Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa is silent on The Sunday Express report that her government has plans to take over the Kanchi mutt. The Maharashtra government, barely weeks after coming back to power, has busied itself in its old idea of bringing the cash-rich Sai Baba shrine under its control. If things work according to plan, its ministry of law and judiciary will soon get to decide matters relating to the appointment of shrine officials and how temple funds are to be distributed. This is, therefore, as good a moment as any to revisit the perennially controversial issue of temple takeovers by Central and state governments.
No matter how secularism is defined in the Indian context 8212; whether in terms of the strict separation of church and state or in terms of equal respect being accorded to all religions 8212; it clearly disallows state involvement in the administration of temples. If we go by the first principle, administering to the religious affairs of the people is not the business of the state given the clear separation between the sacred and the temporal. If we go by the second principle, why should Hindu temples alone be marked for such interference from the government of the day? We may, in principle, accept this even while we make the distinction between the secular functions involved in the running of religious institutions 8212; as, for instance, the management of the enormous funds from the public that come their way 8212; and their religious functions. Several court rulings have, in fact, recognised this separation and argued that the state is well within its rights to regulate the functioning of temples. We would, however, argue that this line of separation is far too nebulous to stand scrutiny, that taking over the administration of a religious institution amounts to deciding each and every aspect of its functioning, in both letter and spirit.
