Thread by @JagatGuruDas

1. This thread (long one) is about the Temple Control since the time of early British East India Company i.e. 1789 and how it became an instrument of terror over the period of time especially after Independence.

Please read and share and do provide feedback

2. Hindu Rajas and devotees had granted lots of Agri lands, money and jewels to temples. They also created Endowments to provide continuous revenue to the temples for their maintenance. Hindu Kings were custodians of the temple administration. As per Hindu Dharma, the rulers are

3. supposed to be guardian of the religious institutions (temples and mutts). The temple control passed to Muslim rulers whenever they won a kingdom. When British East India Company annexed territories, the natives expected them to undertake the administrative tasks as done by

4. the previous rulers. Due to constant wars between invaders and native kings, the temple administration became very corrupt and unorganized. When in 1789, British formed Board of Revenue (BOR) to look after their overall revenue collection, the temple administration also fell

5. under the control. The BOR undertook all the temple lands granted to them by the rulers, affluent persons and devotees. The income from temple lands became the properties of the BOR. The disputes and problems which prevailed within the temple left for the arbitration of the

6. state. Though the East India Company took control over all the temples, it never desired to destroy the temples or to deviate from the customs and traditions which were observed in temples. Even financial assistance was rendered for the maintenance and upkeep of the temple.

7. Also allowed advances to the temples for the repairs, upkeep and general maintenance along with the conduct of periodical festivals. The District Collectors were vested with rights to enquire the misappropriation of the temple fund and they were granted the right to take an

8. action against those corrupt people as per the Regulation XXXIII of 1802. When the temples collected more money from the pilgirms for the execution of sankalpa, the sircar interfered and fixed the amount which in turn enhanced the income of the temple.

9. Regulations were passed in Bengal in 1810 and in Madras in 1817 for regular administration of endowments by govt. The Madras measurement referred to the endowments for temples, mosques & “other pious and beneficial purposes” (a phrase which heavily disturbed the missionaries)

10. and govt’s responsibility to ensure that these endowments were applied according to the intent and will of the grantor. Within a short time govt servants involved virtually in everything concerned with the institutions over and above financial aspects.

11. These included appointment of temple staff, regulation of Devadasis, temple fees, collection of local dues and were done with lavish expenditure of govt paper and time. In 1833, Madras province alone was controlling no less than 7600 temples. By Mid-19th C, the total annual

12. payments made to temples and mosques in Madras presidency alone was £100,000/-. Pilgrim tax was introduced when Bengal Regulation Act was adapted in Madras. British had dilemma in imposing it. Doing it would imply their undue interference in the religious affairs of people

13. and revoking it mean removing a customary fee to promote Idolatry. When the case of Jagannath temple came to Wellesley, he decided to continue the tax as imposed by Cuttack Raja to meet the heavy expenses of temple. British participated in religious in religious festivals as

14. tradition dictated. Govt officials were present to inaugurate annual festivals, troops and artillery were used to make each occasion as splendid as possible, official breaking of coconuts in the commencement of monsoon and involvement of Brahmins to invoke propitious weather.

15. The Regulation of 1817 was in operation from 1817 to 1839. It was a period which marked the general satisfaction regarding the temples and their administration. It was inevitable that there would be an adverse reaction to all these evidences of govt connection with idolatry.

16. Some officials and missionaries protested against this. They accused the govt of becoming “dry nurse to Vishnu” and “church-warden of Jagannath”. This encouraged the Missionaries even to criticize the appointment of the Brahmin priests to chant mantras for getting rain.

