Why is there no 'separation of temples and state' in India?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

On October 18, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat urged the Narendra Modi-led Union government to enact a law to enable the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya.

With just months to go for the Lok Sabha elections next year, the statement has led to speculation on whether the Bharatiya Janata Party is preparing for a legislative coup in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid matter. On Saturday, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath urged the Supreme Court to deliver its order on the Ayodhya title suit appeals soon, exposing the party’s eagerness to milk the communally-sensitive case for electoral benefits.

If the central or state governments acquire land stating that they want to build a Ram temple or hand over the land to those who want to build a Ram temple, it would be a complete negation of the secular ideals of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has declared are part of the basic structure of the document itself.
Is that an acceptable Government interference in Religion?

Ayodhya dispute: Why a legislative route to build a Ram temple is a legal impossibility

The Supreme Court has made it clear on many occasions that the State cannot identify with any particular religion.

scroll.in

 

[prasad1]

I think one reason could be that temples have great revenue. Devotees whole heartedly drop money into hundi. In Tirupathi it is said individuals drop lakhs of rupees. When the issue of monitoring finance is involved, the control may have been imposed by government.

Mosques & Chruches are prayer halls and there is no such financial contributions involved. However, the Muslim Durgahs have graves of saints and people of all communities visit and drop their desired amount into hundi. Therefore Durgahs are also under government control.

Why are famous Hindu temples under government control but churches and mosques are untouched? Is this secular?

Answer (1 of 7): Is it secular for a government to control Hindu temples but not churches or mosques? There are people who argue for both sides. In my opinion, if one strictly goes by the definition of secularism, the government should not intervene in or control any religion. That means, taking...

www.quora.com

 

[prasad1]

When a Hindu goes to a temple and makes an offering to the Deity of his choice he assumes that money and gold he donates goes to temple to support poor hindus or renovate temple, schools or hospitals, NO, it goes to the State Government.

The state governments have based their policy on the recommendation of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission headed by C P Ramaswamy Aiyer in 1960 that Hindu temples and maths be considered as belonging to the public. In ill-advised judgments, the courts have upheld government regulation of the financial aspects of an endowment, as if financial control has no bearing on the management of religious affairs.

 

[tbs]

When Patel, K. M. Munshi and other leaders of the Congress went to Mahatma Gandhi with their proposal to reconstruct the Somnath temple, Gandhi blessed the move, but suggested that the funds for the construction should be collected from the public and the temple should not be funded by the state. He expressed that he was proud to associate himself to the project of renovation of the temple. However, soon both Gandhi and Sardar Patel died and the task of reconstruction of the temple continued under Munshi, who was the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies, Government of India headed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

The ruins were pulled down in October 1950 and the mosque present at that site was shifted few kilometres away by using construction vehicles. In May 1951, Rajendra Prasad, the first President of the Republic of India, invited by K M Munshi, performed the installation ceremony for the temple. The President said in his address, "It is my view that the reconstruction of the Somnath Temple will be complete on that day when not only a magnificent edifice will arise on this foundation, but the mansion of India's prosperity will be really that prosperity of which the ancient temple of Somnath was a symbol.". He added "The Somnath temple signifies that the power of reconstruction is always greater than the power of destruction.

Somnath temple - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

hi

i recently visited somnath /dwaraka temples in gujarat on december 2018....it was really reconstructed

and beautiful temple on the shore of sea...just info...

 

[a-TB]

If public money is offered to a religious place, irrespective of religion, it has to undergo proper scrutiny and audit.

When Govt interference is doubtful, eminent people from public life may be asked to help and conduct the proceedings, to avoid controversies.

As far as TN is concerned, the functioning of DMK and AIADMK Govts. in respect of temple administration needs close scrutiny by a third party.

Indeed when public money is involved laws and enforcement is needed. That happens in every lawful place. In USA though there is a separation of Church and State, there are still laws that apply to the temples such as book keeping, activities that are lawful

Temples are bound by the law of land. That does not mean Government has to play role in the operation of the temple or steal money from the contributions of the devotees. The fact that Indian government does this must be a concern for every citizen of India. Tomorrow this can apply to every other religion on also and not just to Hindu temples.

Your point is well taken.

I hope we will get more relevant post for this thread.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

[QUOTE="a-TB, post: 418685],

Tomorrow this can apply to every other religion on also and not just to Hindu temples.


