The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 has stirred up a huge controversy. It has reopened the debate on the state’s power to regulate Hindu religious places. Temples serve not only as places of worship but also as centres of education.
For centuries, the Hindu dharmic identity has been closely intertwined with temples. These sacred spaces not only fostered learning but also provided platforms for discussions and debates. The annual temple festivals attracted many devotees and facilitated cultural exchange and interpersonal connections. The presence of merchant guilds around the temples further contributed to prosperity through trade. Contrary to the colonisers’ claims of illegal and illicit activities, temples played a pivotal role in shaping our people’s identity and served as the first unifying force under the banner of Hinduism.
In his seminal work Essentials of Hindutva, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar explains Hindu dharma as “the conclusion of conclusions arrived at by harmonising the detailed experience of all the schools of religious thought – Vedic, Sanatani, Jain, Budh, Sikh or Devsmaji. Each one and every one of those systems or sects, which are the direct descendants and development of religious beliefs, Vedic and Avedic, that obtained in the land of Sapthasindhus or in the other unrecorded communities in other parts of India in the Vedic period, belongs to and is a part integral of Hindu dharma”. Every philosophical tradition that emerged in ancient Bharatavarsha is part of Hinduism. This demonstrates the inclusivity of the culture and civilisation to which we belong with pride.
Some narratives were constructed by westerners and our colonisers to associate only the Vedic beliefs with Hinduism. This was done to sow seeds of division within our society and to facilitate the implementation of ‘divide and rule’ for governing our nation. Over time, Abrahamic religions that arrived in our region adopted our customs. Except for a few that have started proselytisation, the rest have gradually integrated into our Hindu way of life. This is what has contributed to the greatness of our civilisation.
Despite being a society known for its openness, Hindu society has faced numerous attacks from the colonial government throughout history. Even after gaining independence, when the state had the authority to abolish the British-era rules that imposed regulations on India’s temples, it chose not to do so. The colonisers had learned from past experiences and understood that to control the intellectual minds of India, it was crucial to gain control over their religious institutions. They couldn’t employ the methods of destruction used by the Mohammedans in the past but instead opted for a more institutionalised approach. This line of thinking led to the enactment of Madras Regulation VII of 1817, which marked the earliest intervention by the colonial government in regulating our religious sites. This regulation vested the power of superintendence of all temples into the hands of the ‘Board of Revenue’.
Thus, the British East India Company not only ran the government in India but also had a role in the management of our temples. The temples were required to appoint local agents to monitor their expenses who were under the control of the EIC. Despite Hindu leaders’ repeated complaints about the ineffectiveness of this regulation, it was eventually repealed after 46 years. In its place, the Religious Endowments Act 1863 (Act XX of 1863) was enacted, which introduced the establishment of local committees to oversee the temples. The members of these committees were appointed for life. However, this act also proved to be ineffective.
Even during the struggle for independence, the Justice Party, instead of opposing the control of the state in the management of temples, brought another regulation in its place.
The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927 established the ‘Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board’ and appointed executive officers to temples. However, instead of promoting a devotee-centric management approach, the state began to assert more control over the temples. Following independence, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was introduced, creating a Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments led by a commissioner and supported by a hierarchy of officials. This department was empowered to oversee the secular affairs of Hindu temples and Mutts. The traditional system of hereditary employees was abolished, and a new structure defining authority, duties, and responsibilities at different levels was implemented, leading to the landmark Shirur Mutt case.
The obligation of religious establishments to remit an annual tax to the government is outlined in Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951. According to 76(1) of this Act, “In respect of the services rendered by the Government and their officers and for defraying the expenses incurred on account of such services ever religious institution shall from the income derived by it, pay to the Commissioner annually such contribution not exceeding five per centum of its income as may be prescribed.”
