Andhra Pradesh’s Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan’s political career can be described perfectly with the word ‘meandering.’ He went from supporting the NDA in 2014, to opposing it in 2019—siding with left parties and Bahujan Samaj Party, and finally returning to NDA in 2020.
After becoming the deputy Chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, he has been in the news nationally this September for raising the issue of alleged adulteration of the Tirupati Laddu Prasadam with animal fat. Later, hearing petitions filed by Subramanian Swamy and Others to seek Court monitored investigation into the matter, the bench comprising of justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan criticised the Chief Minister for making public allegations about the adulterated ghee for the preparation of laddus saying that it was not appropriate on part of the high constitutional functionary to go in public to make a statement which can affect the sentiment of crores of people and when investigation to find out adulterated ghee was used to make laddus was still on going.
While the issue was first raised by Nara Chandrababu Naidu on September 18, the Chief Minister of AP, Pawan Kalyan undertook a “Prayaschitha Deeksha” to atone for the wrong that had happened and ended the Deeksha in Tirupati. It is here that he made the Varahi Declaration—a set of 7 demands including enactment of law at a national level to protect Sanatana Dharma; and declared himself as an ‘unapologetic Sanatani Hindu.’ He said that he respects all religions including Islam, Christianity and that he is a Sanatani Hindu.
In this context, he or his party never elaborated on what they mean by Sanatan Dharma that they seek to protect—whether it is the puranic traditions or the Vedic ritualistic culture. However, his rhetoric has allowed different right-wing organisations to call for freeing of temples from government control. In this context, this article will understand the evolution of temple management control in India and why it has evolved into what it is today.
The claim that government control over temples is a recent phenomenon, imposed solely by colonial rulers, distorts the historical reality of temples as centres of power and wealth. Throughout Indian history, temples have been intertwined with political authority, attracting the patronage and, consequently, the control of rulers across different eras. Temples have historically served multifaceted roles, extending beyond religious practices. They functioned as vibrant cultural and economic hubs, fostering agriculture, irrigation, artistic endeavours, and educational pursuits. This multifaceted nature led to the accumulation of significant wealth, making them attractive targets for patronage and control.
Early India
Indian rulers, from kings to nobles, recognised the social and political influence wielded by temples. They generously bestowed “Mahadanas,” or great gifts, of land and riches upon these institutions. These acts were not merely expressions of piety but calculated strategies to enhance their legitimacy and influence. Religious gifting was an integral aspect of “Rajadharma,” the ethical code governing rulers, further solidifying the connection between political authority and temple administration.[1] This patronage, while enriching temples, also facilitated a degree of state control even in ancient India. Rulers, invested in the well-being of these institutions, often oversaw the management of endowments and intervened when mismanagement occurred. Historical evidence suggests rulers viewed ensuring the proper utilisation of temple funds as part of their duty, demonstrating their active role in temple administration.
British Rule and thereafter
The British, building upon pre-existing practices, codified their control through legislative acts, starting with regulations in the early 19th century. These were enacted under the guise of preventing misappropriation of funds, these laws empowered the colonial government to interfere in temple administration.
The control of Hindu temples in India was shaped by a series of key legislations. The Religious Endowments Act of 1863 delegated temple management to committees, while retaining government oversight. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Acts of 1925 and 1926 sought to regulate temple control, with the 1935 amendment allowing non-Brahmins to become trustees. The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act of 1920 enabled audits of temple trusts. The Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act of 1959, later amended in 1971 to abolish hereditary priesthood, became a blueprint for temple administration.[2] Other significant acts include the Andhra Pradesh Act of 1987, Karnataka Act of 1997, all contributing to the ongoing debate over government control versus temple autonomy.
Tirupati Temple and legislation around it until the formation of Andhra Pradesh
The management of the Tirumala Temple, home to the shrine of Lord Venkateshwara, has evolved over centuries. Prior to British rule, local rulers oversaw the temple’s administration. During British rule, the East India Company initially managed the temple, but in 1817, its control shifted to the Board of Revenue. In 1843, following the Court of Directors’ instructions, management was granted to Seva Doss, the head of the Hathiramji Mutt, under a ‘sanad,’ marking the beginning of the Mahant’s involvement in temple administration.[3] However, the Religious Endowments Act of 1863 led the Board of Revenue to relinquish control over religious institutions, including the Tirumalai Temple. The Mahant’s tenure was plagued by allegations of waste and embezzlement, prompting a lawsuit that resulted in a court-framed management scheme. This scheme was later confirmed by the High Court of Madras and the Privy Council. The 1927 Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act recognised this scheme officially, but significant changes were introduced with the Tirumalai-Tirupati-Devasthanams Act of 1932, which nullified the 1843 arrangement and placed temple administration under a committee.
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) was established in 1932 following the TTD Act of 1932. The act placed the temple administration under a seven-member committee, overseen by a paid commissioner appointed by the Madras Government. The committee was advised by two councils—one comprising priests and temple administrators for operational guidance, and another of farmers for land and estate matters. Notably, the act did not specify qualifications for the commissioner or committee members, but it was limited in addressing temple fund generation and usage for religious purposes. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 repealed the earlier acts.
