THIS IS NO SECULARISM, FOLKS : NEWS BHARATI DATE: 2/10/2012
TEMPLE FUNDS ARE NOT FOR TAKEOVERS BY GOVERNMENTS
Temple funds are not for takeovers by governments. It is not secularism to expropriate such funds under the excuse of utilising them suitably. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a virtue to be admired.
“What kind of secularism is this? At one time, under a Christian Chief Minister, an attempt was made to takeover five out of the seven Tirumala Hills for churches and tourism, slighting the Temple authorities. As if to further define 'secularism', a thousand pillar mantapam was reportedly demolished, no doubt, with the best of intentions.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a virtue to be admired. We have strange ideas about freedom of expression. No wonder a Russian citizen wants the Bhagavat Gita to be banned and a Church decides to damn yoga as a sin. Aren't we all secular? Ask Salman Rushdie. We dare not give him security in our own country.”
-Says Senior journalist M.V. Kamath in a thought provoking article published by Mumbai’s Free Press Journal.
W e are living in confusing times.
We seem to have lost all sense of values and understanding of issues such as secularism, making confusion worse confounded. Witness an article published recently in a leading print media that throws new light on what, to our afflicted minds, constitutes secularism. According to the author, " few Indians understand the extent to which the state under- writes the practice of their faith". The reference is to the Maha Kumbha Mela held every twelve years at Haridwar, Prayag (Allahabad), Ujjain and Nashik. The point was made that the 2001 Mela at Prayag involved the state spending over Rs. 1.2 billion to provide facilities for the Hindu pilgrims.
It would seem that the government spent money for supplying 50.04 million litres of drinking water to the Hindu pilgrims. Additionally it spent money in laying down 450 kilometers of electric lines, 3,000 phone lines, setting up of 15,000 street lights, 70,000 toilets, employing 7,100 sanitation workers and even arranging for 4,000 buses and trains to ease transport. And that, hinted the author, could hardly be considered secular! Apparently, only last week, the Uttar Pradesh police sought a staggering Rs. 2.66 billion to pay for the swathe of electronic technologies, helicopters and 20,000 personnel that would be needed to successfully run the 2013 Mela. The question was discreetly raised: was all that an example of secularism? And an unknown scholar, one Meera Nanda, was quoted as saying that " India is a country that most needs a decline in the scope of religion in civil society for it to turn its constitutional promise of secular democracy into a reality.
The charge was made that "India is a country least hospitable to such a decline". The question arises: should not Hindus observe or participate in a Kumbh Mela? Is it wrong for millions of Hindus to gather at the Triveni to fulfill their religious aspirations? Or is it that, in the larger interests of secularism, the government should look the other way and refuse to spend even a penny for the comforts of Hindu pilgrims? Is it that the Hindu pilgrims should themselves pay for their welfare and expecting nothing from the state? As matters stand, the governments across the country have been consciously making it hard for Hindu temples to be adequately functional.
Under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act ( HRCEA) of 1951, state governments have the right to appoint their own managers to run temple finances. According to one report, only 15% of the Tirupathi temple income of roughly Rs. 3,500 crore p. a. is spent on the temple itself. The rest, or about Rs. 3,000 crore is apparently diverted every year by the Andhra State Government to finance non- Hindu purposes.
What kind of secularism is this? At one time, under a Christian Chief Minister, an attempt was made to takeover five out of the seven Tirumala Hills for churches and tourism, slighting the Temple authorities. As if to further define 'secularism', a thousand pillar mantapam was reportedly demolished, no doubt, with the best of intentions, to the joy of secularists who made no protests. It is only when an illegally constructed masjid, meant to insult Hindus, was demolished that our secularists rose up in anger. Tens of thousands of acres of temple lands have been apparently sold, leaving temples starved of income and deprived of economic support.
In Karnataka, one understands, in 2003 - this information is attributed to a religious leader - as much as 79 crores were collected from about a lakh of temples, big and small, out of which temples received 7 crores for their maintenance, Muslim madrasas and the Haj subsidy ( for trips to Mecca) got 59 crores and churches 13 crores. How nice. How nice.
But let this be said: this is not secularism; it is downright wholesale loot.
Worse still, about a quarter of the temples - or some 50,000 of them, have been reportedly closed down. It is also said that in Kerala, funds from the Guruvayyur Temple have been utilised for non- religious purposes. Most shocking is the way the Mumbai Government took over the finances of the famous Siddhi Vinayak Temple in Mumbai, taking it over from its previously independent Board of Trustees in 1981. It is not just the Siddhi Vinayak Temple that has been taken over. Brought under government control apparently are the Jagannath Temple in Puri, the Vishwanath Temple in Banaras, the Kali Mandir in Patiala, as well as - and among others - the temples in Amarnath, Badrinath and Kedarnath. If the government suspects that the temples are badly managed, then the right thing to do is to ask temple devotees to make the necessary changes in temple administration. Temple funds come from donations from devotees. They have to be used meaningfully for the welfare of Hindus. That is not being communal. They can also be used for the welfare of non- Hindus but not through government fiats. Incidentally, have our governments, in the name of secularism, taken over the management of churches and masjids? Then there is the issue of NGOs which receive funds from abroad. According to the Home Ministry, about Rs. 10,337 crore were received by NGOs in the year 2009- 2010. A total of 21,508 organisations were the recipients. Collectively, these groups received foreign contribution to the tune of Rs. 49,968 crore during the given years from 2005- 06 to 2009- 10. How were these funds utilised? If temple funds can be controlled by government appointed Boards, what prevents governments from supervising NGO funds to see that they are not misused? Or is it that secularism does not come in the picture where NGOs are concerned? What kind of logic is that? Temple funds are not for takeovers by governments. It is not secularism to expropriate such funds under the excuse of utilising them suitably. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a virtue to be admired. In the name of secularism, one is expected to be forgiving to an artist who can take liberties in picturising an Indian goddess.
We have strange ideas about freedom of expression. No wonder a Russian citizen wants the Bhagavat Gita to be banned and a Church decides to damn yoga as a sin. Aren't we all secular? Ask Salman Rushdie. We dare not give him security in our own country.
Cowardice has many faces
No comments:
Post a Comment