Temple freedom must mean accountability too
The battle for Hindu temples should not end with freeing them from government control. It should begin with ensuring every rupee offered by devotees is beyond suspicion.
For decades, one of the most contentious debates in Bharat’s constitutional and religious landscape has revolved around a simple but uncomfortable question: Why are only Hindu temples subjected to extensive government control while religious institutions belonging to other faiths largely enjoy administrative autonomy?
The issue resurfaces every few years. Political parties exploit it. Governments defend the existing system. Temple activists approach courts. Devotees express outrage. Yet, once the noise subsides, the fundamental question remains unanswered.
The debate has almost entirely centred on government control versus temple autonomy.
But there is another equally important question that very few people are willing to ask.
Suppose tomorrow every Hindu temple is freed from government control. What guarantees are there that the enormous wealth donated by millions of devotees every year will always remain immune from misuse?
That question is neither anti-Hindu nor anti-temple.
It is a question in defence of Hindu temples themselves.
Faith deserves transparency.
Devotion deserves accountability.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
A constitutional anomaly?
India proudly calls itself a secular republic.
Secularism, in its simplest understanding, implies that the State should maintain equal respect towards all religions.
Yet many Hindus argue that the practical application of secularism has often been selective.
Across several States, thousands of Hindu temples are administered under various Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts or Endowments laws. State governments appoint commissioners, executive officers and administrators, oversee finances, approve appointments, and exercise varying degrees of control over temple administration.
Churches and mosques, on the other hand, are generally managed by their own religious bodies, trusts, dioceses, waqf institutions or community organisations under different legal frameworks.
Whether one agrees with this distinction or not, the perception among a large section of Hindus is unmistakable: the State exercises a level of control over Hindu religious institutions that it does not ordinarily exercise over comparable institutions of other faiths.
That perception has fuelled litigation across the country and generated a sustained demand for temple autonomy.
The constitutional debate
Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution guarantee religious freedom.
Article 25 recognises the freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
Article 26 gives every religious denomination the right to establish and manage institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, and to own and administer property in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court has, over decades, distinguished between essential religious practices and the secular administration of religious institutions.
Governments have relied on this distinction to justify regulating temple administration in matters such as finances, appointments, property management and public accountability.
Temple activists, however, argue that what was originally intended as limited regulatory oversight has, in many places, evolved into permanent bureaucratic control.
That is the heart of the dispute.
Colonial legacy, independent continuation
Ironically, extensive governmental involvement in temple administration did not originate after Independence.
Its roots can be traced to colonial governance, when the British sought to regulate revenue, endowments and religious institutions. Over time, the colonial administration itself recognised the political sensitivities involved and gradually withdrew from direct management.
Independent Bharat, however, did not entirely reverse that legacy.
Instead, several States enacted or retained laws governing Hindu temples, creating statutory frameworks through which governments could supervise or administer temple affairs.
Supporters argue these laws protect temple properties from encroachment, prevent mismanagement and ensure public accountability.
Critics counter that governments have become permanent custodians of institutions they neither own nor have the constitutional mandate to manage indefinitely.
A question of equal treatment
Here lies the political controversy.
Many Hindu organisations contend that if secularism truly means equal treatment, then identical standards should apply to every religion.
Either the State should exercise similar administrative control over all major religious institutions.
Or it should gradually withdraw from all of them except where criminality, fraud or public order demands intervention.
Selective control, they argue, violates both constitutional morality and public confidence.
Whether one accepts that argument or rejects it, it cannot simply be dismissed.
It deserves reasoned debate rather than political slogans.
The other side of the argument
Those defending the present system raise legitimate concerns too.
Temple properties across Bharat run into thousands of acres.
Many receive donations worth hundreds or even thousands of crores annually.
Without statutory oversight, they argue, influential local groups or hereditary interests could monopolise administration, divert resources or deny access to devotees.
Public accountability, therefore, cannot simply disappear.
That concern also deserves respect.
This is precisely why the debate should never be reduced to “government versus religion.”
The real issue is good governance.
Where the debate stops
Unfortunately, almost every discussion ends at one point.
“Free the temples.”
That is where the conversation usually concludes.
In my opinion, that is where the real conversation should actually begin.
Suppose tomorrow every government voluntarily relinquishes administrative control over Hindu temples.
Suppose every HR&CE law is substantially amended.
Suppose management is returned entirely to independent temple trusts.
Then what?
Would allegations of financial irregularities automatically disappear?
Would corruption become impossible?
Would every trustee become incorruptible merely because the government had exited?
Human nature unfortunately does not change with legislation.
Temptation does not recognise ideology.
Neither politicians nor private trustees possess a monopoly over virtue.
History teaches us that wherever large sums of money accumulate without robust transparency, opportunities for misuse inevitably arise.
That is true in governments.
It is equally true in private institutions.
Temples cannot be treated as exceptions simply because they inspire devotion.
Faith is not the issue
Let me make my position absolutely clear.
This is not about doubting devotees.
Nor is it about questioning the sanctity of temples.
Millions of Hindus offer donations with profound faith.
Some contribute one rupee.
Others donate jewellery accumulated over generations.
Some anonymously leave entire fortunes at the feet of the deity.
Every offering represents sacrifice.
Every donation carries emotion.
Every rupee symbolises trust.
That trust deserves the highest standards of financial integrity.
It should never become vulnerable to political manipulation, bureaucratic interference or private misappropriation.
Freedom without transparency is incomplete
This is where, I believe, many temple reform movements have left an important question unanswered.
Administrative autonomy is only one half of reform.
Financial transparency is the other.
The two must travel together.
Otherwise, we risk replacing one opaque system with another.
The demand should not merely be:
“Remove government control.”
It should also be:
“Create systems that make financial misuse virtually impossible, irrespective of who manages the temple.”
That is the real reform Hindu temples deserve.
And in twenty-first-century Bharat, where digital technology has transformed almost every sphere of public life, achieving that objective is no longer difficult.
In fact, the technology already exists.
The question is whether we possess the courage to use it.
(To be continued in Part II: “Why Not Digitise Even Hundi Offerings?” where I argue that India’s temples can preserve tradition while embracing complete financial transparency through digital donations, modern auditing and technology-driven accountability.)
