
P Ramasamy, the head of the United for the Rights of Malaysians party (Urimai), insisted that the action had a deeper significance. He reportedly asked why the temple's property was chosen for a mosque and why Jakel Trading purchased it before the matter was resolved. He also asked why another location for the mosque was not considered and pointed out that there was enough nearby property that did not require the temple to be relocated.
"Relocation is only one aspect of this problem; other issues include responsible government, religious freedom, and historical preservation.
Given the temple's religious and historical significance, how did Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) authorize a mosque project on the temple's actual site? Why should a historically and culturally significant house of worship be moved at all? Forcibly moving such an important heritage property to make way for a new development is wrong. It is important to honor the temple's heritage, cultural character, and the religious feelings of its followers. This is about more than just one temple; it's about establishing a standard for Malaysia's treatment of religious freedom and history. Ramasamy expressed his disapproval, saying, "Hindu temples are not put on wheels to be moved at the whim of the powerful."
The government and the private company repeatedly tried to compel a move and threatened to take legal action if temple officials did not comply, according to the temple administration's complaint. Devotees were shocked to learn that DBKL (Kuala Lumpur City Council) had sold the textile firm Jakel Trading the property on which a groundbreaking ceremony was scheduled to build a mosque. At a news conference in Petaling Jaya, raj Mohan Pillai, deputy president of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple, said, "We don't understand how a groundbreaking ceremony can be held when talks on the temple's status haven't concluded."
Anwar Ibrahim, the prime minister, was also scheduled to attend. However, DBKL has promised not to demolish the temple. The temple was given 14 days to vacate the land or face "the necessary enforcement action," according to a letter it delivered last year, in which it said that it would not be held liable for any possible damages. Ramasamy revealed that Urimai and the temple committee are strongly opposed to the relocation and have demanded that the temple remain in its current location.
"The temple does not need to be demolished. As Hindus and human rights activists proposed that a mosque may be built there without the temple having to relocate, Pillai said, "The adjacent lot is big enough to build the mosque." According to reports, the property is divided into two lots, one of which was owned by a private company and the other by the government. Human rights activists said that the government needed to understand how sensitive it was to build a mosque on property that had been cleared by removing a house of worship belonging to another religion.
The Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple was first built in 1893. It was moved to the present location in 2008 and the property was purchased by Jakel in 2014.