[/QUOTE]

At that time, everyone will shout "secularism is in danger". Secularism in India has always been only selectively applied. You just have to follow the Sabarimala case to understand this. The court went through a whole gamut of arguments to decide whether Iyappa devotees qualify to be a separate religious denomination. Why is this necessary? After all if the issue is that of fundamental rights of women, why should the question of separate denomination arise?

Also, management of temples is only one issue. Your head will spin when you learn of all the differential rules that apply for running an educational institution. Basically one set of rules for hindus and another set of rules for everyone else. The two pillars of any society are the temples through which you can propagate your culture and schools through which you can safeguard. Hindus don't have the same freedom as others. These are actual laws, that impacts every citizen, and is the current scenario in India. You would think the people who bat for secularism will question all these discriminatory laws. Generally they don't if the laws discriminate against hindus and favor non-hindus. Instead they will go after anyone who says remotely anything about Ram Mandir or Ayodhya, the issue which has remained status quo for the last 25 years. This is the biggest anomaly.

 

[a-TB]

[QUOTE="a-TB, post: 418685],

Tomorrow this can apply to every other religion on also and not just to Hindu temples.

At that time, everyone will shout "secularism is in danger". Secularism in India has always been only selectively applied. You just have to follow the Sabarimala case to understand this. The court went through a whole gamut of arguments to decide whether Iyappa devotees qualify to be a separate religious denomination. Why is this necessary? After all if the issue is that of fundamental rights of women, why should the question of separate denomination arise?

Also, management of temples is only one issue. Your head will spin when you learn of all the differential rules that apply for running an educational institution. Basically one set of rules for hindus and another set of rules for everyone else. The two pillars of any society are the temples through which you can propagate your culture and schools through which you can safeguard. Hindus don't have the same freedom as others. These are actual laws, that impacts every citizen, and is the current scenario in India. You would think the people who bat for secularism will question all these discriminatory laws. Generally they don't if the laws discriminate against hindus and favor non-hindus. Instead they will go after anyone who says remotely anything about Ram Mandir or Ayodhya, the issue which has remained status quo for the last 25 years. This is the biggest anomaly.
[/QUOTE]
Dear Mr KB,

Your comments highlight a serious problem and it is with the 'educated' masses. If someone is for the principle of truly secular democracy they will speak up against any kind of atrocities and injustice. If they selectively speak then they lack integrity and do not stand for anything. Such people are more dangerous to a country than the ones who are openly against Hindus.

 

[tbs]

Indeed when public money is involved laws and enforcement is needed. That happens in every lawful place. In USA though there is a separation of Church and State, there are still laws that apply to the temples such as book keeping, activities that are lawful

Temples are bound by the law of land. That does not mean Government has to play role in the operation of the temple or steal money from the contributions of the devotees. The fact that Indian government does this must be a concern for every citizen of India. Tomorrow this can apply to every other religion on also and not just to Hindu temples.

Your point is well taken.

I hope we will get more relevant post for this thread.

hi

in USA....every hindu temple is a non profit organisation category....every thing is audited properly...

even priests has to file tax forms and properly accounted.....IRS is very particular about tax relative matters...

i have more than 15 years experience in USA hindu temple/priest matters...

 

[KRN]

With my limited knowledge, let me provide answers to some of the queries raised -

Let me restate the question.
What is the reason that the Government Of India is allowed to interfere with a religion in India.

I think the historical reason is that most of the hindu temples pre-independence were managed by the nattu-rajas, or by trusts directly reporting to them. In the British ruled areas, whenever the the British took over the administration from the rajas, they took over the temple administration as well. These rajas were mostly believers and had good advisors who were grounded in religious matters. With independence, the administration was taken over from the rajas by the government. In the initial euphoria of freedom, people didn't mind it that a Government democratically elected by themselves, should administer the temples.

But in the course of time there has been rampant corruption and nepotism and all other vices that come with political parties. Also the colossal ignorance of the new administrators also led to erosion of many of the good customs and practices like Veda-parayanam, nama-japam etc from the temples.

Within Indian constitution is there a provision for religions freedom for expression without interference? Why have the courts have not taken up this issue in a very long time?

SC has interpreted the "religious freedom" in constitution to mean that the Government can manage the administration of temples (like appointment of priests, payment of his emoluments etc) but cannot interfere in the religious practices followed in temples.

We know from experience that SC's interpretations of the constitution can change with time. Hence it will be in the interest of the Hindu community to keep agitating in courts for more freedom, in the spirit of the constitution.

Regardless of what one's religion is, a citizen of India may not want Government management and interference as well as stealing of funds from temples.

