GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF HINDU TEMPLES IS ILLEGAL…AND DRACONIAN

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 42^nd 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 16^th 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!