Time overdue for Freedom of Houses of Worship Act

Across the country, temples need to be freed from state control.

M.D. Nalapat

During the period previous to the establishment of control of the British over almost the entire Indian subcontinent, numerous temples were demolished after being plundered. Subsequently, much of the lands and properties belonging to temples was taken over by the East India Company. It was expected that 1947 would ensure that temples be returned to the category of mosques, gurudwaras and churches in being independent of control by the government of the day, whether at the state or central level. This has yet to happen. This columnist tracked the subterranean mood of dismay within the psyche of many in the majority community at the fact that not only were they the only religious group whose places of worship were the property of the state, but even the three holy sites of the community, Kashi, Mathura and Ayodhya, remained in much the same condition that they had been left by Aurangzeb, who despite countless efforts at whitewashing his legacy, is regarded as an exemplar of intolerance. The emperor had unwavering belief in the supremacy of his version of the faith of his ancestors over any other, and believed the destruction of houses of worship of other faiths and persecution of their adherents as the best means of getting into Paradise. The intolerance manifested in the manner of the tenure of Aurangzeb ensured the downfall of the Mughal Empire, first at the hands of the Marathas and later by invaders from Europe. Intolerance and bigotry ensure the self-destruction of their practitioners, although sometimes this may happen after a lag, as was the case with the destroyer of the Mughal Empire in India, Aurangzeb. There was much surprise on the part of those who mistakenly believe Wahhabism-khomeinism to be the mainstream faith of the Muslim community when the reaction of the two hundred million believers in the faith in India was understanding. Those hotheads who claim to be championing Hindu interests and who demand the return of 40,000 or even 400 of the temples that were (by their estimates) demolished by invaders from Afghanistan, Central Asia and Persia are in fact harming the cause of returning the two remaining holy sites of the Hindus, now that Ayodhya is being brought back to the splendour of the pre-aurangzeb days. Dr Subramanian Swamy cannot be accused of being indifferent to what is known as the Hindutva agenda, yet even he affirms that for the healing of the injuries surviving in overt or latent form in the psyche of large swathes of the Hindu community, all that is needed is the return of the three holy sites mentioned, and not any more. Those opposed to a Freedom of Temples Proclamation moan that this will result in gross mismanagement, implying that state control is clean and efficient. Such plaints are similar to what many British civil servants said about independence for India: that Indians are incapable of self rule. We are all Indians. If those of other faiths are capable of self-rule rather than fall under state control, so are those belonging to the Hindu community.

There may be a few within the minority communities who regard freedom for temples as excessive, but in the case of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, the Muslim community in India, which is an example in modernity and moderation to the rest of the world, would surely accept a return to tradition of the three holy sites of a faith having over a billion adherents in India alone. Especially when such a gesture would take away support from the fringe. In every faith, in every society, the fanatic fringe needs to shrink so that the moderate tendency expands its influence over the population as a whole, and this is understood and accepted by all save the few at the fringes of their faith. In the case of the Hindu community, the fringe are those who consider themselves to be liberal, yet who hold the most extreme of prejudices against those who do not accept their view as wholly correct. Such attitudes by self-described “secular” and “liberal” elements give a bad name to terms that in actuality merit being considered badges of honour. Neither of these terms is consistent with the intolerance this particular fringe exemplifies. What was unexpected was a Bjp-ruled state that it would be regressive enough to copy the East India Company and take over several dozen temples in Uttarakhand, including some of the most prominent in India. Why this was done and on whose advice is something that only the former Chief Minister can properly answer. The good news is that his successor has reversed this inexplicable decision on the part of a political party that is presumed to defend the sanctity and independence of temples rather than leave them to the mercy of any government that may find itself in office as a consequence of the politics of the day. Across the country, temples need to be freed from state control, not continue to be taken over East India Company-style as shamelessly took place in Uttarakhand until Modi intervened. The itch within our governance system to take control of as many aspects of a citizen’s life and activity remains a potent legacy of the colonial era. Why do political parties continue to be a force-multiplier in a method of functioning that is so obviously out of date? Because officials tell their political superiors that any expansion in their powers is actually an expansion in the powers of the ruling politician, while any reduction in such stifling control is a reduction in the power of the ruling politician. It was Narendra Modi who first talked of “minimum government”, and among his first actions was to ensure that self-attestation was all that was needed for a document to be certified as genuine, rather than the signature of a gazetted officer. There is a long way to go before the tentacles of hyper-regulation and initiative-stifling control are pruned adequately for 21st century needs. A hopeful sign is that Prime Minister Modi has embarked on this necessary transformation. Now for the Freedom of Houses of Worship Act, which in India would apply only to Hindus, although that would go unstated.