Despite Ram temple theft, Govt has no business running temples - unless we are a Hindu Rashtra

The glee with which some opposition politicians and “secular” commentators have received news about “chanda chori” at the Ayodhya Ram Mandir is nauseating. The theft has also prompted many other people to suggest a direct government role in running temples. While genetically Hinduphobic people are rubbing their hands in anticipation of potential fallout on the BJP, those who think that such theft needs a stronger government role in its prevention are barking up the wrong tree (See this oped in The Times of India by a former government secretary). Bringing in the government whenever something goes wrong is a bad solution, and not in tune with the basic idea that religious affairs are not the business of the state.

The assumption that thefts happen only in Hindu temples is, of course, nonsense. From the Vatican to mosques and churches in multiple countries, including India, there has been no dearth of incidents involving not just theft, but also wrongdoing of several kinds, including paedophilia by priests. If these did not prompt governments to start running non-Hindu places of worship, one wonders what the logic is in suggesting that temples where thefts have happened somehow can never govern themselves without state nannying. 

There are several reasons why bringing in the government whenever something goes wrong is bad in principle. The last reason given below is the most important of them all - from the Hindu point of view.

First, any remedy for wrongdoing of fraud in religious institutions - which is what temples are - ought to be done through a neutral law which allows for brief interventions (followed by a clear exit after things are set right). There cannot be anything permanent about government intervention in religious affairs. Just as corporate frauds are dealt with through the law, with various agencies investigating them and punishing the guilty, temples ought to face the same kind of actions. We don’t nationalise every company in which frauds happen; there is even less of a case with temples. In the 2014 verdict involving the Nataraja temple in Chidambaram, the Supreme Court clearly said that government intervention must be limited to setting things right, after which it must take a back seat.

Second, whatever law is applicable to temple governance, ought to apply equally to mosques, churches and other places of worship. Article 14 promises equality before the law for every Indian, including legal entities that are not individuals. So, there is zero case for applying one law only to Hindu temples, while applying a different logic to mosques and churches.

Third, temples are not just places of worship. They also hold resources that ought to be used to not only protect devotees from poaching by rival religions, but also spread the faith. Whether this is done by building schools and hospitals, or by direct religious propagation, this is part of the brief. Mosque and church funds are regularly used to fund conversions. If conversions without inducements are legal under Indian law, Hindu temples ought to have the same right to protect their own devotees and convert people following other faiths. If this is what temples, apart from other religious institutions of the Hindus, ought to be doing, it is impossible to let a government-run institution to proselytise actively. The government cannot just administer a temple and say its job is done. It is answerable to the wider Hindu society on what it has done on preventing loss of devotees to other faiths, and, where needed, support expansion of the faith.

But, few people will agree that governments ought to be doing any kind of proselytisation, unless the government itself is theocratic in nature.

The simple conclusion: unless India is declared a Hindu state, the government has no businesses running temples. If the state and religion are joined at the hip, then, yes, governments can run temples - and also actively dissuade other religions from poaching Hindus.

Places of worship are public places where governments may have a legitimate interest in making sure they are run well, but they are not the same as public parks, where access is equally open to everyone. Temples are limited public-private places meant for believers. They are not open to active government management. Unless we accept the logic of Hindu Rashtra.