the rights of residents—and several such disputes are already before courts.

Similarly, a housing society adopting rules concerning non-vegetarian food is not automatically “discrimination against Marathis.” Courts have recognised that cooperative housing societies have a degree of autonomy to frame and enforce their bye-laws and resolutions, subject of course to applicable law.

If you disagree with a particular society’s rule, challenge it in the appropriate forum. Let the court decide whether it is lawful.

But don’t selectively demand “individual freedom” when it suits you and dismiss the collective rights of a society when it doesn’t.

And most importantly, none of this changes the original point:

Sammed Shikharji is a Jain tirth.

A Hindu is welcome there. A Jain is welcome in a Hindu temple. But visiting another community’s sacred space should come with respect for its religious character.

Coexistence does not mean that every tradition must surrender its distinct practices to another.

Live and let live. Respect the law, respect each other’s faith, and let courts decide disputes that are already before them.

That is a far more reasonable position than turning every disagreement into an attack on an entire community.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

There is no contradiction in saying that Jainism is a distinct religion while also acknowledging its deep civilisational relationship with the broader Dharmic traditions of Bharat.

I am a Jain. I don’t need to deny Jainism’s distinct identity to prove that.

But neither do I accept the idea that Jains must “stay away” from Hindu temples or stop identifying with the broader civilisation in which Jainism has existed for thousands of years.

If a Jain visits a Hindu temple respectfully, that is not an attack on Hinduism. If a Hindu visits a Jain tirth respectfully, that is not an attack on Jainism.

The principle is simple: you may be different in your theology and still share a civilisation.

My original point was precisely about that distinction.

Sammed Shikharji is a Jain tirth. Saying so does not exclude Hindus. Asking visitors to respect Jain religious practices does not make Jains anti-Hindu.

Likewise, a Hindu temple remains a Hindu temple even if Jains, Buddhists or others are welcomed there.

Identity does not require hostility.
Coexistence does not require erasing differences.

Jainism does not become stronger by becoming hostile to Hinduism, nor does Hinduism become stronger by asking Jains to deny their own identity.

Know the difference. Respect the difference. And coexist.

That is far closer to the spirit of Bharat than demanding that one tradition disappear from the shared civilisational landscape.

🙏🇮🇳

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

Dear Brother,

The issue isn’t whether Hindus are “peaceful” or Jains are “peaceful.” The issue is basic religious respect.

If Shikharji is a Jain Tirthsthal with defined rules, those rules should be communicated before people make the trek. That’s a legitimate criticism of the administration. But being allowed to climb the hill does not give anyone the right to enter a Jain temple and shout “Har Har Mahadev.”

If you wouldn’t accept someone entering a Hindu temple and shouting another religion’s slogans, apply the same standard here.

And no, this isn’t about blaming every Hindu. Hold the actual offenders accountable for littering, misbehaving, or deliberately violating the rules. But don’t dismiss Jains defending one of their holiest sites simply because the people being challenged are Hindu.

Respect for your faith should never require disrespect for someone else’s.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

But what is the use of boasting that we, as Jains, are no less than anyone in any manner, when we cannot even protect our Tirths or compel the government to take meaningful steps to safeguard them? Our pride and claims of strength mean little if we are unable to protect the very sacred sites that are central to our faith and heritage.

[Kushal Mehta @KSMDoctrine]

One must hug Uncertainty

#Quotes #Bless #TheRemembrance