A heated debate over a golden sceptre seems pretty silly. But everything in politics happens for a reason—including the resurrection of a ‘sengol’ from an Allahabad Prayagraj museum. Especially when national elections are round the corner.
About the lead image: This is an ancient mural painted on the walls of the Brihadeshwara temple in Thanjavur–which was built by the Chola emperor Rajaraja Chola I in the 11th century.
Hmm, seems like boring netagiri. But fine, tell me about this sceptre…
Let’s start with what happened at the inauguration of the new parliament (whose deets are in this Big Story).
The ‘sengol’ ceremony: ‘Sengol’ is the Tamil word for the sceptre at the heart of this entire melodrama. Here’s a brief description of its starring role on Sunday:
PM Modi arrived at the new Parliament building at 7 am. Priests from adheenams (monasteries) in Tamil Nadu offered flowers to sengol as PM Modi performed havan to mark the inauguration of the new Parliament building. In a ceremony steeped in tradition and symbolism, the prime minister was handed over the sengol by Adheenam seers. He prostrated before the sengol and sought blessings from high priests of various adheenams in Tamil Nadu with the holy sceptre in hand.
Then this happened:
Modi then carried the sengol in a procession amid tunes of "nadaswaram" and chanting of Vedic mantras to the new Parliament building and installed it in a special enclosure on the right side of the Speaker's chair in the Lok Sabha chamber.
First came Doordarshan’s dramatic clip of the PM’s entry into the new parliament—with a suitable soundtrack, ofc:
Then the seers of the Tamil monasteries presented the sceptre to the PM:
Here is Modi-ji prostrating himself in front of the sengol after it was installed (because why not?):
Last not least, here’s a video of what followed soon after in the parliament:
Ok, what’s the big deal about this sceptre?
This is where it gets a bit murky. Let’s start with what everyone agrees on.
Back in 1947: The Brits were getting ready to hand over power to the independent Indian government—led by Jawaharlal Nehru. The head of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam in Tamil Nadu commissioned Chennai-based jewellers to make this gold-coated sceptre—that is five feet long and two inches thick:
A delegation sent by the head seer arrived in Delhi and presented the sceptre to Nehru—“accompanied by the recital of hymns from Thevaram”:
The account is confirmed by a TIME magazine report:
Even such an agnostic as Jawaharlal Nehru, on the eve of becoming India's first Prime Minister, fell into the religious spirit. From Tanjore in south India came two emissaries of Sri Amblavana Desigar, head of a sannyasi order of Hindu ascetics. Sri Amblavana thought that Nehru, as first Indian head of a really Indian Government ought, like ancient Hindu kings, to receive the symbol of power and authority from Hindu holy men.
None of this is denied by any side of this debate.
So why is everyone arguing about this?
Here’s the big point of contention: what’s the meaning of this 1947 sceptre ceremony—and does it have any real value?
The BJP version: The sceptre was commissioned because Lord Mountbatten—the last British Viceroy of India—asked Nehru if “there was any procedure to signify transfer of power”:
Nehru in turn consulted C. Rajagopalachari [Rajaji]... who in turn had the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam prepare the sceptre, seen as the sacred symbol of power and just rule. Those who presented the sceptre were flown in a special plane to Delhi, the government said.
The sceptre was, therefore, first presented to Mountbatten—taken back, blessed—and then given to Nehru—marking the transfer of sovereignty.
The ‘rediscovery’ of India: According to the BJP, the Congress party relegated this iconic symbol of Indian sovereignty to a musty display in the Nehru gallery at the Allahabad Museum—housed in Pandit-ji’s old home, Anand Bhawan. There it gathered dust—having been shamefully mislabeled as ‘Golden Walking stick gifted to Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru’.
That’s until the Tamil magazine Thuglak carried details of the sengol ceremony in 2021. The Bharatanatyam dancer Padma Subrahmanyam then wrote to the PM—asking him to spotlight this lost bit of historical lore during the Independence Day celebrations that year. The Culture Ministry researchers leapt into action—and restored it to its rightful place in Indian history.
Quote to note: In Amit Shah’s words, the passing of this golden baton was the seminal moment in India’s independence:
On this night Jawaharlal Nehru received the sengol from the Adheenams of the Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam in Tamil Nadu, who had specially arrived for the occasion. It was precisely the moment in which power was transferred by the British into the hands of Indians.
Bad, bad Gandhis: At the inauguration yesterday, Modi took aim at Congress for consigning the sengol to the dustbin of history—without naming them:
It would have been good had the holy sengol been given its due respect after independence and given an honourable position. But it was kept on display as a walking stick in Anand Bhawan, Prayagraj. Your ‘sevak’ and our government have brought the sengol out of Anand Bhawan.
As in: Gandhis are such abysmal dynasts, they can’t even keep track of their own royal privilege? Haw.
Ok, so what’s the other version?
There are two fact-checked versions of this particular sceptre out there. One is in The Hindu and the other in South First. Both of them reach the same conclusion. Yes, the sceptre was commissioned by the Tamil seer—and Nehru accepted it at a ceremony. But there is no evidence that Mountbatten was involved—or that it was part of any official transfer of power.
