How temples came under control of the government

How temples came under control of the government?

Arguments of Hindutva side:

There is severe anger among the Hindutva community over the control of government on Hindu temples. There are arguing that their constitutional rights have been impacted by the state control over Hindu Temple.

• They argue that Article 26 of the Indian Constitution clearly emphasis the right of every religious denomination to establish, maintain, and manage their religious institutions.
• There is communist control of history, which shows temples as associated with one caste i.e., Brahmins.
• Only Hindu temples are controlled, not any institution of other religion.

The origin of Temple control in India:

A Bill was introduced in the legislative council in 1860 to appoint a committee of trustees and the vacant place to be filled through elections. The Bill covered not only the Hindu temples but also Muslim and Christian religious endowments. Ultimately, the imperial government passed the Religious Endowments Act in 1863. The Act enabled the Government to divest itself of the management of Religious Endowments and focused solely to see how much revenue it could get from these endowments.

Unlike in Muslim and Christian endowments, where caste did not play a significant role, the Hindu endowments were completely controlled by the Brahmins and the elites who supported the Brahminical rituals. So, the earliest effort to control the Hindu temples came with the Justice Party’s enactment of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927.

About Justice Party:

The Justice Party was founded by T. M. Nair and P. T. Chetty in 1916 to represent the non-Brahmins in Madras Presidency and is seen as the start of the Dravidian Movement.

• As early in 1917, the Justice Party in its first conference at Coimbatore adopted a resolution opposing the utilization of chatram and charitable funds for the founding of Sanskrit schools because Sanskrit school would only benefit the Brahmins and not the non-Brahmins. It recommended to the use the funds for the establishment of primary schools.
• In 1920, it won the first direct elections in the presidency and formed the government.
• The Justice Party is credited with passing in 1921 a bill which allowed Women to vote in Madras Presidency for the first time in India.
• The Justice Party enacted the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927.

The Advent of Periyar E.V. Ramaswamy and Self-respect Movement:

• In 1944, Periyar transformed the Justice Party into the social organisation Dravidar Kazhagam to fight for the rights of lower caste in upper caste majority India.

The Politics of DK Movement:

• It opposed Annie Besant and her Home rule movement, because it believed home rule would benefit the Brahmins.
• The party also campaigned against the non-cooperation movement of Gandhi in the presidency.
• It was at odds with M. K. Gandhi, primarily due to his praise for Brahminism.
• Its mistrust of the Brahmin dominated Congress led it to adopt a hostile stance toward the Indian independence movement.

The role of Vaikom and Guru Vihar Satyagraha:

• Vaikom Satyagraha took place in 1924–25 in the princely state of Travancore (present-day Kerala). The movement aimed to end the ban on lower-caste Hindus from using certain public roads that led to the Vaikom Mahadeva Temple. The movement was led by K. Kelappan, T.K. Madhavan, and K.P. Kesava Menon, and received support from Mahatma Gandhi. 
• Guruvayur Satyagraha took place in 1931–32 in the present-day Thrissur district of Kerala. It was inspired by the Vaikom Satyagraha and was an effort to allow marginalized communities to enter the Guruvayur Temple. The movement was led by K. Kelappan.

Changes since freedom in 1947:

When India won freedom, India inherited many British rules and acts. Most of the temples were passed on from the royal families or the British government to the state of India.

              In 1950, the Law Commission of India suggested that law be passed to check the misuse of funds and properties of temples. The HR&CE Act 1951 was enacted, but its constitutional validity was challenged before the Supreme Court. In the landmark Shirur Mutt case, the Court upheld the overall law.

             In 1960, the Government of India constituted the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission chaired by Dr. C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar to enquire into matters connected with Hindu Public Religious Endowments. The Commission declared that government control over temples was essential to prevent maladministration and observed that the absence of enactments regulating administration of Hindu temples in some States led to “general apathy and consequent neglect of the institutions”.

Benefits of government control:

• As early in 1971, the DMK government passed law to make the non-Brahmins as temple priests hitherto monopolised by the Brahmins.
• In August 2021, the DMK made 208 appointments under the TNHR&CE Act which included archakas from all castes and a woman odhuvar (singer of hymns).
• There have been numerous initiatives like training archakas, converting jewellery given as donation into gold bars, providing monthly incentives to priests in nearly 13,000 temples, deploying 10,000 security guards in temples and expediting evictions in cases of land encroachments.

The Issues under the state control:

• Temples, especially the richer ones, became a place for politicians to employ their cronies to extract financial benefits.
• Most of the priestly duties are done by people born into the so-called priestly classes.
• The temple premises are kept in bad shape and a vast number of dilapidated, neglected temples, of great artistic and historical value, are now crumbling under the weight of indifference.
• In Tamil Nadu, no external audit is being conducted for temples under HR&CE, and there are 1.5 million audit objections pending resolution since 1986.

Should there be a Sanathan Board:

In 2021, the BJP promised to hand temples over to “a separate board comprising Hindu scholars and saints.”

Comments by the author:

In my personal capacity, I believe if there could be a board for Muslims (Wakf Board and Shia/Sunni council) and for Sikhs (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), then there could be Sanathan board as well. However, following things must be kept in mind:

• There must be lower caste representation (if required then through reservation of seats).
• There must be women representation with at least 1/3rd seats reserved for women in horizontal quota.
• All the administration and finances must be under Right to Information. So that any citizen can check use of money and resources under the board.
• No personal, who has been politically exposed or working for state for past 5 years, must be associated with board in any capacity.

If these HINDUTAVA champions agree to these terms and conditions, then only there should a Sanathan board; otherwise the state must keep controlling the temple with new amendments in the law to bring all state run temples under RTI and compulsory reservation for lower caste and women in all state run temples.

Article written by

Vikas Gupta

Faculty – GA IAS, Mukherjee Nagar

Sources used/References:

1. https://stophindudvesha.org/the-battle-for-hindu-temples-why-they-must-be-liberated-from-state-control/
2. https://www.ijmtst.com/volume7/issue12/79.IJMTST0712175.pdf
3. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-case-for-state-control-of-hindu-temples/article66313240.ece
4. https://swarajyamag.com/newsletters/the-dravidian-social-justice-humbug-behind-govt-temple-control