17. Due to this mounting pressure, the Court of Directors issued a dispatch in 1833 which directed the withdrawal of govt from involvement in the religious institutions of the country. For 5 years this dispatch was virtually ignored until 1838, when directors reaffirmed their

18. earlier orders. The effective withdrawal of govt began from then onwards. Pilgrim taxes were abolished. The checking of the religious festivals by the officials of the Company was stopped. All the temple properties were converted into trusts. The Trustees were either elected

19. or nominated by the British authorities from among the honorable and respected Hindus. The government decided to keep away from the religious activities of the subjects. In 1841, the attendance of troops or military bands at religious festivals and the firing of salutes was

20. discontinued by order. But the direct money payments to temples and mosques continued as govt had pledged themselves to the continuance of grants made by the former rulers. While missionaries were unhappy with this, John W Kaye wrote in 1859, “if the religion of few is to be

21. supported from the revenues of the country, why, on any conceivable principle of neutrality, is not the religion of many?” If the Church of England why not the temple of Jagannath. To complete the process of severing itself from affairs of temples and mosques,

22. an act in 1863 was passed by which the properties were made over absolutely to local trustees or committees. These trustees were appointed by govt and ceased to have any control on them. This policy continued until in 1920 the Religious and Charitable Trusts Act was passed.

23. This Act enabled the Trusts to get the needed directives from the court and the Trusts were also directed to provide all the details when required. In 1922, a Select Committee was constituted and it acknowledged the mutts as institutions which promote the spiritual welfare of

24. the disciples and the mathadhipatis were expected to maintain regular and detailed accounts. The Act of 1923 was passed to give up govt's policy of neutrality with regard to religious institutions, after removing the previous Act of 1863 and it endeavored to check the

25. misappropriation of temple fund and properties. The Madras Act I of 1925 was the Act which was enacted mainly to deal with Hindu Religions Endowments. But it paid no fruit. Again a bill was introduced in 1926 that was passed on 17 September 1926.

26. It was known as Madras Hindu Religions Endowment Act of 1927, or Madras Act II of 1927. It granted permission to provincial government of Madras to constitute the Hindu Religious Endowment Board to have jurisdiction over temples & mutts and the endowments connected with it.

27. It was applicable even to the Hindu public endowments and Jain religious endowments but no control over the private charitable endowments. The Provincial Government was authorized to constitute any number of Boards and each Board was to have one President and Commissioners

28. numbering two to four. The President received a salary of Rs.1500/-per month and the Commissioners received Rs.800/- each. This was a huge money in those days. If the President or the Commissioners cease to prefer Hinduism or Hindu religion they cannot hold the office.

29. Every temple was provided with an endowment attached to the temple. To meet out the expenditure of the committees, the temples should offer 1.5% of its annual income. The places of worship, the idols, mounts and jewels and the temple had to be maintained.

30. Thus the financial dealings were left with the trustees. Special and ordinary bills were introduced in the Provincial legislature mainly to make provisions for the better management of Hindu religious and charitable endowment and trust properties of the temples.

31. It was also to be ensured that the maintenance and publication of accounts properly. The cases regarding temple funds had to be dealt with by the District Judges Court. All religious institutions, whatever their income, were brought within the scope of the

32. Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Amendment Act 1930 (Act IV of 1930). By that Act, 12,228 temples came under the control of the government. But the rule registers were sent only to 3,448 temples. The Board was pressurized to expedite the matter of getting registers to all the

33. temples. Around 36 temple committees were functioning them. Among them, only 23 had submitted their administration reports promptly. But of which only 12 reports were proper with all required details as far as making changes and modifications.

34. Till early 20th C, the role of Arcakas was given importance. They were executing the rituals in the temples and managing the lands and finance of the temples. Steps were taken to maintain the wealth, power and prestige of the Arcakas. With Justice Party taking root in 1920s,

35. the anti-Brahmin agenda became very prominent with connivance of Missionaries. Arcakas became like any other ordinary servant in a temple. He was not considered as head of religious institution and was appointed by Trustee. The free land given to him was also taken away.

