Secularism at stake

Regulation is often not confined merely to management of property or financial matters; it extends to appointment of priests and regulation of religious routines in the temple. The Andhra Pradesh department of endowments proudly announces that one of its functions is to 8216;8216;ensure the proper performance of pujas8217;8217;.

The increasing involvement of the state in thousands of temples raises questions about the nature of Indian secularism and the prudence of government policy. Why should the state progressively get more entangled in religion? What are the political consequences of this entanglement?

The involvement of the state in the regulation of temple affairs was, to some extent, inevitable. Issues such as temple entry and lifting of restrictions on who could become a priest were at the heart of debates over social reform within Hinduism. The vast assets of temples seemed to cry out for regulation. But these plausible justifications for occasional state involvement in the affairs of temples have now become pretexts for the state to take over temples indiscriminately.

The practical takeover of thousands of temples was facilitated by the report of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission 1960-162. It recommended that legislation be used to treat all mutts as if they were public. A series of incautious judicial pronouncements8212;from the Religious Endowments case to the recent case allowing for the takeover of Vaishno Devi8212;have greatly facilitated this trend.

The courts make a distinction between the secular aspects of a religious endowment and its religious aspects. They have rationalised regulation on the ground that such takeovers do not interfere with essential practices of the religion. But, as Rajeev Dhavan and Fali Nariman wrote, 8216;8216;In this process both the government and the judiciary tend to overlook the simple fact that under the guise of regulatory control, religious endowments are, and have been, nationalised on a massive scale8217;8217;.

Such takeovers fuel the politics of resentment amongst Hindu organisations. They argue that it is vastly easier for the state to take over Hindu temples and endowments than it is for the state to encroach on similar minority institutions.

Strictly speaking, this may not be entirely true. The state does exercise supervisory authority over Wakf Boards. Following the Ismail Faruqui case, the courts have also ruled that there is no constitutional bar to the state acquiring mosques. The 1984 Wakf Amendment Act allowed for more state regulation of Wakfs, but the general impression is that the 1995 Amendment Act, while retaining the possibility of state regulation, considerably weakened it. Therefore the impression has gained ground that Hindu temples and endowments are less immune from state takeover and interference.

But takeovers also increase the financial entanglement of state and religion in contradictory ways. On the one hand, the state has been empowered to re-allocate the money generated from temples in which ever way it chooses. On the other hand, it has legitimised state spending on temples. The Andhra, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry governments routinely subsidise the construction of temples. It is ironical that members of the Sangh Parivar object to this kind of state entanglement in religious affairs, whereas defenders of secularism have been turning a blind eye to this phenomenon.

State takeover of temples violates the freedom of communities to manage their affairs. It is also an imprudent policy. Having politicians and civil servants sit on the board of these temples is not a recipe for either healthy politics or healthy religion.

It is often claimed that religious endowments are corrupt and need regulation. But it is not clear that the state will be any less corrupt. On the contrary, the government could be taking over temples in order to enhance the state8217;s power of patronage.

Besides, if the 8216;8216;corruption8217;8217; is not at the taxpayers8217; expense, there is no reason for the state to intervene. Indeed, by treating trusts as analogous to sick industries to be taken over at will, the state simply prevents civil society from taking responsibility for its actions.

There is something amiss when a secular state gets into the business of appointing priests, regulating pujas and taking over temples. The Andhra Pradesh endowments department can openly proclaim its function is 8216;8216;to promote Hindu religious activities8217;8217;. Given the systematic nature of departments dealing with endowments and temples in many states, the day is not far where we may need a Union Public Service Commission for appointments of priests, a minister for religious affairs and a financial regulator for religious endowments!

The future of secularism is being put at risk by the machinations of state governments that cannot keep their hands off religious institutions.