Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry are home to several thousands of ancient temples. Contrary to popular belief outside of Tamil Nadu and India, most of these temples are owned and administered by the State Government of Tamil Nadu and a similar situation exists in Pondicherry and other South India states. In Tamil Nadu, almost all temples are the property of the powerful Hindu Religious and Cultural Endowments Department (HR and CE). A few nonfunctioning or partially active temples are owned and administered by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which is an agency of the Indian Central Government. Very few are owned by private entities.
The fact that the vast majority of these temples are owned by the government and controlled closely is a very controversial issue. The government is secular according to the Indian constitution and in theory should not be involved in religious affairs. The temples are Hindu religious institutions after all and were built hundreds of years ago to function as such. Many believers in Hinduism fume about this apparent contraindication. They point out that other religions are not subject to this ignominy. To add insult to injury, the political parties that control the government in Tamil Nadu have had an ideology that is not supportive of Hinduism. They make frequent pronouncements that their goal is to eradicate the religion as a policy goal. The Dravidian Movement that has had political sway in Tamil Nadu over the last 70 odd years has atheism as one of its central ideologies, but has directed most of its antagonism towards the Hindu religion alone. Their main focus has been the Brahmin community and the control of temples is seen as a means of bringing about social justice reforms and lessening Brahmin domination of temple affairs .
The HR and CE is a highly bureaucratic organization directly responsible to the state government and its political masters. It has a government appointed Commissioner and a hierarchical army of other bureaucrats including Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, Executive Officers, Auditors, Clerks, etc. Some of these officials are not followers of the Hindu faith and have no stake in the welfare of the temples. They control the temples with an iron fist. Even minor issues arising in temples, cannot be dealt with without the permission of the HR and CE. The Department has sprawling premises in the Nungambakkam area of Chennai that is several city blocks in length. Each temple has a board of trustees and a managing trustee. Most temples have 3-5 trustees. These political appointments are subject to direct patronage by the ruling party. This kind of administrative set up leads to bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption.
The HR and CE controls 36,356 temples, 56 mutts or religious orders, 57 temples belonging to them and other Hindu institutions under its jurisdiction. Given this large number of properties and the bureaucratic nature of its administration, the HR and CE functions in a very inefficient manner. The upkeep of temples is poor. Things do not get done in a timely fashion, leading to decay and damage. Temple priests do not get paid enough or on time. Even minor repairs need approval by a government department machinery that is inherently slow. There is bureaucratic inertia. Many temples have become inactive and sometimes abandoned.
The temples have been endowed with vast wealth over the centuries by kings, wealthy merchants and the public. When these temples were built they were gifted land and money to keep them active forever. Over time much of this wealth has disappeared, often embezzled by various actors. What remains is being actively stolen according to some sources. Temple lands are encroached upon and appropriated by people with political muscle. Temples also have income from donations of devotees as well as rental income from agricultural and commercial properties they own. These funds are also prone to fraud. Moreover the government uses the temples to indirectly tax the temple goers. It is a source of income for the government. Various fees including rapid entry fees and a variety of pooja fees are designed to increase the income of the temples which ultimately reaches the government. The HR and CE charges a percentage of this money as administrative fees to run its affairs. What is left is managed by the government, but the spending is not very transparent. Various schemes are funded that do not always directly benefit the temple. When devotees give money to a temple, they likely want that money to be spent on the upkeep of the temple and not to fund social welfare schemes of the government for which the temples do not get credit, but the government does. One of the biggest alleged scams is the awarding of contracts for renovation and repair as well as other services. These lucrative contracts are awarded often without tender to political cronies who deliver substandard or shoddy work. There is very little accountability.
The government control of temples has in recent years extended not only to the everyday functioning of the temples but also to the nature of worship. In its purported efforts to bring social justice to the religion, the government interferes with rituals which have been in place for millennia and are integral to religious practices. There might be discriminatory practices in temples and there sure have been many instances of such over the years. Certainly there is a lot of room for reform and renewal. But it is the belief of many that such change should come from within the religion and not dictated to by the government.