36. The Devadasi system was first abolished in Mysore in 1909. Similar legislation was introduced in Madras in 1927. But the Devadasi Bill act was not passed until 1947. One member declared that Devadasi performed legitimate functions in temple worship, that the number who became

37. immoral was not great, and that therefore legislation was not necessary. But this was passed with support from most Hindu and Muslim members. This not only prevented the dedication of girls to temple but also their dancing in temples.

38. The Temple entry movement was first started in 1919 in Travancore when as assembly member made a representation to Maharaja for this reform but was turned down on the ground of neutrality. A bill introduced in Delhi in 1933 wanted to revoke official recognition of

39. untouchability in courts and executive but not on temple entry. The Court also on occasions granted injunctions to disallow Harijans in temples. In 1936, Travancore Maharaja made a proclamation for temple entry. In 1939, a Bill was passed in Madras asking trustees to throw

40. open for Harijans if the public opinion favored so. But the legislation of 1947 in Madras forced all temples to make it mandatory to do so. This is totally against Agamas which disallow entry of Pancamas and this fact was accepted by Supreme Court too even in 1958. The case

41. was related to temple belonging Gowda Sarasvat Brahmins who wanted to exclusion from Madras Temple Entry Act. Being a religious denomination they had right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b). After examining the regulations contained in

42. Agamas, SC ruled “Thus, under ceremonial law pertaining to temples, who are entitled to enter into them for worship and where they are entitled to stand and worship and how the worship is to be conducted are all matters of religion”. Under Art 26(b), a denominational temple

43. could exclude those who do not belong to that group whereas Art 25(2)(b), temple to be opened up entry of all classes and sections of Hindus. Finally the court approved a compromise whereby only GSB could attend certain traditional ceremonies restricted to members of that

44. community but permitted all other members to participate all other times.

45. The temple lands have not been exempted from a number of state land reform measures enacted since Independence. The object of such legislations have been to transfer the ownership of agricultural land to those who actually work it. Orissa HC upheld the compulsory acquisition

46. by the state with the payment of compensation, of lands which had been dedicated to Hindu deity. In Mysore, Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act of 1958 empowered the govt to resume lands which had been assigned by Maharaja to religious institutions and

47. as compensation the state to make annual payments to them. Some govts like UP, MP, Orissa, WB and Assam exempted the temples from ceilings on land holdings. But in South and other states, the temples did have ceiling though it was higher than those for individual landowners.

48. After Independence, legislation imposing stricter supervision was demanded, and as a result Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1951 was passed. The most basic change was a Cabinet Ministry was formed to supervise temples and mutts. The commissioner and his

49. deputy had power to suspend or dismiss trustees and nominate new one. He also had power to take over the temple/mutt’s administration entirely. The religious institutions had to pay up to 5% of their total income to the service rendered by the govt.

https://twitter.com/JagatGuruDas/status/1143933554264383488

50. The deputy commissioner could sanction the expenditure of surplus temple funds for the establishment of orphanages rather than for the propagation of the religious tenets of the institutions. Some of the provisions this act were invalidated by Supreme Court like the

51. unrestricted right of commissioner to enter into mutts, guiding the superior in expenditure of surplus incomes and payment of 5% of income for government services. HRCE Act of 1954 was worse. It empowered the commissioner to direct the utilization of surplus funds for

52. particular religious, educational or charitable purposes whereas previously the initiative lay with the superior who had to obtain commissioner’s approval. Madras HRCE Bill of 1959 tried to meet the objections raised by court without surrendering the extensive powers of

53. commissioner. In the debate in both houses of state legislature, opposition members pointed to the incongruity of claiming to be a secular state and at the same time interfering in such a drastic manner in the annual affairs of religious institution. They accused the govt of

54. moving in the direction of nationalizing the temples. But with all the objections the Bill was passed with few amendments. Multiple editorials in “The Hindu” attacked the misuse of commissioner’s power. Funds from Tirupati temple have been used to establish a university,

55. schools, orphanages, hospitals etc. Hindu Mahasabha passed a resolution at its 30th annual session that Hindu Endowment funds shouldn’t be diverted to profane, secular, non-Hindu and non-religious purposes, however laudable they might be.