This is the moot point and I hope you might have noticed my highlighting this corruption angle to the Sabarimala issue in the earlier thread. Recently Subramanian Swamy raised a PIL before SC against state control of the Kerala temples through Devaswom boards given the corruption at unprecedented levels in the administration of Devaswom boards.

SC issues notices on petitions challenging government control over Devaswom boards in Kerala

The court has asked the Kerala government and two Devaswom boards to respond in six weeks.

scroll.in

I think that is a step in the right direction, rather than agitating in the streets over a constitution-based SC verdict.
[/QUOTE]

 

[KRN]

We are also told that we “should not mix religion and politics.” Again, this saying has a powerful truth: that when religion is used for political purposes, it empties religion of its eternal meaning and becomes just one more cynical method of acquiring power.

The man whom we revere as the father of our nation writes thus in the introduction to his Autobiography, "My experiments with truth":

"My experiments in the political field are now known, not only in India, but to a certain extent to the 'civilized' world. For me, they have not much value; and the title of Mahatma that they have won for me has, therefore, even less. Often the title has deeply pained me; and there is not a moment I can recall when it may be said to have tickled me. But I should certainly like to narrate my experiments in the spiritual field which are known only to myself, and from which I have derived such power as I possess for working in the political field.

What I want to achieve,—what I have been striving and pining to achieve these thirty years—is self-realization, to see God face to face, to attain Moksha. I live and move and have my being in pursuit of this goal. All that I do by way of speaking and writing, and all my ventures in the political field, are directed to this same end."

In the land of Karma Yoga, I don't think there is a more unequivocal way of saying that one should mix religion with political activity, in fact with every activity that one is blessed to perform in life

 

[KRN]

Also, management of temples is only one issue. Your head will spin when you learn of all the differential rules that apply for running an educational institution. Basically one set of rules for hindus and another set of rules for everyone else. The two pillars of any society are the temples through which you can propagate your culture and schools through which you can safeguard. Hindus don't have the same freedom as others. These are actual laws, that impacts every citizen, and is the current scenario in India. You would think the people who bat for secularism will question all these discriminatory laws. Generally they don't if the laws discriminate against hindus and favor non-hindus. Instead they will go after anyone who says remotely anything about Ram Mandir or Ayodhya, the issue which has remained status quo for the last 25 years. This is the biggest anomaly.

Well, if instead of chanting Ram Mandir and Ayodhya, the present central Govt and the ruling party, with the rare opportunity of a near two-thirds majority to boot, focused on correcting these anomalies, how much better would things have been!

 

[Vaagmi]

About the Ayodhya issue:
My view: The Hindus in India will have the same rights as the Muslims in Pakistan have in such matters. Reason--India was partitioned on the basis of religion.

About Secularist Government in India:

The numerous temples spread all over the country also need protection from the hindus themselves. all the hindus are not pious and god-fearing. Most of the temploe properties have been gobbled up by Hindu trustees themselves. At least in Tamilnadu, there are numerous temples where no pooja is done and the temples remain locked up even though there are endowments in the name of these temples and properties which yield income substantially are there. In my village there are two temples-one a temple for Krishna and another for Meenakshi Sundareswara. These temples own substantial irrigated lands in their name and many valuable ornaments had been donated to these temple by the ancestors who lived in the village as a propsperous community. Today these temples remain locked and no pooja is done. The temple lands and ornaments are in the custody of the HRCE board. The tillers who are a well organized group of people virtually own the lands and enjoy paying a pittance to the HRCE and the Govt. conveniently has turned a blind eye to this. This is the story of just two small temples in a village with a single street agraharam. There are bigger temples in the nearby town where also the story is the same.

Hindus would like to know why should salary, allowances, perks and "other income" be paid to a Khader Bhai or a Brother John (they are the clerk and peon in the HRCE Department) from the income earned from a temple while refusing to grant the poor archaka of the temple the regular Government employee status just because he happens to be a brahmin.

There are several such issues which need to be addressed.

 

[KRN]

"The numerous temples spread all over the country also need protection from the hindus themselves. all the hindus are not pious and god-fearing."

Very true and I agree wholeheartedly.

Hindus most often are enemies to Hindus so much so that I have come to believe that, in the present circumstances, it's best to focus on our TB practices and not take sides or expend energy on politico-social issues like the one on Sabarimala.

 

[Vaagmi]

How I wish that someone resourceful amongst the Tamil Brahmins file a suit in the supreme court of India asking for granting TBs the status of followers of a minority religion in India like the Parsees. Yes, our faith and practices are far different from what is followed by the majority of the socalled Hindu religion at least in Tamilnadu.

