
Whenever human beings are faced with a crisis, they turn to God. They hope that the Almighty, who is omnipresent and speaks through each one8217;s conscience, will instantly come to their rescue. The Uttar Pradesh chief minister, Ram Prakash Gupta, not being an ordinary mortal, follows an entirely different rule. Now that he is clearly in trouble, given the disastrous performance of his party in the recently concluded panchayat polls he has, instead of turning to God, decided to listen to sants and sadhus who control enormous religious estates. It was precisely under pressure from the rich holy men that Gupta decided to repeal the 1962 Hindu Public Religious Places Act. According to Clause 7 2 and 9 B of this Act, public religious places 8212; Hindu, Buddhist and Jain 8212; having in their possession property worth more than Rs 50,000, or an annual income more than Rs 1,200, comes under the administration8217;s purview. Additionally, all religious property transfers required prior approval of a divisional commissionerrank officer. In effect, this Act was a legal check against the rampant misuse of religious institutions, their funds and property.
Indeed, Gupta8217;s repeal of the 1962 Act was a total reversal of a previous government order of December 10, 1999, according to which the administration was empowered to conduct a survey of properties owned by maths, temples and other religious associations. Gupta was so keen to appease the lobby of rich holy men that throwing all notions of collective responsibility to the winds he ended up blaming his minister of culture, Ramesh Pokhariyal Nishank8217;, for the order. While responding to why the Act was repealed by his government, Gupta replied that this was to prevent bureaucratic interference in religious matters. Gupta8217;s reasoning cannot be faulted. The distinction between the ecclesiastical and the temporal is not merely Western. Even in the classical Indian tradition, while dharma is recognised as being inspired by sattwik tendencies, rajniti clearly lies in the realm of the tamasic. The state, therefore, has no business to intervene in matters of faith. That should lie in theprivate sphere. But violations of the public norm should, by the same logic, be the prerogative of the administration.