The
Emergency of 1975-77 was perhaps the darkest period in the post-independence history
of India. The government’s clampdown
on civil liberties and widespread abuse of human rights posed a serious challenge
to the democratic values enshrined in the fabric of our Constitution.
Using its unfettered
powers and a brute majority in Parliament, the Central Government headed by
Smt. Indira Gandhi passed the 42nd Amendment, which changed the perambulatory
description of India from “sovereign democratic republic” to “sovereign,
socialist, secular democratic republic”. The eminent jurist and constitutional
expert, H.M. Seervai, severely criticised this ambiguous amendment inserted
arbitrarily. However, the amendment survived judicial challenge and the term
“secular” has since become an integral part of the Preamble.
European Concept of “Secularism”
Many priests challenged the authority of
the papacy in the 16th Century. In his “Two-Governments Doctrine”, Martin
Luther enunciated that the church should not exercise ‘worldly government’. The
English philosopher, John Locke too argued that the state lacked authority in
the realm of individual conscience. During the ‘Age of Reason’, Voltaire and
other writers stressed anti-clericalism, which gained momentum in the French
Revolution. This led to the concept of separating church
from state. George Holyoake coined the term “secularism” in the 1850s to
refer to such segregation.
Secularism,
contrary to popular misconception in India, is not
the opposite of communalism. Conceptually it entails indifference, perhaps even contemptuous irreverence, to religion in the affairs of the State. It requires government
to exclude religion from its functions. But, in India the term has been misappropriated
to justify the appeasement of religious minorities. The mollycoddling often disregards
the sentiments of those affiliated to the majority religion. This insensitivity is most apparently manifest in state governments
that are deeply entrenched in the administration ad infinitum of over 4 lakh Hindu temples
within the country.
Indeed a complete mockery of the secular credentials enshrined in
the Constitution!
Government Control of Hindu Temples
A Hindu temple is a space designed to bring devotees nearer
to the Divine. Consecrated as the dwelling of the presiding God or deity, it is
a place for prayer, worship, reverence and supplication to divinity. The
structure of the temple is typically used for symbolic expression of the ideas
and beliefs of Hinduism. The adoration of the deity gives Hindus solace and
satisfaction.
Inscriptions
and pillar edicts prove that Hindu temples also functioned as centres of community
celebrations and training in fine arts, performing arts and architecture. Thus,
temples not only provided spiritual succor to devotees, but also functioned as hubs
of social, beneficent, charitable, cultural, educational and economic activity.
They even served as forums for dispute resolution and dispensation of justice. In
ancient times religious and charitable
institutions were under the special protection of the ruling authority. The
King, as the sovereign head of his state, discharged the duty of protecting
temples and intervened as an arbiter in disputes.
In
modern India, the Constitution provides for regulation and restriction of “any
economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with
religious practice.” This empowers government to institute regulatory
measures for protecting interests of devotees, safeguarding temple assets, and
intervening in the event of mismanagement.
Evidence, however, shows a brazen abdication
of these duties, not to mention the refusal to abdicate control over temple
affairs. The reluctance forced the Supreme
Court to observe in its landmark Chidambaram Temple judgment:
“Even
if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the management
must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands
remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their
proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution… Supersession of rights of administration cannot be of a permanent
enduring nature. Its life has to be reasonably fixed so as to be co-terminus
with the removal of the consequences of maladministration… Power to regulate
does not mean power to supersede the administration for indefinite period.”
The
questions that beg to be asked then are: What
happens if government relinquishes control over its temples? Who does the power to govern temples devolve
onto? What safeguard and regulatory mechanisms are necessary for ensuring good
governance?
Autonomous Temple Administration
A consensus no doubt exists over the
need for government to end its involvement in the day-to-day affairs of temples.
This is possible only if legislation enables the state to prevent mischief by
functionaries, misappropriation of funds and mismanagement of affairs of
temples. The law must also
provide for timely intervention and time-bound exit of government from temples
after irregularities or illegalities have been remedied.
Diversity within Hinduism— a large pantheon
of Gods, besides multitude of sects and multiplicity of customs, beliefs,
rituals, practices and worship forms— poses serious challenges to the enactment
of any umbrella legislation. Imposing any diktat-driven, monolithic command-and-control
forms of temple administration impractical.
Central Legislation: Need of the Hour
Hindu temples must reflect the ethos of
Bharat and become cornerstones of a vibrant, progressive and resurgent nation,
which is proud of its heritage, traditions and cultural roots. Temples can help
people aspire for higher quality-of-life and inspire the pursuit of ‘dhārmic’ living. With appropriate
societal interfaces temples can be transformed into hubs of socio-cultural
activity.
Revitalising
the temple ecosystem though calls for a decentralised system that entails
rigorous regulatory oversight, while conferring autonomy in all operational
matters, religious or otherwise. A robust system can ensure: (a) full
withdrawal of state control over temples; (b) smooth transition of power to local
communities; and, (c) effective and transparent administration of our holy
shrines.
While
rigid policy and compliance parameters may be imposed, temple administration mechanisms
must be flexible. A phased transition approach can be framed for the transfer
of management to local communities and mațhās based on sampradāyas.
If
a “from-the-frying-pan-into-the-fire” scenario is to be avoided, a central
comprehensive enactment for the regulation of Hindu temples is sine qua non. Indeed, we, the people of
secular India, have a constitutional duty to ensure that the government is kept
out of Hindu religious affairs!