Many wonder how the temples of Tamil Nadu ended up under government control. It is a long and complex story. In ancient times the temples were administered by local people with royal supervision and control. The Pallava, Chola, Pandya, Vijayanagara, Nayakkan kings who built and maintained these temples were ardent believers of the Hindu faith and appear to have exercised strict supervision of these temples. When the British colonialists arrived, these temples came under the purview of the British East India Company. Initially many temples were desecrated and used as armouries and barracks for soldiers. But over time, the East India Company became interested in the vast wealth of these temples and taxed them for profit. They in fact became custodians of the temples and took on the supervisory role of the ancient kings. Subsequently there was a push from Christian missionaries that the Company should get out of the business of administering Hindu temples. Under pressure from the British Parliament, the East India Company withdrew from managing temples in 1833. It is alleged that what ensued was very chaotic. Many temples fell into private hands. Trustees were accused of perpetrating fraud of various kinds including appropriating temple lands and embezzling funds. Under pressure from Hindu leaders, the British government then enacted the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 that provided for local committees to run temples. Despite that, it was alleged that rampant corruption and theft took place. Many temples fell into disrepair. Some became dens of vice it was alleged. Although the more serious allegations likely were few, all temples were maligned. It set the stage for serious government intervention. In 1927, while India was still a British colony, the democratically elected government of the Madras Presidency enacted the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, which created a board of commissioners to supervise the administration of temples. The party in power was the Justice Party which was dominated by non-Brahmin higher caste Hindus who detested the Brahmins and their perceived favoured treatment by British authorities. The initial effort was to create a supervisory body. But it was the proverbial camel with the nose in the tent. What followed over the next several decades and beyond India’s independence from Britain, was the gradual erosion of temple independence and more government control and ownership. Successive legislation ensured that. In 1951, the elected government of Madras State (forerunner of Tamil Nadu State as well as Andhra Pradesh and parts of Karnataka and Kerala States) passed an act called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 which essentially brought all Hindu temples and related organizations under government control. This was challenged in the Supreme Court of India in 1954, on the basis that the state did not have the right to interfere. In the judgment in the Shirur Mutt Case, the courts held that while the state cannot dictate religious practices, it could control the secular activities of temples. Subsequent legislation in 1959, gave birth to new a HR and CE Act that negated the objections of the Supreme Court and gave total control of the temples to the state. In 1960 the Government of India appointed a commission to study the issue under the chairmanship of the esteemed statesman C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyer. The commission concluded that the temples were better off under government control rather than private ownership. After the Dravidian parties came to power in the late 1960s and onwards, the legislation was continuously tweaked to give the state control not only over the administration and finances of the temples but also their religious rites and practices.
The state that intervened in the running of temples to protect them now stands accused of exploiting them financially and politically. There is a movement to free temples from government control. Several Brahmin groups, the Hindu-centric BJP, other Hindu organizations and individuals have spearheaded this push to make temples function independently of the government. Critics point out that freeing temples from government control might expose them to takeover by corrupt private entities and individuals who in turn might mismanage the temples and embezzle their funds. In the absence of a church or other overarching organization to guide it, the Hindu religion does not have the means to manage these temples without the help of the government they point out. Some argue that democratically elected governments after all are the legitimate owners of the temples on behalf of the people who elected them. This thinking is incorrect as the people who participate in these elections are not Hindus alone but the general population which includes people of different faiths and ideologies. Others argue that if given the opportunity the Hindu population would come with an organization that would care for the temples. But there are no guarantees that that would happen.
One of the few temples and perhaps the only major temple that is managed independently of the government is the Chidambaram temple. It is the holiest Sivan temple for Saivite Tamil people. It is controlled by a community of hereditary Brahmin priests called the Dikshitar. They have been present at Chidambaram for several centuries and were highly regarded by the ancient kings and well looked after. Today they own the temple. The Tamil Nadu government continues to try and gain control of Chidambaram under the provisions of ther HR and CE Act. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Dikshitar are the rightful owners as they define themselves as a denomination within Saivite Hinduism. Denominational temples are exempted from control by the HR and CE. So for now the Dikshitar get to control the temple. The Tamil Nadu Government makes frequent pronouncements that they will appeal the Supreme Court ruling and has vowed to take over control. Critics of the HR and CE point to Chidambaram as a model for administration of temples by non-governmental actors, if they are ever freed from control by the HR and CE. But is control by the Dikshitar right and is it ideal? The Dikshitar neither built these temples nor were they given the right to own it by anyone. The holiest Sivan temple for Saivite Tamils should be owned and administered by an institution that is representative of that larger community. After all the temple was built by kings who used funds taxed from the Hindu population of that time and many communities like the mercantile Nattukkottai Chettiar have made immense contributions. Moreover, is the administration of Chidambaram exemplary? It is not. Critics point to the decay of a heritage treasure built over millennia due to lack of maintenance. The Dikshitar apparently lack the funds to maintain it. Others accuse them of using the funds of the temple for their personal and private benefit. There is no transparency in the finances of the temple. This is not ideal either. There are some positives like the lack of entry fees and other service fees callously designed by the HR and CE solely to generate money. Chidambaram does not charge such entry fees. The HR and CE and the Tamil Nadu Government run temples like businesses. But the Dikshitar raise funds in other ways. Temple goers often complain about the way the Dikshitar badger people for donations in a very insistent manner spoiling the whole temple experience for many. Again there is no guarantee that most of the donated money will be used for the upkeep of the temp[e.
