Hindu temple in Melbourne, Australia defaced with hateful racist graffiti, Prime Minister Jacinta Allen says...
New Delhi: Racist hate slogans were found written in a Hindu temple and two Asian restaurants in Melbourne, Australia. After this incident came to light, concern has increased among the members of the Hindu community living here. This information has been given in a local media report on Thursday (July 24, 2025). Which Hindu temple was defaced?
According to the report of the Australia Today web portal, the temple of Shri Swaminarayan Swami is located on Wadhurst Drive in Boronia, the eastern suburb of Melbourne and on Monday (July 21, 2025) morning, hateful racist things were written in red color on the walls of the temple.
At the same time, according to the report of the portal, on the same day, Monday (July 21), the same kind of abusive words were written on two Asian restaurants located on Boronia Road in Melbourne. What did Victoria Police say?
The report said that Victoria Police of Australia has confirmed this incident. Victoria Police said, 'There is absolutely no place for hate-based and racist behavior in our society.' What is the reaction of Hindu community?
According to the web portal report, shocked by the incident, Makrand Bhagwat, President of Hindu Council of Australia, Victoria Chapter, said, 'It seems like an attack on our identity, our right to worship and religious freedom.' Meanwhile, the Hindu community has condemned the act and has sought support from interfaith groups after the incident. Prime Minister Jacinta Allen's message
The report also said that Victoria's Prime Minister Jacinta Allen, in a personal message sent to the management of the Hindu temple, has termed these hate slogans as hateful and racist.
Quoting Jacinta's message, the report said, 'What happened this week was hateful, racist and extremely disturbing. It was not just a defacement of the temple, but it was a deliberate attempt to spread hatred. The aim was to intimidate people, isolate people from different backgrounds and spread fear.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The medical boundaries for AYUSH practitioners
The recent controversy on X between a hepatologist and an Indian chess Grand Master, on whether practitioners of traditional medicine can claim to be doctors, has sparked much commentary on the role and the status of practitioners of traditional Indian medicine systems such as Ayurveda and Unani, in India. Committees, governments, perspectives The burning issue here is not merely whether practitioners of Ayurveda can refer to themselves as doctors, but rather the scope of medical activities permitted under Indian law. This is an issue which has consequences for public health. A starting point for this discussion is to understand the framing of the debate over the last 80 years, beginning 1946, when the Health Survey and Development Committee, better known as Bhore Committee, batted in favour of modern scientific medicine based on evidence. The committee had pointed out that other countries were in the process of phasing out their traditional medicine systems and recommended that states take a call on the extent to which traditional medicine played a role in their public health systems. The Bhore committee's lack of enthusiasm for the traditional medicinal system did not go unnoticed by practitioners of traditional Indian medicine who mounted a vocal protest. They managed to convince the Government of India to set up the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine, which submitted its report in 1948. This committee unabashedly wrapped up its conclusions in communal language, framing the issue in terms of Hindu nationalism by linking Ayurveda to the Vedas and its decline to 'foreign domination'. While the Nehru government took no action to formally recognise these practitioners of traditional medicine, the Indira Gandhi government in 1970 enacted a legislation called The Indian Medicine Central Council Act recognising and regulating the practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. This law was replaced in 2020 with a new law called The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act. The syllabus for aspiring practitioners of Ayurveda is an absolute mish-mash of concepts that span everything from doshas, prakriti, atmas (which includes learning the difference between paramatma and jivatma) with a sprinkling of modern medical concepts such as cell physiology and anatomy. These are irreconcilable concepts — the theory of tridosha attributes all ills to an imbalance of doshas, while modern medicine locates the concepts of some diseases such as infections in 'germ theory', among others. There is no middle ground between both systems of medicine which is why concepts such as integrative medicine make no sense. Point of friction Nevertheless, the legal recognition of this new class of practitioners led to questions on the exact boundaries between the practice of traditional and modern medicine. The major point of friction has been the prescription of modern medicines by the practitioners of traditional medicine. Ayurvedic practitioners, in particular, while claiming the superiority of their art over modern medicine, have consistently demanded the right to prescribe modern medicines developed by evidence-based modern science. Pertinently, this dispute revolved around the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which defined the class of 'registered medical practitioners' who can prescribe modern medicine. This definition is complicated since it is not limited to doctors with a MBBS degree. It delegates a certain amount of power to State governments to pass orders declaring medical practitioners on their State medical registers as persons 'practising the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of ….' the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. Many State governments have used this power under Rule 2(ee) to allow registered practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani to prescribe modern medicine such as antibiotics. The constitutionality of these orders was challenged before the courts and the first round of litigation concluded in 1998 with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. The Court concluded that 'the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine'. Simply put, Ayurvedic practitioners had no right to prescribe modern medicine. That judgment never stopped the lobbying by Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners with State governments for the promulgation of orders under Rule 2(ee) allowing them to prescribe modern medicine. Several State governments have continued passing these orders in defiance of the Court's judgment. This inevitably leads to litigation before the High Courts, usually by the Indian Medical