In my mind, the question is not whether the congregation has the right to erect the statue, but whether it is tactful to do so. In a climate of growing Hindu fanaticism I would advocate for something much more modest. Needlessly provoking non-Christian majorities is something that should be avoided in my opinion.
According to the link, the statue is the problem though. On the basis of a suspiciously convenient belief that a Hindu deity happens to dwell on the proposed site. Regardless, the notion that the presence of Christianity is somehow a threat to the India's Hindu majority is a paranoid fantasy. Christianity has been in India for a very long time and has converted but a tiny sliver of the population. Islam has had more success due to centuries of political dominance, but that's hardly the fault of the Christians.I agree with the Hindus for below reason:
“We will not allow a statue of Jesus to be erected at Kapalabetta. They are trying to make it a Christian land just like Pakistan is a Muslim state,” he added.
Statue of Jesus is no problem
Christian intention is the problem = proselytizing