56. In 1950, a legislation was enacted which bore the title of “An Act to prohibit the sacrifice of animals and birds in or in the precincts of Hindu temples in the state of Madras”. Many of them who supported this Act said that this is against the principle Dharma of Hinduism.

57. which is Ahimsa. Some quoted Gandhi’s statement that this practice in the name of God was a “remnant of Barbarism”. Gandhi once said: “There is no Smriti which countenances these sacrifices. If there is, it is not a Smriti”. So it is clear that he has not read Smriti at all.

58. But these legislators never opened their mouth regarding the sacrifices done by other faiths in the name of God. There are few instances where the govt itself involved in promotion of Hinduism. In AP formerly part of Madras, the HRCE minister has publicly urged that the

59. teachings of Vedas and Sastras be more widely disseminated and steps be taken to popularize Hinduism. One deputy commissioner remarked that the department wanted “good propagandists to propagate and inculcate Bhakti in the people"

60. Bombay Public Trust Act of 1950 need a special mention. Unlike the Acts made in other provinces, this Act covered all religious institutions and charitable trusts on the same basis whether managed by Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians or Muslims. But Roman Catholics

61. objected to this act and said “Canon Law lays down precise, definite and comprehensive regulations on various points connected with acquisition, possession and administration of ecclesiastical goods by various moral and juridical persons in the Church”

62. In March 1960, GOI appointed a Hindu Religious Endowments Commission under the chairmanship of CP Ramaswamy Iyer. It was to examine the whole subject of administration of Hindu Religious endowments and recommend measures for its improvements. The commission prepared and

63. circulated a comprehensive questionnaire on the subject & toured country to hear & discuss the views of religious leaders, associations, & officials concerned with problems of Hindu endowments. But within a month, Law Minister introduced Religious Trusts Bill of 1960 in LS.

64. Despite its title this would apply only to Hindus. The Bill wanted to appoint commissioner of religious trusts by each state & grant him extensive regulatory powers for Hindu endowments. This was not passed as the opposition wanted the commission to come back with the reports

65. Regarding the proposed legislation, Mahant Digvijay Nath of Gorakhpur said: “In the opinion of our present govt, officialization is the panacea for all the evils of the country whether social, cultural, religious or economic”. He termed the proposed commissioner as the

66. Archbishop of the state with absolute ruling power over all properties of Hindus but with no knowledge on Hindu scriptures or faith in the temple rites and ceremonies. After more than 2 years the commission submitted its report on May 31, 1962. Its main conclusion was

67. “There is no insuperable difficulty or complication in enacting an uniform type of legislation dealing with the religious endowments of all communities in India”. This however was put forth for as a consideration for the formulation of long range policy. But as an immediate

68. need, the commission recommended that suitable legislations be enacted in Assam, Punjab, WB and UP which don’t have no provision at all for the temple supervision. It also recommended that due to low educational level of Hindu clergy, each state should establish institutes

69. for the systematic instruction of temple priests in Sanskrit, Hindu scriptures and rituals. It also suggested to create four Hindu theological colleges in which religion will be studied along with Humanities as in West.

70. To end this, let me quote the words of same Mahant: “This autonomy or freedom of self-devlopmnt of religious instns & non-interference of political powers with their special activities & distinctive mode of development has been the most powerful factor in maintenance of truly

71. spiritual character of Hindu religion & in saving religion 4m becoming a Dept of instrument of rising and falling states. It is for this reason that Hinduism has never been secularized and its fate has never been linked up with the fates of governing powers of the country”

72. Latest one from Desi Govt: “The HRCE of Karnataka has banned the practice of the Arcakas taking the money put in by devotees in Arti plates. It is controlling more than 34,000 temples in the state.
***** शुभम् *******
dhinasari.com/scoopnews/9091…