Association, which often wins these cases. Unsuspecting patients too have often sued practitioners of Ayurveda before consumer courts on the grounds that they were deceived into believing that they were being treated by a doctor with a MBBS degree who can prescribe modern medicine. While much of the litigation has revolved around the right to dispense modern medicine, there is also the issue regarding the medical procedures that can be conducted legally by practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani. For example, can a registered Ayurvedic practitioner 'intubate' a patient? This is an important question to ask since it is an open secret that many hospitals purporting to practise modern medicine are hiring Ayurvedic practitioners with Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) degree at lower pay in place of graduates with a MBBS degree. Further, a notification by the Indian government in 2020 has allowed Ayurvedic practitioners (post graduates) to perform 58 minor surgeries, including the removal of the gall bladder, appendix and benign tumours. The constitutionality of this notification is pending before the courts. If the notification is upheld, the question that arises is whether these Ayurvedic practitioners can now use anaesthetic agents and antibiotics required to conduct surgeries. The stakes are high for public health in India since the likely strategy of Ayurvedic practitioners will be to argue that these surgeries were known in traditional Indian medicine. In these times of heady Hindutva, it will be difficult to find a judge who will ignore these claims. The political factor The larger political backdrop to this entire debate regarding Ayurvedic practitioners is 'Hindu pride', which has fuelled claims of fantastical achievements by ancient Indian civilisation, be it the pushpaka vimana or the claims of the Kauravas being test tube babies. When a policy issue such as Ayurveda is cynically draped in the language of 'Hindu pride', it is not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the Indian National Congress which feels compelled to support an obviously dangerous approach to public health. The last election manifesto of the Indian National Congress, in 2024, promised that the party would 'support' all systems of medicines instead of a promise to support only rational, evidence-based medicine. This blind faith in traditional medicine is going to cost every citizen in the future since the government is actively considering the inclusion of AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy) treatments under the Ayushman Bharat insurance scheme funded by tax-payers. This is in addition to approximately ₹20,000 crore of tax-payer money spent on research councils functioning under the Ministry of AYUSH with a mandate to research AYUSH. They have very little to show for in terms of scientific breakthroughs. Twitter outrage notwithstanding, the joke at the end of the day is on the tax-payer. Dinesh S. Thakur is the author of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'. Prashant Reddy T. is the coauthor of 'The Truth Pill: The Myth of Drug Regulation in India'
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
DMK govt persecuting Hindu leaders: Raja
1 2 Madurai: Calling the DMK govt 'strongly anti-Hindu,' senior BJP leader H Raja alleged on Monday that it was targeting Hindu religious leaders and supporters using police, as seen in the recent case of Madurai Adheenam. Raja led a demonstration by BJP cadres in Madurai on Monday evening near Jhansi Rani Park, in support of the 293rd pontiff of Madurai Adheenam, Sri La Sri Harihara Sri Gnana Sambandha Desika Swamigal. The seer was recently subjected to inquiry by Chennai cyber crime police for his alleged communal remarks following a road accident at Ulundurpet on May 2. Raja said the DMK govt was reacting to anything and everything out of fear. "They will be out of power in 2026 for sure. So, they are needlessly waging a war against Hindu society and religion, and showing their anti-Hindu stance by actions such as this and persecuting Hindu religious leaders who do not favour them. They are using police as a tool for it," he said. Saying that the Adheenam was subjected to inquiry even as he was recovering from a surgery, Raja said the Stalin govt was acting like a 'Taliban' govt.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Aerotropolis ‘land grab' irks villagers
Guwahati: A new wave of tension is emerging in villages near Guwahati airport, where indigenous communities reside, following land acquisition notices from Kamrup (Metro) district administration. This is happening even as the govt continues to serve eviction notives to migrant Muslim families living on encroached land. The administration issued notices to 105 pattadars of Garal village in Ramchrani Mouza/Pargana of the urban district near Guwahati Airport, local villagers said on Monday. According to a govt order, the land acquisition is intended for aerotropolis development covering the Garal village, as requested by the managing director of Assam Industrial Development Corporation. While some pattadars are Muslims, residents said the majority are Assamese-Hindu families who have lived in the area for generations. The govt's plan for the aerotropolis project perhaps extends beyond Garal, which lies north of the Adani Group-managed LGBI Airport. Residents of Azara and Mirzapur, to the east of the airport, are also expressing strong opposition to the land acquisition proceedings. "We won't vacate our land at any cost," said Akan Chandra Das, president, Mirzapur Anchalik Bhumi Suraksha Samiti, on Monday. The committee represents residents from Mirzapur, Azara, and Garal villages whose lands are targeted for acquisition. "Already nine to ten times, our families gave land to the govt post-Independence. for development of the airport, adjacent roads, and defence establishments near the Guwahati airport. If the remaining land is also taken away for development projects, where will we go?How will our children survive without agriculture if they don't get jobs in other sectors?" he asked. Basudev Mali, a retired teacher from Mirzapur, said, "We are original inhabitants of this land. We are not ready to accept the compensation the govt is going to give." The committee, recently formed under Das's leadership to protect villagers' interests, claims that 257 bighas in Mirzapur, 83 bighas in Garal, and 84 bighas in Azara are slated for acquisition. "We lost our valuable farmlands for the airport and other govt establishments. If the govt continues to take over our lands for airport expansion or for aerotropolis development now, who will ensure the survival of our children? The remaining farmlands were our only hope, but the govt wants to take away that also," said Mali, who owns 10 bighas of land near the airport.
