Controversy Erupts Over Muslim Appointment to Hindu Temple Management, Are Hindus Incompatible?

Paromita Das 

GG News Bureau 

New Delhi, 18th May. Recently, a social media dispute broke out between the Congress government and the BJP state unit over the nomination of a Muslim to the Brahmarathotsava committee of the Avimukteshwara Swami Temple in Hoskote.

The appointment of non-Hindus to temple management has incited significant indignation among followers of other faiths and Hindus seeking explanations for how followers of other faiths can plan or supervise Hindu temple and other management.

Why does it appear that Hindus are incompatible with managing Hindu temples? What justifies a Muslim overseeing the management of a Hindu temple?

There are rumors that Congressman Sarath Bache Gowda, the MLA for Hoskote, asked the government to establish a committee to develop Avimukeshwara Brahmarathotsav in Hoskote town fort in the Bengaluru rural region.

The state government created a 12-member committee in response to his request through a circular from the Tehsildar’s office. The BJP has taken to Twitter to express its indignation over the selection of Nawaz, a Muslim, among these 12 candidates.

The state BJP unit shared an official memorandum of the temple committee’s office bearers on X. The Karnataka BJP, denouncing the Congress government for appointing non-Hindus to oversee temples, claimed that the Hindu-hating Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was trying to seize Hindu temples and now wanted authority over the temples and their assets.

According to the tweet, “Nawaz was appointed by Congress to supervise the Brahmotsavam celebration at the Shri Avimukteshwara Swamy Temple in Hoskote.” The Hindu-hating Chief Minister @siddaramaiah now wants to select non-Hindus to run temples and their resources, after having tried to plunder our temples.

The Karnataka BJP went on to criticise Rahul Gandhi’s plans for wealth redistribution and appeasement tactics, saying that, “Congress govt in Karnataka appears to be in a hurry to implement Rahul Gandhi’s delusional ideas of stripping Hindus of their rights, to favour one particular community. Today it’s just one temple in Karnataka, tomorrow it might be every temple in India. Beware of Congress!”

Mr. Nawaz has been appointed to the committee responsible for overseeing the Brahmotsavam festivities of Shri Avimukteshwara Swamy in Hoskote, located in the Bangalore Rural District.

I would request Shri @RLR_BTM , Endowments minister to clarify if “Nawaz” is a Hindu name.… pic.twitter.com/WOC0NALUzu

— Girish Bharadwaj (@Girishvhp) May 8, 2024

 

The issue of non-Hindu appointees to Karnataka temples has been brought up by the opposition BJP before as well. The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 contained a clause that permitted members of other religions to hold temple administration positions. The party had pushed the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government to remove this clause in February of this year. The BJP then charged that Siddaramaiah was attempting, with the assistance of people of other faiths, to drain the financial affairs of temples in a manner similar to how he had done with the state’s treasury.

This raised concern among Hindu devotees over the appointment of individuals from other religions to the management boards of Hindu temples and the unjustified control of temple operations by a few state governments. In addition, a number of attorneys have petitioned the nation’s highest courts to remove government jurisdiction of temples.

 Appeasement politics is practiced by other parties as well

The extent to which political parties are involved in appeasement politics is not new.

The Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, sparked a major controversy in 2017 when she named her close aide, Firhad Hakim, who is currently Kolkata’s Mayor and Minister of Urban Development, as the Chairman of the newly established Tarakeshwar Development Board (TDB) of the state’s renowned Tarakeshwar Shiva temple, which is over 200 years old. The appointment seemed to be an attempt by Banerjee to project herself as a secular leader. The head of the temple board was previously Becharam Manna, a Hindu and prominent member of the Trinamool Congress.

The question is why do the political parties not seem to care about Hindu religious beliefs when it is explicitly stated in the Andhra Pradesh Endowments Act 1956 that non-Hindus or believers are not to be nominated as heads of temple committees or as trustees of Hindu religious endowments? Because of the questionable backgrounds of those appointed, there have been repeated disputes regarding the selection of such unbelievers of Hinduism as chairmen of Hindu temples. It is only reasonable and lawful for members of a society to govern their own places of worship. However, when it comes to temples, there is a great deal of variation and departure from this stance.

This substantially interferes with a community’s right to govern its own religious affairs and operate its own religious institutions, and it defies every recognized secular concept. The primary purpose appears to be either financial corruption or the attempt to satisfy one community at the expense of another by seizing control of the latter’s religious organizations. Hinduism is stronger and more profound than appeasement politics.