Arvind Kejriwal landed in Lucknow on Thursday with a charge that cuts to the heart of one of India’s most politically sensitive controversies. The AAP national convenor did not mince words: the Special Investigation Team probing the alleged Ram Temple donation scam, he said, is not a genuine probe but an eyewash—a shield for the powerful.
What Kejriwal alleged at Lucknow airport
Speaking to reporters shortly after arriving at the airport on his way to Ayodhya, Kejriwal claimed that valuables and cash donated by devotees to the Ram Temple had been stolen. “Diamonds and precious stones that devotees offered to God have been stolen, Rs 200 crore in cash has been stolen, and even 200 kilograms of silver have been stolen,” he said, his voice carrying visible distress.
Why the SIT probe is under question
The former Delhi chief minister’s core accusation is that the SIT, rather than investigating the theft, is designed to protect those responsible. “The SIT is an eyewash, formed to protect the powerful,” Kejriwal asserted, directly challenging the credibility of the investigation. He pointed to the absence of an FIR despite what he described as clear evidence of large-scale theft.
How the donation controversy unfolded
The Ram Temple in Ayodhya, inaugurated in January 2024, has received massive donations from devotees across India and abroad. Reports of missing or mismanaged donations first surfaced months ago, prompting the Uttar Pradesh government to form an SIT. However, the lack of visible progress and the absence of a formal FIR have fueled political criticism, with the AAP now leading the charge.
Who is affected by these allegations
For millions of devotees who contributed to the temple, the allegations strike a deeply personal chord. Kejriwal framed his distress as shared by countless others: “I am deeply distressed. There are crores and crores of people like me who are deeply distressed.” The emotional weight of the claim—that offerings made in faith have been stolen—resonates far beyond political circles.
What the authorities have said so far
As of now, no official response from the Uttar Pradesh government or the SIT has been issued in response to Kejriwal’s latest remarks. The temple trust and state authorities have previously denied any large-scale theft, though the formation of the SIT itself acknowledged some irregularities. The absence of an FIR remains a key point of contention.
What lies behind Kejriwal’s Ayodhya visit
Kejriwal’s visit to Ayodhya—where he is scheduled to offer prayers at the Ram Temple and Hanumangarhi—carries political symbolism. It comes amid a charged political atmosphere, with the AAP seeking to position itself as a defender of faith and transparency. The timing and location of his allegations suggest a deliberate effort to keep the issue in the national spotlight.
Confirmed facts vs what remains unclear
Confirmed: Kejriwal made the statements at Lucknow airport on Thursday. He is traveling to Ayodhya for a temple visit. The SIT was formed to investigate donation-related complaints. No FIR has been registered so far.
Unclear: The exact amount and nature of missing donations remain unverified by independent sources. Whether the SIT has gathered evidence of theft is not publicly known. The identity of those Kejriwal alleges are being protected has not been specified.
Political risks and a balanced view
Kejriwal’s allegations carry significant political risk. Without concrete evidence or an FIR, the claims could be dismissed as political grandstanding. Critics may argue that the AAP leader is using a sensitive religious issue to gain political traction. On the other hand, the absence of an FIR despite an SIT probe raises legitimate questions about transparency that deserve an answer, regardless of who asks them.
Wider pattern of temple donation controversies
This is not the first time large temple donations have sparked controversy in India. Major temples across the country—from Tirupati to Shirdi—have faced periodic questions over donation management and transparency. The Ram Temple case, however, carries unique political and emotional weight given its central role in India’s recent political history.
What devotees and observers should watch for
For those following the story, key developments to watch include: whether an FIR is registered, what the SIT’s findings reveal, and whether the Uttar Pradesh government responds formally to Kejriwal’s allegations. Devotees who have donated may want to monitor official temple trust communications for any transparency measures.
What could happen next
The political pressure on the SIT and the Uttar Pradesh government is likely to intensify. Kejriwal’s visit to Ayodhya could be followed by more public statements or even a formal complaint. The coming days may see either a clarification from authorities or a deepening of the political row, depending on how the state government chooses to respond.
Our Take
This controversy touches on a sensitive nerve: the intersection of faith, public trust, and political accountability. Kejriwal’s allegations, whether proven or not, have already achieved one thing—they have forced a conversation about transparency in the management of one of India’s most revered temples. The real test will be whether the investigation, whatever its political motivations, leads to clarity. For now, the absence of an FIR remains the most puzzling and consequential detail in this unfolding story.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Arvind Kejriwal allege about the Ram Temple donations?
Kejriwal claimed that diamonds, precious stones, Rs 200 crore in cash, and 200 kg of silver donated to the Ram Temple have been stolen. He alleged the SIT probe is an eyewash to protect the powerful.
Why did Kejriwal call the SIT an eyewash?
He said the SIT was formed not to investigate the theft but to shield influential people. He pointed to the absence of an FIR despite alleged evidence of large-scale theft as proof of this.
Has an FIR been registered in the Ram Temple donation case?
As of Kejriwal’s statement on Thursday, no FIR has been registered despite the existence of an SIT probe. This is a key point of his criticism.
What is the political significance of Kejriwal’s Ayodhya visit?
The visit allows Kejriwal to combine a religious gesture with a political attack, keeping the donation controversy in the national spotlight and positioning the AAP as a defender of transparency and faith.
