Religious institutions must use resources better
Charity is often directed at institutions of faith. Invest in development, and, perhaps even industries and start-ups
This festive season, like every year, religious organisations will see their coffers swell. The income of religious bodies is perhaps the most immune, among any organisation, to economic slowdown.
To get a sense of temple wealth, sample this. Padmanabhaswamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram, India’s richest temple, has an estimated annual income of ~1 lakh crore. The annual revenue of Tirupati was estimated at ~2,894 crore in 2018-19; of Vaishno Devi at ~600 crore; and of Sabarimala at ~105 crore.
The key issue, however, is not the size of their income, but what they do with it. The total income and wealth of temples represents a sizable pool of funds which, if used for social and economic development, could make a dent on poverty.
India’s development needs are vast; the resources to meet them are not. Increasing contributions from all private sources to supplement government allocations for development is an urgent necessity. Presently, most such contributions come from foreign donors, from companies under mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility and individual philanthropy. Religious funds hardly figure in this.
While lists like Huruns philanthropy regularly track how much India’s richest individuals donate to philanthropy, there is no such accounting for religious organisations.
In 2002, the erstwhile Sampradaan-indian Centre for Philanthropy had done a study to find out what religious organisations do with the monies donated to them by the public. An earlier survey of charity had found that the amount donated to religious organisations are far greater than that donated to secular organisations.
Prima facie evidence shows that most temples use these vast resources for purely religious purposes. It is also known that there are several malpractices involving temple priests (and, in recent times, also trustees). These include misappropriation of funds and mortgage of the property, or grants and loans to individuals for their private interest rather than for the benefit of the community.
Unfortunately, even when religious funds are used for charity, they are often used for superficial or ad hoc purposes which may mitigate immediate need or hardship. But this does not address the structural circumstances underlying poverty, hunger, disability or destitution. In fact, feeding the hungry, or giving alms to beggars, may only perpetuate an unhealthy dependence by the receivers. The recent decision of the Delhi Waqf Board to give monthly rations to 10,000 poor, destitute and infirm families is an example of this.
A few progressive institutions have started undertaking development activities, in addition to their traditional charitable activities of feeding and sheltering the poor and needy. The law requires religious bodies to spend their funds primarily to further their religious objectives. But case studies done by Sampradaan of some progressive organisations showed that they have creatively interpreted their religious purpose to include building better infrastructure for the devotees, afforestation, setting up educational and health institutions, preservation of traditional knowledge, and cleaning of the Ganga and other sacred rivers. In the field of education, management education institutions as well as institutes of technology are becoming favourites. In the field of health, various hospitals have been supported.
Some progressive religious leaders in India have begun issuing statements against social evils such as female foeticide, environmental degradation, and drug addiction, and advocating more volunteering for social causes.
Given this small window of opportunity already open for better use of religious funds, a recent suggestion in a newspaper report to use religious funds as venture capital is worth exploring. In order to increase employment, the report suggests an investment of at least 5-10% of trust funds in venture capital, especially in small and medium enterprises and start-ups. This could give a fillip to entrepreneurship, income and employment.
The first concern that arises is that typically venture fund investments involves risks and a willingness to stay the course for the long-term. On the one hand, since the funds do not belong to any one individual, the risk is spread over numbers of donors. At the same time, is it fair to use funds given in good faith for risky ventures rather than safer social infrastructure projects? After all, the goal of any religious organisation is not to make profits but to use devotee donations for the benefit of society.
This is, however, an important suggestion which should trigger a debate about the role of religious institutions and resources at their disposal.