The court ruled that the term “religion” encompasses all rituals and practices that are essential to a religion. It also took on the responsibility of determining which practices are essential and non-essential. The Shirur Mutt Case involved a dispute regarding Section 76 of the legislation, which allowed the government to impose an annual contribution on religious institutions. The main issue was whether this contribution should be considered a fee or a tax, in light of Article 27 of the Constitution. Article 27 ensures that individuals are not compelled to financially support any specific religion or religious denomination through taxes. It upholds the principle of religious neutrality and prohibits the use of public funds to promote a particular religious belief or institution. The purpose of Article 27 is to maintain a secular state where the government remains impartial towards all religions and does not favour or endorse any particular religion using public funds. It ensures that taxpayers’ money is not used to support any specific religious agenda, thus safeguarding religious freedom and equality for all citizens.
The court reasoned that taxes imposed on Hindu religious institutions could be considered valid under the Constitution, as long as the taxes were not used to promote the religion from which they were collected, but rather for a public purpose. This ruling had a significant impact on Hindus in constitutional India. In this case, Section 76(1) of the Act was declared void because the provision for the payment of an annual contribution was deemed a tax, not a fee. As a result, the Madras State Legislature did not have the legislative authority to enact such a provision. Therefore, this ruling did not invalidate the taxation of Hindu temples, but rather only questioned the legislative competence of the Madras government.
Tamil Nadu temple trusts currently possess more than 478,000 acres of temple land. The Tamil Nadu government alone oversees 36,425 temples and 56 mutts. In Karnataka, the number stands at 34,563. The Dewaswom Boards of Kerala are in charge of managing over 3,058 temples. It is estimated that the Tamil Nadu government earns over Rs 6,000 crore annually from the 2.44 crore square feet of temple land under its control. Temple management by the state has evolved into a significant business and revenue generation model. The Kerala government has achieved a remarkable income of Rs 147 crore from the sale of Aravana and over Rs 17 crore from the sale of appam at the Sabarimala temple during this festive season. However, no steps have been taken to enhance the basic infrastructure for pilgrims.
Chief ministers of southern states have collectively urged Kerala’s chief minister to urgently improve infrastructure for pilgrims. Despite the increasing income generated by temple management, only a small portion is being utilised for the welfare of pilgrims.
The Karnataka government has introduced an amendment to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act of 1997 in response to the growing discontent over the mismanagement of temples by the state. This amendment aims to modify Section 17 of the original act, proposing a tax of 10 per cent on the gross income of institutions with earnings exceeding Rs 1 crore, and five per cent on those with incomes between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 1 crore. However, this move may conflict with Article 27 of the constitution, based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case.
The government argues that the funds collected through this taxation will be used for the maintenance of temples. They also mention that these taxes shall be utilised for uplifting the economic status of priests, improving the condition of C-grade temples (temples considered to be in poor condition), and providing quality education to the children of priests. Since donations and the sale of prasad are integral parts of Hindu temple rituals, this essentially means that taxes are being levied on individual Hindu devotees and then pooled into a state-controlled temple management fund. If the Karnataka government truly values secularism, it should acknowledge the potential violation of Article 27 in this scenario.
The Indian form of secularism is utilised as a means to excessively intervene and interfere in the governance of Hindu temples, solely to extract maximum financial gain. The state is primarily concerned with the commercial revenue generated by these temples, showing little regard for the well-being of the pilgrims. If the state truly prioritises the welfare of the pilgrims, it must amend the Endowment Act to ensure that the management of religious institutions is handed over to the devotees. Only devotees should be appointed to oversee the affairs of the temples, and central legislation should be implemented to ensure that the wealth from the temples is solely utilised for the improvement of temple infrastructure.
In cases where smaller temples require attention, the responsibility should be entrusted to a trust-like institution that operates independently from state control. The government should solely act as a facilitator for the pilgrims, rather than assuming the role of temple administrators. The community that manages the temple should have the authority to utilise the resources and wealth generated from it. Presently, there are temples, such as the Padmanabha Swami temple, that operate independently from state control and are managed far more effectively. These models of administration should serve as benchmarks for the management of other temples as well. It is high time that Hindu temples are entrusted to Hindus for their management and welfare.
(Adarsh Kuniyillam is a Parliamentary, Policy, and Political analyst from Kerala. He consistently contributes articles to both national and regional publications and has actively collaborated with various think tanks. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views)
Comments
0 comment