On April 22, a circular issued by the Tamil Nadu government as part of its efforts to raise funds to fight the novel coronavirus epidemic led to a two-week political war revolving around the state’s Hindu temples. After petitions challenging the circular were filed in the Madras High Court, the state withdrew it.
The circular asked 47 temples under the control of the state government to contribute a total of Rs 10 crore of their surplus to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. It triggered a political storm, as Hindutva groups attacked the government, alleging that it was misusing temple funds.
While governments usually put up a strong fight to defend their orders in court, the ease with which the Tamil Nadu government withdrew the circular raised eyebrows. Did the government succumb to political pressure or did it withdraw the order because it felt it had erred?
The circular has added a fresh chapter to the debate in the state about whether temples should be administered by the government at all.
Temples and the state
The controversy around state control of Hindu temples predates Independence. As early as in 1789, the British East India Company formed a Board of Revenue in the erstwhile Madras Presidency. This was the first time that temples came under official control of the British, with their properties falling under the board’s ambit.
Through several decades, the British continued to tweak the rules and expand their hold over the temples. However, local Brahmins were allowed to retain a measure of control over the temples, presumably a decision of the British government to keep Indians happy and check any anger towards the colonial administration for meddling in religious affairs.
In the 1840s, mutts – or monasteries –were allowed to administer temples under the supervision of the British administration.
In 1925, the Justice Party government, the progenitors of the Dravidian movement, enacted the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. This Act led to the formation of the Hindu Religious Endowment Board. By 1936, the government had the power to take over the administration of the temples, purportedly to improve management after complaints of irregularities. The law underwent several amendments till the late 1940s.
The law currently in force is the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, passed by a Congress government in Tamil Nadu. All along, orthodox sections of Hindu society have strongly resisted state intervention in temples. However, with the rationalist Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam coming to power by 1967, Tamil Nadu continued to strengthen the law, introducing several amendments over the years.
The provision that has led to the current controversy during the Covid-19 pandemic is Section 36-B of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Introduced during the tenure of chief minister MG Ramachandran of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in 1983, this provision said the temple trustees, after following the relevant rules, can allot money from the temple’s surplus funds for feeding the poor and building infrastructure for the purpose of feeding the poor.
Covid controversy
On April 22, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department issued circulars to 47 temples, asking the trustees to provide whatever funds they could from their surplus revenues to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund to help with relief work during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Though the circular said the temples could allot whatever they could spare, the table attached to the circular indicated the amount that each of the 47 temples was expected to contribute.
This circular immediately led to a backlash. Petitions challenging the circular were moved in the Madras High Court by RR Gopaljee, publisher of the Tamil newspaper Dinamalar, and two others.
The strongest statements against the circular came from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. On April 27, the RSS publication Organiser asked if this was a “jizya tax”, a form of tax Islamic rulers imposed on non-Muslim subjects. The RSS alleged that the Tamil Nadu government had in the meantime given Rs 22 crore out of its treasury for Ramzan-related activities.
Propaganda plank
This triggered a social media war. Ever since the Dravidian movement came to power in 1967, the Hindu right wing in Tamil Nadu had used state control of temples as one of its propaganda planks, claiming that thousands of acres of valuable temple land have been occupied by people with vested interests. The Bharatiya Janata Party in its 2016 Assembly election manifesto promised to release the temples from state control.
However, social media users shared mixed opinions about the circular. Many argued that since the purpose of the state demand was to help those affected by Covid-19 pandemic and the nationwide lockdown, the temples should accede to Tamil Nadu’s order.
The law, however, is complicated. Opponents argued that as per the Act, the move to allot surplus funds for feeding the poor should come from the trustees and should not be directed by the government. This was one of the primary points in the petitions that challenged the circular in the Madras High Court.
Further, opponents of the circular also argued that making contributions to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund may not ensure that the money is used only for feeding the poor as mandated by the Act. The use of the funds for any other purpose would be a violation of the law itself, they said.
This apart, the petitions pointed out that since temples have remained closed due to the lockdown, there was no revenue and the surplus funds have to be utilised to cover the temples’ expenses.
What surprised many observers was the fact that when the matter came up before the court on May 4, the state government informed the court that it was withdrawing the circular.
According to a senior official of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, the government could have resisted withdrawal.
The official said, as per rules, once a temple decides to utilise surplus funds under Section 36 B, a public notice has to be issued asking for objections from the people. “The state could have told the court that the parties had the liberty to represent before the department as response to the public notice,” the official added.
Usually, when a public interest litigation is moved, courts assess if all other remedies have been exhausted before they issue writs.
Bharatiya Janata Party Tamil Nadu leader SR Sekar said that the targeting of Hindu temples for funds is the fundamental problem. “Why not ask mosques and churches in the same manner?” he said.
Sekar added that very few of the nearly 40,000 temples under Tamil Nadu government control had enough money to even cover their daily expenses. “If there are surplus funds, should they not be used to help these poorer temples?” he asked.
The BJP leader alleged that the party has been consistently pointing to diversion of revenues generated in the temples to other departments. “This was an attempt to divert additional money,” he said.
But political commentator Azhi Senthilnathan said the decision to withdraw the circular was clearly a political one due to the pressure applied by Hindutva groups.
However, he said the proceedings had an unintended consequence: this clearly showed that temple funds cannot be taken over as easily as Hindutva groups have calimed over the years. “It shows the clout of the Hindu orthodoxy and politics, in contrast to the victim image being perpetrated,” he added.
Senthilnathan added that this has been a decades-old problem. “On the one hand, the Hindu Right accuses charity work of churches and mosques as being motivated,” he said. “But when the government asks for charity from Hindu temples, they block it.”
