Koppal: The ongoing controversy surrounding the installation of electric poles adorned with religious symbols in Gangavati took a new turn as the Gangavati Tehsildar withdrew an order to clear the disputed poles following a media report. The poles, installed on the newly developed road from Julaynagar to Rana Pratap Circle, had sparked a heated debate, with the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) calling for their removal, citing concerns over communal harmony.
The order to remove the poles was initially issued by Tehsildar Nagaraj on August 28, following complaints from SDPI, which objected to the religious imagery on the poles. The poles feature symbols including a bow, arrow, mace, and the name Tirupati Thimmappa, which SDPI argued were emblematic of a particular religion and could disrupt the communal balance in Gangavati, a town with a diverse religious population.
In response to these objections, Tehsildar Nagaraj had instructed the police to remove the poles and file a case against the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Corporation (KRIDL), the company responsible for installing them. However, the Tehsildar’s decision quickly became a source of controversy itself, prompting him to reconsider. Later that evening, he retracted the order, stating that the issue would be referred to the relevant welfare authority for further discussion.
Nagaraj clarified that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Gangavati Municipal Council and that the proposal had been presented and approved as part of a broader urban development plan. He explained that the initial order was issued in response to concerns about religious and sectarian sentiments but noted that it was done without a full understanding of the municipal council’s prior decision. He assured that any further actions would be in line with the council’s directives and withdrew his earlier order to avoid unnecessary conflict.
The controversy has attracted widespread attention, particularly after the media highlighted the issue. The public backlash was swift, with many taking to social media to voice their opinions. The debate centers on the plan to develop Gangavati’s Anjanadri Hill—believed to be the birthplace of Lord Hanuman—into a spiritual and cultural site modeled after prominent religious sites like Ayodhya and Tirupati.
SDPI’s objections stem from the belief that the installation of religious symbols associated with Hinduism on public infrastructure could alienate other communities and disrupt the town’s communal harmony. They argued that such displays should not be permitted in a town with a significant Muslim population and called for the immediate removal of the poles.
However, former minister and MLA Janardhana Reddy, a key proponent of the development project, has vehemently opposed the removal of the poles. Reddy, who had campaigned on the promise of transforming Anjanadri Hill into a major religious site, argued that the symbols were an essential part of the project and that their removal would undermine the cultural and religious significance of the area. He emphasized that the symbols were intended to guide pilgrims and foster religious devotion, and he dismissed claims that they would incite communal tensions.
Reddy’s stance has received support from various Hindu organizations, which have called for the continuation of the project without any alterations. They argue that similar religious symbols are commonplace in other parts of the state, including Tirupati and Dharmasthala, and see no reason why Gangavati should be treated differently.
The project, part of a broader Urban Beautification Project costing Rs 65 crores, includes the installation of these electric poles along the road from Julaynagar Circle to Anegondi Road. However, the work was halted after only fifteen poles were installed due to the rising controversy. With the Tehsildar’s retraction of his order, the future of the project remains uncertain.
As Gangavati grapples with the fallout from this controversy, the focus now shifts to the Gangavati Municipal Council, which will have to navigate the competing demands of maintaining communal harmony and pursuing the development of Anjanadri Hill. The situation remains fluid, with people watching closely to see how the council will proceed in the coming days.