For starters: The Hindu looked at the evidence offered by the government to the press re Mountbatten:
[N]one of the evidence presented said the sceptre was first symbolically given to Mountbatten and taken back before being presented to Nehru, symbolising the transfer. The exception is the article that appeared in Thuglak magazine, written by its editor S. Gurumurthy in 2021.
Now, Gurumurthy is an RSS man who was appointed to the board of the Reserve Bank in 2018. And his version is sourced not to a document but a story shared by the head seer of a leading monastery with a disciple in 1978. At best, it’s hearsay based on the memory of a single person.
Bizarre thing to note: As evidence, the government also included a blog post by the famous Tamil writer Jeymohan—the scriptwriter for Ponniyin Selvan 1 and 2—who dismissed the grand ‘transfer of power’ symbolism as “WhatsApp history.” He said it was likely that Nehru accepted the sceptre—as he did many other gifts given to him from across the country.
The unlikely monarch: Nehru historians point out that the ardent socialist was least likely to embrace a symbol of divine power:
Nowhere in a democracy — in any country — is the sceptre used by any leader as a symbol of justice or power. Everyone knows Nehru was a socialist and would not be idealistic about the sceptre. Since the sengol was given in an individual capacity at his residence, Nehru might have taken it as a gift and would have sent it to the museum.
As for that Chola connection: The government has made much of the symbolic power of the royal sceptre in ancient Tamil history—as the sacred marker of the transfer of power to a new king during the Chola dynasty (of Ponniyin Selvan fame). But historians are sceptical for this reason:
Every kingdom had its own sceptre. A sengol signified the transfer of power only when it happened hereditarily. For example, if the king was bedridden or dead, his sceptre would be given to his son as a mark of transferring power. But when a king took over another kingdom by war or any other means, he would not use the sceptre of the old or defeated king.
Then there’s the bull:
According to some historians:
The sengol was given by a Saivate seer, and the Nandi [Siva’s bull] on top of it represented the Saivite culture, not the Hindu religion or a symbol of justice. If it had roots in the Chola dynasty, the sengol would definitely have had a tiger symbol marked on it.
Point to note: While there is plenty of debate over what the sengol signifies, everyone is clear about this one thing: “Sengol belonged to the period of kings. I do not think it has any role in democratic government elected by the people.”
Sigh, why are we even talking about this?
Now that’s the right question to ask. A sengol is not always a sengol. In the wake of a walloping in Karnataka, it also symbolises the BJP’s determination to win the South—ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. As NDTV notes, wooing the seers is key to driving a wedge against the ruling DMK party—which like all Dravidian parties is hostile to traditional religion:
This is not the first time the BJP is reaching out to adheenams that are Shaivite sects traditionally dedicated to Tamil forms of worship and have Tamil rituals and Tamil hymns. The Tamil Nadu BJP in the last two years has supported the demands of adheenams in Madurai and Dharmapuram that have accused the DMK government of interference or blocking their traditional practices.
The head of the Madurai monastery recently addressed a Hindutva conference, declaring: “Holy temples have become politicians’ dens. They rob from the faithful and call it Dravida Nadu.” Ahead of the inauguration, he also now endorsed Modi for PM in 2024.
Point to note: The adheenams in Tamil Nadu have a large number of devotees—who do not belong to upper castes. The party’s supporters insist there is “a growing interest” for the BJP among the "non Periyarist, non brahmin, nationalist, pious, with a strong, defiant Hindu religiosity.”
One nation under God: It is also important to the BJP/RSS agenda to establish a unified Hindu identity—which has long been resisted by the South. The party recently hosted the ‘Kashi-Tamil Sangamam’ to establish the cultural, historical and civilisational linkages between North and South India.
Just as important: The grand ceremony killed two birds with one gold-coated sceptre. The sengol speaks to South Indian Hindu pride—but also plants a religious stake at the heart of the secular republic—behind the seat of the Lok Sabha Speaker. Hence, this Firstpost op-ed—titled ‘The saga of Sengol: How India was reborn as Hindu in 1947, but the Nehruvian lords of Lutyens conspired to steal it’. The key quote from this particular gem:
The free nation that was born in 1947 was unapologetically Hindu. And Nehru, despite being a sceptic, initially went with the Hindu mood of the nation, but later conspired with his progressive/Leftist minions to steal the innate ‘Hinduness’ of the country.
That’s the real story this sceptre serves to tell—whether or not you choose to believe it.
Ironic point to note: The BJP has been leaning heavily on the adheenams to bolster its narrative. But these monasteries—dedicated to the worship of Siva—have not looked kindly on the North in the past:
Tamil Saivism began as a direct confrontation to north Indian Saivite traditions that had the patronage of the Chola kings. “The Adheenams endorsed worship in Tamil, rooted in the context of the land. There are even many references to Sivan in Sangam literature. The Adheenams viewed him as a Tamil god,” [AK Perumal said].
The bottomline: We leave you to make what you will of this story.
Reading list
The best reporting on the sengol is in The Hindu—which reports on its symbolism and rediscovery in Allahabad. The Hindu also put together a very good fact check—but the South First version is far more detailed—and doesn’t rely solely on the government’s documentation. The Wire critiques the sengol as a symbol of divine power. As for the politics, NDTV has the big picture—while The News Minute looks at the role of the Tamil monasteries.
