Historical Facts –
State control over Hindu temples in India was gradually established during the British colonial period, but the process intensified post-independence.`
1. Colonial Period: During British rule, the British East India Company initially avoided interference in religious matters. However, over time, they began taking control of some temple properties, particularly to regulate the flow of revenue from temple lands and wealth. For example, the Madras Regulation VII of 1817 allowed the British to oversee temple administration in the Madras Presidency. This marked the beginning of a formalized system of temple oversight.
2. Post-Independence: After independence in 1947, several state governments in India took over the administration of major Hindu temples, arguing that this was necessary to prevent mismanagement and corruption. The key legal provisions that facilitated state control include:
• Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HRCE) Act (1951): States like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka used this law to take control of temple administration.
• Temple Entry Acts and Reforms: Many states enacted laws to reform temple management and ensure the protection of temple lands and assets, often citing the public interest.
This led to the establishment of Devaswom Boards in Kerala and Trusts/Departments in other states, which oversee the management and finances of temples. These boards and trusts, appointed or overseen by the government, control temples like Tirupati, Sabarimala, and many others.
Demerits as they emanated from the State Control of Devsthanam
Criticism has arisen, particularly from Hindu groups, over the government’s control of temples, contrasting it with the autonomy granted to institutions of other religions. The push for temple independence from state control has been a longstanding issue. State control over Hindu temples has been a topic of significant debate in Bharat. Critics argue that such control leads to various demerits, including:
- Mismanagement and Bureaucratization:
A. Government-appointed administrators often lack deep understanding of religious practices and temple rituals. This bureaucratic oversight can lead to inefficiencies and improper temple management.
B. The primary focus of the state-appointed administrators may shift to revenue generation and less towards maintaining spiritual and religious sanctity. - Diversion of Temple Funds:
A major concern is the diversion of temple funds for secular purposes or general state expenses. Temples generate significant revenue, but much of it is often used by state governments for projects unrelated to religious or cultural upkeep, rather than reinvesting it back into the temples or the welfare of the Hindu community. - Erosion of Autonomy:
A. Unlike religious institutions of other faiths, which have greater autonomy, Hindu temples are often placed under direct government control, creating an imbalance in the management of religious institutions. This is seen as discriminatory by some groups.
B. The temple trustees and religious heads lose the right to manage their own places of worship, leading to dissatisfaction within the religious community. - Lack of Accountability and Transparency:
State-appointed boards or trusts often lack transparency and are not sufficiently accountable to the public. There have been several allegations of corruption, with temple resources being misused or misappropriated under state control. - Neglect of Heritage and Cultural Preservation:
Many argue that the state’s involvement often results in neglect of the preservation of temple architecture, traditions, and cultural practices. Resources are often not allocated for maintaining these ancient heritage structures, leading to their deterioration. - Politicization of Temple Management:
State control can lead to the politicization of temple management, with administrators often being appointed based on political affiliations rather than merit or religious knowledge. This can result in decisions being made based on political interests rather than what is best for the temple and its devotees. - Unequal Treatment Compared to Other Religions:
Hindu temples are subjected to state control, whereas religious institutions of other communities, like mosques and churches, enjoy greater autonomy. This is viewed as unequal treatment and is often criticized as discriminatory against Hindus. - Dilution of Religious Freedom:
State interference in religious institutions can be perceived as a violation of the right to religious freedom. Critics argue that the government should not interfere in religious matters and that temples should be run by the devotees and religious heads who have a vested interest in preserving the faith and traditions. - Impact on Devotees’ Sentiment:
The government’s involvement, especially when it appears insensitive to the religious sentiments and practices of temple traditions, can alienate devotees. Temples are integral to the spiritual and cultural life of Hindu communities, and mismanagement under state control can erode faith in the system.
These demerits have actually been used by various state governments to their benefits to the extent that Trustees from other religions have been inducted in the Temple Trusts. This has resulted in controversial situations like in case of Thirupathi Devsthanam.
It is need of the time that HRCE Act of 1951 is Abolished and is replaced by Hindu Devsthanam Act that should established an Autonomour Body to look after the Hindu Temples across Bharat and ensure to work towards reducing the ill effects as covered above.