Some of the temples including many famous ones like The Big Temple at Thanjavur, the Airavateeswarar Temple at Dharasuram, the Brihadeeswarar at Gangaikondacholapuram, the Kailasanathar at Kanchipuram and a number of lesser known temples are controlled by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) which is an agency of the Indian central government. It is a colonial era institution and has thousands of sites across India under it care. Although beset by the same bureaucratic inertia that is common to all government institutions, the ASI actually does a decent job in maintaining temples that it owns. But the sheer number of properties under its wings is overwhelming. The temples under the control of the ASI are either inactive or only minimally active. They are declared monuments of national importance for their architectural and historic importance. If the majority of the temples in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry become inactive, the ASI cannot look after them all. They would perish.
So who should own and administer the temples of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry? The status quo does not seem fair. Why should the government control institutions that are religious in nature? In this case the political parties that control the government are ideologically opposed to the religion. It is like asking wolves to take care of the sheep. Now the counter argument is that if not the government, who else is capable of looking after such large numbers of temples. Hinduism does not have a church or other overarching institutions. If the temples were to fall into private hands they may encounter the same corruption. There is no guarantee that private entities or individuals will not be as corrupt or worse than government officials and politicians. There are advantages in administering all the temples under the supervision of a single organization but ideally that organization should be a not for profit, non governmental institution that is at arms length from the government of the day but with oversight by the government and accountable to it. The HR and CE should withdraw from direct ownership of the temples and their micromanagement. But it should retain a supervisory role and the right to audit the finances of temples. Everyday management of the temples should be handed over to locally elected committees with representation that reflects that community. A not for profit, non governmental statewide organization that represents the interests of Hindu temples and the religion should be created that can serve as another layer of supervision and accountability. This organization should be accountable to the HR and CE as well as individual temples. It should function without any political interference. The funding for such an organization can easily be found from the income of temples. The membership of such an organization should be democratically elected from the representatives of temples as well as other Hindu organizations. The established political parties from all sides might fear the political implications of such an endeavour. To allay those fears, it is absolutely essential that the organization should be apolitical. Ideally the administration of temples should be depoliticized. It has been so politicized for over a century that complete depoliticization might be a tough call. Government involvement if any should be in a supervisory role and include all levels of government from the Panchayat level to the central government. The legislation has to be modified if needed.
In conclusion, we hope that the ownership and management of temples evolve in such a way that above all the temples are protected and they thrive and survive for another generation. Many might not. For the survival of the temples their management has to be more representative of the actual stakeholders. Government involvement should be minimal to ensure fairness and transparency of finances. Change is sometimes difficult. But just change is needed urgently.
Sources:
Presler, Franklin A. “The Structure and Consequences of Temple Policy in Tamil Nadu, 1967-81.” Pacific Affairs, vol. 56, no. 2, 1983, pp. 232–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2758652. Accessed 3 Nov. 2024.
K.Ashok Vardhan Shetty “ Why Tamil Nadu Temples may not thrive without state supervision” Times of India, October 6, 2021 ( K. Ashok Vardhan Shetty is a retired IAS officer and former Vice Chancellor of the Maritime University , Chennai
Vandana Menon “ Who should run Hindu temples? Tamil Nadu is the epicentre in new tug-of war” The Print Feb 23, 2024
Dibakar Dutta “ As priests are arrested over donations in Tamil Nadu, read how a law brought by the British has taken over Hindu temples with mafia-like grip” OpIndia April 30 2024
Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Government of Tamil Nadu Demand No.47 Policy Note 2022-2023
Commentaires