In 1950 the Constitution was also adopted and therefore, further developments are to be seen in the light of it rather than seen as colonial hangovers. Article 25 of the Constitution states as follows:
- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1)Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which maybe associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus
The Constitution differentiates between the religious practices-in which the state shall not interfere subject to reasonable restrictions like public order, morality and health and secular activity associated with religious practices such as social and economic activities unrelated to religion as such.
For example, In the case of Vaishno Devi Shrine Board v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1997), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, ruling that the service of a priest is a secular activity, and the state can regulate it under Article 25(2). The act abolished hereditary priesthood and allowed state appointments, which did not violate religious freedom.[4]
After the formation of Andhra Pradesh
In 1969, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institution and Endowments Act replaced the 1951 act, expanding the Board of Trustees and ensuring representation from diverse communities, including mandatory positions for legislative members, Scheduled Castes, and women. The act broadened the scope of TTD’s activities, promoting the study of Indian languages and operating institutions like Sri Venkateswara University and the Hindu Dharma Prathishthanam for the propagation of Hindu culture.
This 1969 Act was also repealed by enacting the present Andhra Pradesh Charitable And Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 on the recommendations of Justice Challa Kondaiah Commission. This act abolished the hereditary trustees and maintained that the temple administrative trust shall not have a member who does not profess Hindu Religion. (Sections 16 and 17)
Th Act also abolished the hereditary right in Mirasidars, Archakas, and other office holders and stated that any usage of practice relating to the succession to any office or service, or post mentioned above is also void. (Section 34).
Section 41 of the act allowed the executive officer to not implement the resolution of the trustee or the Board of Trustees when it is likely to cause financial loss to the institution, or not beneficial to the institution etc.
This Act has also gone into several amendments and a major amendment took place in 2007 when Section 34 was amended to give right of archakatvam to the archakas who were in service under the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 thus changing Article 34.
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) may seem independent, but it’s mostly run by the Andhra Pradesh government. Key people like the board members, Executive Officer, and financial heads are all government-appointed. The TTD handles things like pilgrim services and infrastructure but needs the government’s approval for any big decisions, especially financial ones. Even the temple’s budget has to go through the government, which can make changes as it sees fit. So, while the TTD handles daily undertakings, the government keeps a tight grip on the bigger picture.
Why the Government cannot let go off control via acts and hand it over to the Hindu Community
One major issue is the decentralised nature of Hinduism, Hinduism lacks a unified governing body, especially vis-à-vis the administration of temples as evident by conflicting opinions on rituals, traditions etc. Temples are often managed by diverse groups—hereditary trustees, caste-based organizations, or local communities. This raises the question of who would take over management if the state withdraws. There is no singular, universally accepted authority to manage temples across the country, complicating the transition.
Moreover, without state oversight, there are concerns about corruption, exclusion of marginalized groups, and sectarianism. Some temples like in case of Vaikom have historically discriminated based on caste or used temple resources for personal gain. Handing control over without safeguards could worsen these issues.
Temples also function as public trusts, managing significant revenue from donations. The state justifies its involvement by ensuring that this wealth benefits society at large, particularly through charitable activities.
However, governments—especially the ones where BJP in power have been looking to remove any government participation. Even the Andhra Pradesh government reportedly has issued a Government Order asking executive officers to ensure temples’ autonomy regarding Vaidic and Agama traditions and preserve the sanctity of their customs and practices, under Section 13 of the Act. The Uttarakhand government too backtracked on the Char Dham Devasthanam Board Management Act which sought to exert some regulation on more than 50 temples in the state. Therefore, there is a shift in terms of how governments are approaching temple management, but the shift is not driven by any philosophical basis but purely on the directions/pressure from right-wing institutions.
Conclusion
Simply put, there is no bigger representative of the people of a religion than the government. A math might not pay heed to another math’s suggestions, but the government is supposed to, when it comes to management of temples. Religion in India is as diverse as its population where rituals and practices changes from one house to another. In this scenario, neither letting the control of temples being given to one sect nor it being centralised by a national act and a Sanatana dharma Board seems prudent.
(The author is part of the research team of the organisation)
[1] Aiyangar, S.K., 1939. A History of the Holy Shrine of Sri Venkatesa in Tirupati. Ananda Press.
[2]Geetika Mantri (2021). Jaggi Vasudev says ‘free Hindu temples’ — but how much are they under govt control? [online] The News Minute. Available at: https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/jaggi-vasudev-says-free-hindu-temples-how-much-are-they-under-govt-control-145125 [Accessed 16 Oct. 2024].
[3] Mahant Narayana Dasjee Varu And Ors. vs Board Of Trustees, AIR 1965 SC 1231
[4] AIR 1997 SC 1711
Related:
Hindu temples & their economic worth, VHP-backed ‘Know your temple’ initiative