A century-old Hindu temple in Kuala Lumpur has become the center of a contentious dispute after plans were announced to relocate it to make way for a mosque. The Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple, which has been a spiritual landmark for more than a hundred years, now faces the threat of demolition and relocation, a move that has sparked outrage among temple officials, activists, and members of the local Hindu community. While Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has temporarily paused demolition, the temple committee remains resolute in its opposition to the relocation.
This situation is not unique. Across the world, places of worship, both religious and historical, have faced similar threats.
Historical significance of the temple
Built in 1894, the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple stands as a testament to the deep-rooted Hindu traditions within the Masjid India area of Kuala Lumpur. The temple has been an integral part of the local Hindu community, serving as a place of worship, cultural congregation, and community engagement for generations. Its main deity, Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamma Amma, is venerated by thousands of devotees who have been frequenting the temple for more than a century.
The temple’s location near Masjid India, a historically diverse area that houses multiple religious establishments. However, the latest proposal to demolish the temple to accommodate the construction of a mosque has reignited debates over religious rights, heritage conservation, and the role of authorities in managing such disputes.
The dispute over relocation
The controversy began after DBKL approved a proposal by landowner Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd to construct a mosque, named Masjid Madani, on the land where the temple currently stands. Jakel Trading, which acquired the land in 2012, received official approval in 2021 for the mosque’s construction. The company has offered to bear the costs of relocating the temple and has been in negotiations with the temple committee for over a decade.
Despite these discussions, the temple committee has rejected all proposed relocation sites, citing various concerns such as inadequate land size, significant distance from the current location, and the risk of flooding in the new area. According to legal representatives of the temple, the committee was only officially informed in 2016 that they were occupying privately owned land, two years after it was sold to the developer. This late communication, coupled with the temple’s forced move to its current location in 2008 under DBKL’s directive, has further fueled the dispute.
Temple representatives argue that DBKL, as an extension of the Malaysian government, must take responsibility for the land deal it facilitated nearly a decade ago. They have also questioned why alternative sites for the mosque were not considered, particularly when an open-air parking lot adjacent to the temple—also owned by the developer—could serve as a viable location.
Prominent lawyer and activist Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan has welcomed DBKL’s decision to pause the demolition, recognising it as a step toward upholding religious freedom under the Malaysian Federal Constitution. However, she has also warned that legal action may be necessary if a fair resolution is not reached.
Concerns associated
The broader implications of the dispute extend beyond the fate of a single temple. Many see it as a litmus test for religious rights, governance, and heritage conservation in Malaysia. Urimai chairman P. Ramasamy, a former deputy chief minister of Penang, has voiced strong opposition to the temple’s relocation, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of minority religious institutions.
“This is not just about one temple, it is about setting a precedent for how heritage and religious rights are treated in Malaysia. Hindu temples are not placed on wheels to be moved at the whims of the powerful,” said P. Ramasamy
The concern is that if the temple is forcibly relocated, it could pave the way for further demolitions of historical religious sites, particularly those belonging to minority communities.
Meanwhile, DBKL has assured the public that no demolition activities will take place until an agreement is reached. The administration has reiterated that the mosque construction is a private initiative by the landowner and not a government project, and that religious freedom remains a priority.
Jakel Trading’s head of legal and corporate communications, Aiman Dazuki, has defended the company’s position, arguing that the available 12,000-square-foot plot of land is insufficient to accommodate both a temple and a mosque. However, activists and temple supporters remain unconvinced, urging authorities to seek alternative solutions that do not involve demolishing a place of worship with over a century of history.
Finding a path forward
The ongoing controversy over the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple is more than just a local dispute, it is a test of how Malaysia approaches religious and historical preservation in an increasingly urbanised landscape. While authorities have assured that religious freedom remains a priority, the final resolution of this case will set an important precedent for future disputes involving minority religious institutions.
The temple committee and activists continue to advocate for a compromise that does not erase over a century of religious and cultural history. Many believe that a solution exists that allows both the mosque and the temple to coexist without one being displaced. Whether DBKL and Jakel Trading will explore such alternatives remains to be seen.
If history has taught us anything, it is that places of worship are more than just buildings, they represent identity, faith, and cultural continuity. Finding a way to honor this legacy while addressing urban development challenges will be the real test of governance in Kuala Lumpur and beyond.
Comments