How To Free Hindu Temples: A Roadmap

How can the Hindus make temples centres of their society without government interference while at the same time ensuring that being public places, there is no scope for discrimination in its structure?

There are essentially two parts to this question. The first part deals with the question as to how Hindu temples, which have been taken over by the government either because of disputes or because of public interest, can be returned to the people, and what sort of governance structure be put in place once these temples have been returned to Hindu society. The second part deals with the question of how to make the worship of an increasingly egalitarian faith equal.

Needless to say, this is still a huge challenge and remains a key element in creating a society with less hereditary privileges. Considering how contentious the second issue is, it would be perhaps proper that a separate paper is presented on it. However, for the purposes of this paper, a broad outline is only indicated as to how possibly an attempt to create uniformity may be the first step towards a broader reworking of the entire process.

In relation to the first question, it is important to understand that most of today’s big Hindu temples in India are governed by the state. This has led to a situation whereby the Hindu religion has been de-facto nationalised. It does not mean, however, that the religion has been given a special status under the Constitution but that the major places of worship, as well as the wealth generated out of such worship and the disbursal of the same, have not remained in the hands of Hindu society but transferred into the hands of the government.

Prima facie, it is obvious that the said arrangement is contrary to strict secularism. It also creates a situation where vis-à-vis other religions Hindus feel discriminated. It is also a matter of continuing incomprehension as to why the wealth of the community which has been given for a religious purpose is used by the state for secular and nonreligious ends.

No doubt that the wealth generated may rightly be used for social upliftment, but the question is as to whether the Hindu community should have a say both in setting its priorities as well as its ends. It is also well known that temples have been the centres of Hindu community for thousands of years. The attempt of various competing colonial regimes has been to destroy or remove from the control of Hindus their temples. At the time of foreign colonialism, this thinking may have been a much-hated but nonetheless effective tool of governing the people, but it is surprising that in independent India under the governing credo of secularism, such practices continue.

It is suggested that it is time that governments return temples, some of which have been ostensibly taken over temporarily, but actually permanently, to the Hindu community. The method of governance of these temples, once they are returned, needs to be discussed threadbare. There are two broad models which may be taken up for consideration, either a territorial model based upon the state and/or at the national level, which would be representative in nature and would govern all the public temples on the lines of the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, or a shrine-specific model, which should be representative in nature, like the ones at Vaishno Devi, Tirupati and Amarnath.

However, the role of the state, which has been the hallmark of the shrine-specific model, should be reduced to a minimum. It is suggested that a statutory framework of the same should be formulated either as a model bill or as a comprehensive one. Needless to say that the composition of the representation should be truly egalitarian and it is suggested that it should also include provisions for affirmative action so that the same may be truly inclusive. Such a step, as making public temples truly inclusive, would be in consonance with Article 25 (2) (b) of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that the government throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

The second part is the question of equalisation or the de-priviligesation of worship. While accepting that there is a private nature to faith and religion, it is also important to recognise that increasingly the exercise of Hindu religion is a public act. It is also important to recognise that public Hindu temples, as distinguished from private Hindu temples, by their very definition should be made accessible to every Hindu. It is important to ensure that there is no scope for discrimination of any sort on the grounds of social inequality in any Hindu temple. If needed, it is crucial that the said changes be brought about through statute in the exercise of Raj Dharma of the state.

The second aspect of the said right to worship is the right to equalisation of opportunity to being priests at public temples. There is no doubt that all rituals in different temples are highly specialised and that such rituals take a large number of years to perfect. There is also no detracting from the fact that such rituals need to be performed in consonance with age-old tradition, custom and norms.

However, over a period of time, the performance of such rituals and the right to perform them have become hereditary. Just as it would be incorrect to assume that someone merely learned in Sanskrit would be able to perform the rituals exactly, it would also be a mistake to assume that those who are born into a certain family would be able to perform the rituals better than those who are not from the family. It is suggested as a first step that the qualifications of priests in Hindu temples be standardised. This could either be in the form of a degree or the form of an examination.

However, to be able to take the position of a priest in any public temple, there should be a large period of apprenticeship which would allow a novice to learn and internalise the specific rituals of the temple, in which he would conduct worship. The reforms in the priesthood, as has been mandated by the Supreme Court, is not contrary to Hindu religion and is an important step to ensure egalitarianism within the religion.

These extracts are part of an essay titled ‘The Frontiers of Hindu Law – Initiating Debates’, which was first published on India Foundation and republished here with permission.