 

[a-TB]

With my limited knowledge, let me provide answers to some of the queries raised -



I think the historical reason is that most of the hindu temples pre-independence were managed by the nattu-rajas, or by trusts directly reporting to them. In the British ruled areas, whenever the the British took over the administration from the rajas, they took over the temple administration as well. These rajas were mostly believers and had good advisors who were grounded in religious matters. With independence, the administration was taken over from the rajas by the government. In the initial euphoria of freedom, people didn't mind it that a Government democratically elected by themselves, should administer the temples.

But in the course of time there has been rampant corruption and nepotism and all other vices that come with political parties. Also the colossal ignorance of the new administrators also led to erosion of many of the good customs and practices like Veda-parayanam, nama-japam etc from the temples.



SC has interpreted the "religious freedom" in constitution to mean that the Government can manage the administration of temples (like appointment of priests, payment of his emoluments etc) but cannot interfere in the religious practices followed in temples.

We know from experience that SC's interpretations of the constitution can change with time. Hence it will be in the interest of the Hindu community to keep agitating in courts for more freedom, in the spirit of the constitution.



This is the moot point and I hope you might have noticed my highlighting this corruption angle to the Sabarimala issue in the earlier thread. Recently Subramanian Swamy raised a PIL before SC against state control of the Kerala temples through Devaswom boards given the corruption at unprecedented levels in the administration of Devaswom boards.

SC issues notices on petitions challenging government control over Devaswom boards in Kerala

The court has asked the Kerala government and two Devaswom boards to respond in six weeks.

scroll.in

I think that is a step in the right direction, rather than agitating in the streets over a constitution-based SC verdict.

[/QUOTE]

Dear Mr KRN,

I think you have answered my queries fully. Thanks for doing that,.

Kingdom control to alien power of English can mean English managed the affairs of the temple. But an Indian Government , especially one that was elected democratically should have stopped control of temple affairs in support of the constitution.

The SC definition of not interfering with temple practices but allowing control of temple management and the purse is contradictory.

I think secular thinking need not be a bad thing. The issue is we have pseudo secularist who lack integrity or lack the ability to think or both. If there are true secularists out there they can joint hands in getting rid of these unfair practices against Hindus .

Once again thanks for your response

 

[a-TB]

How I wish that someone resourceful amongst the Tamil Brahmins file a suit in the supreme court of India asking for granting TBs the status of followers of a minority religion in India like the Parsees. Yes, our faith and practices are far different from what is followed by the majority of the socalled Hindu religion at least in Tamilnadu.

Judging by all kinds of people who call themselves TB, it will be hard to prove who is a TB

Some people eat all kinds of animals and call themselves TB. There are people who cannot read or write Tamil call themselves TB. There are people steeped in western way of life call themselves TB. There are some who are very 'spiritual' , call themselves experts in wine testing but insist they are TB

Hard to come up with a criteria for a TB

 

[prasad1]

Does it really matter as to how we define a TB?
When Lingayat can declare themselves a separate religion, Ramakrishna Matt tries to declare themselves as Non-Hindu, we can definitely claim a separate TB religion.
Whether we get it approved or not is a matter of judgment, and we have to commit resources. Maybe Subramaniam Swamy can be roped in. Just a thought.


Tamil Brahmin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tamil Brahmins, are Tamil-speaking Brahmins primarily living in Tamil Nadu, although a few of them have settled in other states like, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka. They can be broadly divided into three religious groups, Gurukkals who follow Saivism, Iyers who follow the Srauta and Smartha tradition and Iyengars who follow Sri Vaishnavism.

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN,

I think you have answered my queries fully. Thanks for doing that,. [/quote]
You are welcome, Sir

I think secular thinking need not be a bad thing. The issue is we have pseudo secularist who lack integrity or lack the ability to think or both. If there are true secularists out there they can joint hands in getting rid of these unfair practices against Hindus .

Once again thanks for your response

Secular thinking in terms of equality of all faiths, is in the ethos of our country. That was why Buddha and many others were allowed to preach radical thoughts and lived undisturbed until a ripe old age. But religious education has always been a part of Indian teaching from time immemmoria. The pseudoseculars have removed all Hindu religious education from the curriculum, and with the administration of Temples and boards vested with communists and the like, ensured that even the Hindu temples do nothing to foster proper religious education amongst the Hindu masses. So this brand of secularism, imposed on us in 1976, is totally detrimental to all justice and against the values and ideals held by our freedom fighters. Today the ordinary Hindu gets his religious education from the mythological television serials in profusion or from the propagandist literature of the political parties. Where is the time or incentive for him to study or listen to the epics or Vedas or Upanishads? This was not the case before independence, when people did not have all these distractions and even an ordinary man was able to acquire just enough religious education to enable him to pursue his life goals.

