After India became independent the temples run by kings and princes came under government control. The temple endowment boards ran the Hindu temples in the country. But there were riders in the constitution. The Government cannot treat the money earned by temples as revenue, and add that to the earnings of the Government. They must use the money for developing the temple and the associated facilities. These constitutional provisions are exclusive of Hindu temples; it does not include Churches and Mosques. The reasons for excluding them are not known.

Off late there has been a constant demand from the Hindu groups for freeing the temples from Government rule and handing them over to the bodies governed by the devotees. The reason is to remove the autocratic controls of government detrimental to the ethos of the temple. Mindless civil work in the form of sand blasting, concreting and other forms superficial restoration work is killing the soul of the temples. There are norms and methods for foundation, building and restoration of temples. It is a well-developed ancient science. The experts must do the work.

The smart pens of executives divert funds exclusive for the temple for other things. It you read the contents of an affidavit submitted by the Kerala government in Supreme Court, the claims of works government undertook under temple endowment funds are PWD work taken in non religious places. The real question is do Endowment funds for such civil work come under the Government ambit? So, there is a view that a group of devotees can take better decisions of land and funds for better management of Hindu religious places. It will further nurture the philosophy and core values embodied into the religious place or temple.

The burning issue and the dichotomy here is that the churches and mosques are not under the government control and temples are. At, the same time some of them receive enormous foreign funding from Christian bodies and mosques from the Middle East. Maybe, the consideration at the time of making of constitution was that since the churches and mosques belong to the ‘minority’, they need no majority control. The conditions of religious prayer places and bodies changed has since the promulgation of constitution. The point of contention is that if we call ourselves a secular democracy, why do we have such a lopsided provision?

Especially in Tamilnadu and Kerala they do not even pay the priests who are performing pujas well. While the government appointed servants working in capacity of drivers, security and administrator to the temples receive better pay than the priests. This is a cruel anomaly, showing a very insensitive approach of the administrator. The fleet of VIP cars and other accessories around some temples does not convey intentions of governments trying to make any structural changes. The high administrative fees charged by some governments from the temple bodies shows the unnecessary misuse of the temple funds.

Temples are for community and devotees, let them manage their own affairs. The time is ripe to review the constitutional provisions and revise them to address this longstanding demand of Hindus.

Image Credits: By QiNi - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=62127956