Hindu religious places need liberation. They need freedom from government control and they also need freedom from the periodic interference of the judiciary and constant monitoring of the media. The Tirupati Prasadam controversy has necessitated this requirement. The case of adulteration in the Laddus Prasadam of Shri Lord Venkateswara Temple i.e. Tirupati Temple situated on the seven hills of Tirumala in Andhra Pradesh is horrifying and extremely worrying. This is going to shatter the faith of crores of Hindus. This controversy has proved the need to free Hindu temples and all religious places from government control. It is true that the Chief Minister of the state, Shri Chandrababu Naidu has indicated that now only a Hindu will become the Chairman of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam i.e. TTD Board, but the big question is why will this government decide who will become the Chairman? Why should this work be in the hands of the government? Is the management of religious places of other religions in the hands of the government? And if not, then isn’t keeping Hindu religious places under government control a violation of the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution?
These questions are arising because during the governments of Jagan Mohan Reddy and his late father YS Rajasekhara Reddy, there were reports of non-Hindu president being appointed in the board of Tirupati temple. During their governments, a person was made the Chairman of TTD Board, who talked about insulting the statue of Lord Venkateswara by calling it a black stone. Similarly, another person was also made the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, whose daughter had made public the video of her marriage according to Christian customs. Can the control of a religious place of another religion or sect be given to a person who does not believe in that religion and its beliefs? When this does not happen in the case of religious places of Islam or Christianity, it should not happen in the case of Hindu religious places also.
Article 25 of the Constitution gives the right to religious freedom to all citizens. On the basis of this article, the right to form religious institutions and propagate faith has also been given and through this article, the followers of all religions have also got the right to administer or manage religious institutions. Then the question is how can any government discriminate in compliance with this article? If there is discrimination in compliance with this article, then it is a violation of the right to equality granted by Article 14 of the Constitution. On this basis, Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former Union Minister Dr. Subramanian Swamy has filed several petitions in different courts. He has challenged the government’s decision to acquire the Char Dham and 51 other religious sites in Uttarakhand by forming the Char Dham Devasthanam Management. He has also filed a petition in the High Court regarding the management of Vitthal Rukmini Temple in Maharashtra.
The control of Hindu religious places in the hands of governments or government interference in their management is creating many more anomalies, which need attention. The Constitution allows every person to express and propagate his religious belief without fear. This benefits those religions whose religious institutions are not under government control and whose donations and donations are completely controlled by the private followers of that religion. They use it to propagate and spread their religion. Donations received from churches and mosques are used to propagate Christianity and Islam. But are the donations received in Hindu temples used in propagating and spreading Hindu religion? The reality is that a part of the donations and donations received in temples is used in the management and administration of the temple but is not used in propagating religion. It is not even used to protect the religious beliefs and faith of crores of people. If it was used properly, wouldn’t the Tirupati temple have its own laboratory, in which the quality of the puja materials and items used in prasadam would be regularly checked? Every year an average offering of Rs 1200 crore is made in the temple of Tirupati. Thousands of crores of rupees of the temple are deposited in banks. But the temple management does not have a small laboratory to test the quality of the items used in the temple! How surprising this is.
This is because the temple management has nothing to do with the faith and religious beliefs of crores of Hindus. For them, the management of a temple is just like the management of a company or a factory. They do government work in a mechanical manner. Just as churches are managed by Christian religious leaders or mosques are managed by Muslim religious leaders and Maulanas, similarly the management of Hindu temples should be in the hands of Hindu religious leaders. No one has any problem if the amount of donations or offerings received by temples is audited. There should be no problem in making the details of income and expenditure public. But at the same time, the temple management should also have the freedom to use the donations and donations to protect the sanctity of the religious place and to propagate the religion.
Governments need to understand that temples are not government or private institutions. Every temple has a belief. It has history. He has a rich heritage. There are many temples in India which were established hundreds and thousands of years ago. For thousands of years, one religious group or one family has been maintaining and managing those temples. Can’t this right be taken away from them just on the basis that now the temple has become very big and it has started receiving a lot of donations or offerings? Can the government take over the rights of a private company on the basis that it has earned too much? If it cannot be taken then why is this done in the case of temples? The Baridars had been managing the temple of Mata Vaishno Devi for centuries. They managed the temple since the tenth century. But as the popularity of the temple increased and the crowd of devotees increased, Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board was formed and the management rights were taken away from the farmers. There is a story from Char Dham in Uttarakhand to the temple of Mata Vaishno Devi in Kashmir. Why does this happen only with Hindu temples?
Similarly, every Hindu temple has some specific religious beliefs. There is no doubt that many beliefs are not compatible with the social values of the present time. Still, is it appropriate to decide on changes in them by government or court order? Women of a certain age are prohibited from entering the Sabarimala temple. But citing the rights of untouchability and equality, the court ordered to end this worship tradition. Can such orders be given from the government level or from the judiciary level to end the beliefs prevalent in other religions? Keep in mind that social or family beliefs have their place. They can be changed according to time. Like the Supreme Court declared the rule of triple talaq unconstitutional. But religious beliefs and traditions do not come under this scope.
However, the issue of adulteration of animal fat and fish oil in the laddus of Tirupati temple is a deep attack on the faith of the entire Hindu society. But this controversy has given rise to an opportunity. A lesson should be learned from this and Hindu religious places should be freed from government control. Their management should be handed over to religious leaders who have deep faith in Hinduism and respect the traditions. They should also be allowed to spend the donations and donations received from temples judiciously in the propagation of religion. They should also be allowed to develop religious places. Article 30 of the Constitution gives linguistic and religious minorities the right to establish and operate their own educational institutions. Hindu religious places should also be given the right to establish and run their own educational institutions, where along with modern education, the five thousand year old history of religion, tradition and culture can also be taught. (The author is a representative of Sikkim Chief Minister Prem Singh Tamang (Golay). Views are personal.)