The 1920s and 1930s were decades of intense religious polarization and violence in many parts of British India. These decades were also especially empowering ones for Hindu nationalist organizations in Delhi. So, it rankled Hindu leaders that Delhi’s built environment had a dearth of Hindu sacred structures to attest to their power, on account of the city’s past status as a Mughal capital. Instead, transitory spatial markers of local veneration made up its somewhat ephemeral Hindu sacred geography. The Shiv Mandir agitation of 1938 was a collective attempt by Hindu volunteers to forcibly occupy government land in a prominent arena of the city as a symbolic restitution of this historical inequality. The agitation itself had two parts—first, the occupation of a plot of land as a temple and, second, the aggregation of legal arguments supporting ownership of the plot for the Hindu public. By combining these two strategies, the Shiv Mandir agitation laid out the political and legal preconditions necessary for the production of a more conspicuous and enduring material landscape of organized Hindu religiosity in the city. Through this process, Hindu nationalist organizations consolidated themselves as the ultimate public custodians of temples and temple land. This was a powerful role that drew its prestige in good measure from control over prime urban property.

1920年代和1930年代是英属印度许多地方数十年激烈的宗教两极分化和暴力冲突。这几十年对于德里的印度民族主义组织来说尤其重要。因此，它使印度教领袖感到不安，因为这座城市过去曾是莫卧儿首府，因此德里的建筑环境缺乏印度教的神圣建筑以证明其力量。取而代之的是，局部崇敬的短暂空间标记构成了其短暂的印度教神圣地理。1938年的希夫·曼迪尔（Shiv Mandir）煽动是印度教志愿者的集体尝试，强行占领了这座城市显赫舞台上的政府土地，作为对这种历史不平等现象的象征性归还。煽动本身包括两个部分：第一，占领一块土地作为庙宇；第二，支持印度教公众拥有该土地所有权的法律论点的汇总。通过结合这两种策略，希夫·曼迪尔（Shiv Mandir）煽动活动为在该市产生有组织的印度教宗教活动提供了更为醒目和持久的物质景观，奠定了必要的政治和法律前提。通过这一过程，印度民族主义组织巩固了自己的地位，成为寺庙和寺庙土地的最终公共监护人。这是一个强有力的角色，在很大程度上是由于对优质城市财产的控制而赢得了声望。通过这一过程，印度民族主义组织巩固了自己的地位，成为寺庙和寺庙土地的最终公共监护人。这是一个强有力的角色，在很大程度上是由于对优质城市财产的控制而赢得了声望。通过这一过程，印度民族主义组织巩固了自己的地位，成为寺庙和寺庙土地的最终公共监护人。这是一个强有力的角色，在很大程度上是由于对优质城市财产的控制而赢得了声望。