The financial exploitation and administrative control of Hindu temples in Bharat have been subjects of increasing concern, particularly in light of recent events in Himachal Pradesh. The Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu-led state government’s decision to seek financial contributions from 36 temples to support state-run welfare schemes has sparked controversy, with opposition leaders arguing that this move reflects a broader pattern of state intervention that disproportionately affects Hindu religious institutions. The issue raises critical questions about the selective application of secularism, religious autonomy, and the role of the state in managing temple wealth while exempting other religious institutions from similar interventions.
The Congress-led Himachal Pradesh government has been struggling to fulfil its electoral promises, particularly its ambitious welfare schemes such as the Mukhyamantri Sukh-Aashray Yojana and Mukhyamantri Sukh Shiksha Yojna. Instead of utilising state resources or seeking alternative funding, the government has resorted to compelling temple trusts to contribute funds, effectively plundering Hindu religious institutions to finance its political commitments. A recent notification explicitly directed temple trusts to allocate funds towards these schemes, highlighting the administration’s dependency on temple wealth to sustain its governance agenda. According to the directive, temple trusts operating under the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions Charitable Endowments Act, 1984, are encouraged to make financial contributions to government welfare initiatives. This order underscores a growing trend where temple funds are viewed as a convenient financial reservoir for state expenditures, all while temples remain under stringent state control and their religious autonomy is systematically undermined. The notice further elaborates that every funding proposal must be passed by the respective temple trust and approved by the Chief Commissioner of Temples, with the Additional Chief Commissioner (Temple)-cum-Director, Language, Art & Culture acting as an intermediary. This bureaucratic oversight highlights the excessive state control exerted over Hindu temples, raising questions about whether similar financial demands are being placed on churches, mosques, or other religious institutions—which they are not.
The Mukhyamantri Sukh Ashray Yojana, introduced on February 28, 2023, aims to provide support to vulnerable groups, including elderly citizens, single and impoverished women, and orphaned children. While the initiative appears noble, reports suggest that temple funds are being diverted to finance activities far removed from the religious and charitable responsibilities of these institutions. According to the letter, 6,000 children have been adopted as “children of the state” under this scheme, with some even being taken on lavish trips to three-star hotels in Chandigarh, Delhi, and Goa, funded by temple donations. Such expenditures raise ethical concerns about the legitimacy of the state’s financial decisions and whether the funds are being used effectively for genuine welfare purposes. Similarly, the Mukhyamantri Sukh Shiksha Yojana, notified on September 3, 2024, claims to prevent child abuse, trafficking, and other social injustices while promoting the self-sufficiency of vulnerable women and children. While the goals of this scheme are commendable, the government’s decision to fund it through temple donations rather than public taxation or alternative revenue streams highlights its selective approach to resource allocation. No similar financial burden has been imposed on churches, mosques, or other religious establishments, reinforcing concerns over systemic bias in state policies.
Government control over Hindu temples is a glaring example of selective intervention. Unlike churches and mosques, which remain autonomous and free from state interference, thousands of Hindu temples, particularly in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, are governed by state-run bodies. Tamil Nadu alone has over 38,000 temples under government control, with their revenue being redirected for various state expenditures rather than temple maintenance or religious activities. Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh, funds from the iconic Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) have reportedly been allocated for non-Hindu causes, including Christian missionary activities. Such policies raise fundamental questions about the secular credentials of the state, as government intervention is selectively imposed on one religious community while others enjoy complete autonomy. Adding to this inequity is the financial exploitation of temple wealth. In recent years, several state governments have sought financial contributions from temples to fund public welfare programs. The Himachal Pradesh government exemplifies this trend, as temple funds are now being actively sought to fulfill electoral promises. Opposition leaders, particularly from the BJP, have condemned this decision, arguing that it reflects a double standard wherein temples are treated as financial resources while simultaneously facing restrictions on their management and operations. A parallel case emerged in Kerala in 2019 when Rs 5 crores from the Guruvayur temple’s funds were transferred to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, while non-Hindu religious institutions were exempt from any such obligation. These incidents underscore the systemic bias where Hindu temples are viewed not as sacred spaces but as financial reservoirs to be tapped for state use.
Despite the state’s reliance on temple wealth, there is an alarming trend of religious disregard and suppression of Hindu traditions. Attempts to interfere with religious customs, such as the forced entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala against long-standing traditions, have been actively supported by state authorities and activist groups. However, similar interventions are never proposed for mosques or churches, revealing a selective approach toward religious reform. Furthermore, political and ideological groups that advocate for the removal of state control over places of worship remain conspicuously silent on temples, perpetuating an imbalanced and discriminatory policy framework. This hypocrisy is further highlighted by Congress’s consistent opposition to major Hindu religious events and sites. The party has historically taken a negative stance against the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and has often downplayed the significance of events like the Kumbh Mela, dismissing them as unnecessary or even wasteful. Yet, when it comes to extracting funds for government schemes, Congress feels no shame in turning to Hindu temples, further exposing its double standards and opportunistic approach towards religious institutions.
If secularism is to mean the non-interference of the state in religious affairs, then the continued control and financial exploitation of Hindu temples contradict this principle. While churches and mosques function autonomously, Hindu temples remain under stringent state control, their resources diverted at the discretion of political authorities. This double standard not only undermines the autonomy of Hindu religious institutions but also fosters a growing sense of injustice and alienation among the Hindu community. The issue of temple control and financial exploitation is not merely a religious concern but a broader civil rights issue that demands urgent redressal. The path forward necessitates a re-evaluation of state policies concerning religious institutions. Hindu temples must be granted the same autonomy that other religious institutions enjoy, allowing temple wealth to be used solely for the maintenance and development of temple infrastructure and religious activities. The principle of equality before the law must extend to religious institutions, ensuring that no single community is disproportionately burdened with state control and financial extraction.
In essence, the treatment of Hindu temples in India reflects a disturbing blend of religious discrimination, financial exploitation, and ideological hypocrisy. The selective interference of the state, the forced appropriation of temple wealth, and the simultaneous disregard for temple sanctity expose a systemic bias that undermines the principles of religious freedom and secular governance. Until these policies are corrected, the exploitation of temples will remain a glaring contradiction in Bharat’s democratic and secular framework.
Comments