State-led temple reforms delivered social justice

State control of temples in India has a historical basis and is necessary to prevent maladministration and neglect of temple properties.

In his article (‘Indefinite state control of temples is unjust’, October 15), CR Kesavan has argued against state control of temples. The foundational assumptions in proposing to “free temples” suffer from factual fallacies and logical lacunae. Moreover, by making such outrageous claims, the social Right-wing has undermined a significant social reform movement within Hindu society.

Unlike other jurisdictions, there has not been a clear separation between state and temple in India

Unlike other jurisdictions, there has not been a clear separation between state and temple in India. Starting with the oldest surviving temples, all such religious places of worship have been built by rulers out of public funds. It has, therefore, followed that temples have always been regarded as public places with unrestricted access to all members of society. As such, restrictions in entry to temples and prohibition in the appointment of priests could only be regarded as aberrations to the traditional practice of religion. Ensuring equal access to temples has democratised religion.

Vaikom, situated in the erstwhile princely state of Travancore, is regarded as the starting point of the temple reform movement when Periyar EV Ramasamy and Sree Narayana Guru led protests against the ban on persons from backward classes using the road adjacent to the local temple. This paved the way for the temple entry proclamation and concomitant legislative mandates.

Despite such reforms, a comprehensive legislation came to be passed in the then Madras Presidency for superintendence of administration of temple properties as well as enabling unhindered access to temples. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, originally enacted in 1927, has withstood legal and legislative attempts to dismantle its basis. However, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated the vires of the law, most famously in the Shirur Mutt case.

The necessity for a legislative framework was further strengthened when the Government of India constituted the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission chaired by CP Ramaswami Aiyar in 1960. In the report filed by the Commission, it was reiterated that governmental control over temples was essential to prevent maladministration and neglect of the temple properties. Over the decades, various challenges to the state control of temples have been repudiated by the constitutional courts starting from Seshammal vs State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 to the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam vs Government of Tamil Nadu, 2016.

Over the years, courts have reaffirmed the need to democratise the functioning of temples in line with evolving jurisprudence around constitutional morality, as seen in the recent Sabarimala judgment. While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its supporters have repeatedly campaigned to “free Hindu temples”, they have seldom done anything in this regard. None of the BJP state governments have given up control of temples. Therefore, it is clear that there is neither political will nor any legal clarity behind this campaign. When asked who would replace the state in taking over the temples, there is no clear answer. Instead, they are only too quick to ask why mosques are not legislated. This whataboutery is fallacious.

Properties belonging to Wakf are within the purview of the State Wakf Board and the Central Wakf Act, 1954. In fact, a legislative amendment to the Tamil Nadu Public Premises Act in 2010 has the effect of bringing Wakf properties under the definition of public premises. This only goes to show that properties belonging to religious trusts have to be administered with adequate oversight in order to protect public faith in those institutions.

Since forming the government in 2021, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has appointed around 100 priests (archakas) from backward classes. These priests have been trained in Hindu rituals and certified by qualified, religious persons. Recently, three women were appointed in temples as priests. Chief minister MK Stalin termed this a “new era of inclusivity and equality”.

While the Dravidian Movement is shifting the compass of gender justice in Tamil Nadu, the campaign against state control of temples by the BJP only goes to show that the party is entirely out of touch with modern Indian society.

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is an advocate and spokesperson, DMK. The views expressed are personal