 

[KRN]

How I wish that someone resourceful amongst the Tamil Brahmins file a suit in the supreme court of India asking for granting TBs the status of followers of a minority religion in India like the Parsees. Yes, our faith and practices are far different from what is followed by the majority of the socalled Hindu religion at least in Tamilnadu.

Such a move might bring media attention to the plight and discrimination that TBs face in some parts of the country. But I would not prefer to go to that extent. Nor do I think that the SC will grant any such ruling. Such a suit might lead to schism within the TB community and can also invite a backlash from the Hindus elsewhere in India.

My personal view in the matter is different. It's indisputable that our faith and practices are far different from the majority of other Hindus in TN. Rather than take sides or involve in the matters of other Hindus (and that includes issues like Sabarimala), let us save precious time and try to become better Brahmins. In the past, it was the superior skill of our ancestors that prompted the other Hindus to revere them and to keep them at a high pedestal. In the course of centuries, we became complacent and relaxed in our customs and practices and as a result we lost some of the spiritual power that enabled us to withstand difficult challenges in life. Now the present generation is again showing an interest in learning more about our culture and practices, which is a good sign. If we focus on our spiritual strengths, and simultaneously work hard and keep ourselves open minded on the opportunities that life throws up from time to time, we should be able to get back some of the prestige of the past.

 

[KRN]

Does it really matter as to how we define a TB?
When Lingayat can declare themselves a separate religion, Ramakrishna Matt tries to declare themselves as Non-Hindu, we can definitely claim a separate TB religion.
Whether we get it approved or not is a matter of judgment, and we have to commit resources. Maybe Subramaniam Swamy can be roped in. Just a thought.

Subramanian Swamy is an individualist, I think

If we declare ourselves a separate religion, that means we will have to give up on many of the treasures that were cherished by Hindus for centuries. Such a move is not going to give us any benefit, while it might be painful to make TBs. Rather than that, if we focus on improving ourselves even while staying within the Hindu religion, but not wasting time and energy on many of the minor issues plaguing Hinduism, we will be better off.

 

[KRN]

while it might be painful to many TBs

 

[renuka]

Wow..
TBism as a separate religion?
Actually I agree to this.

Datta swami is right!
What we call Hinduism today is a subset of many sub religions

Thats why there is so much confusion in Hinduism.

But since TBs feel they follow TBism...what about differences among them?
Shaivaism and Vaishnavaism have sects too among TBs.

Vaagmi ji...what next?
Subdivisions?

 

[Jaykay767]

Hilarious to see people who came to the forum loudly proclaiming that there is no life outside of enjoying the sun city activities espousing the cause of religion.

LOL !

 

[Jaykay767]

Sorry Renukaji, have to disagree.

1. By creating a minority religion, we will get isolated like the Parsees.
2. Does anyone know the Parsees culture outside of them?
3. Our next generation tbs are not following the culture and traditions. Most are migrating abroad and merging into the local cultures there.
4. Our most immediate priority should be to preserve this glorious culture.
5. Hence we should first get our kids to follow and live this culture.
6. Majority Hindu should adopt our tb culture and traditions.

 

[renuka]

Sorry Renukaji, have to disagree.

1. By creating a minority religion, we will get isolated like the Parsees.
2. Does anyone know the Parsees culture outside of them?
3. Our next generation tbs are not following the culture and traditions. Most are migrating abroad and merging into the local cultures there.
4. Our most immediate priority should be to preserve this glorious culture.
5. Hence we should first get our kids to follow and live this culture.
6. Majority Hindu should adopt our tb culture and traditions.

Lol.

Why should other Hindus adopt TB culture.

It would be as alien to me as adopting any other culture.

Religion and culture need not always go hand in hand.
No offense but I find TB culture adhering too much to rituals and pitr karyam..something I dont connect at all.

If one isnt born in a culture one will not want to adopt it.

Another is the food..i am veg no.doubt but very expiremental in food and would veg from from any country..i cook.a tribal style young bamboo shoots..( my mum calls me jungle woman!LOL)

Next..i dont really enjoy Carnatic music though I like one or two western note Thyagaraja kirtis but no way I can sit tru a Carnatic music concert.

I can never follow anything of TB culture..and i dont think most of other Hindus would want to follow it too.