Author: Kummanam Rajashekaran
Publication: Haindava Keralam
Date: May 21, 2007
URL: http://www.haindavakeralam.org/PageModule.aspx?PageID=3777&SKIN=i
The Devaswom Ordinane, signed by the Kerala
governor on February 4, has given rise to much protests and controversy. The
minister in charge of devaswoms claimed that this ordinance protects the temples
and is the most beneficial law for devotees after the Temply Entry Proclamation.
The NSS gave its full and hearty support for the ordinance. At the same time,
the SNDP called it anti-democratic and dangerous. The Hindu Aikya Vedi called
it a temple destroying ordinance.
Though the response to the ordinance was mixed, the majority of Hindu organizations
warned about the dangerous consequences of the ordinance and called upon Hindu
society to oppose it united. It is an encouraging sign that most Hindu organizations
have succeeded in creating an opinion against the ordinance.
The governor signed the ordinance on the morning of February 4 after long
discussions and scrutiny. Attempts to change the law on devaswoms had begun
a month ago when the devaswom minister wrote a letter containing 15 suggestions
to the LDF convener. Among the main suggestions were:
a) end the right of the high court to audit
devaswom accounts, b) give the government revision rights, c) make the number
of devaswom board members nine and d) give the government the right to dismiss
the devaswom board.
Hindu organizations came expressed strong displeasure as soon the contents
of the letter were revealed. They submitted petitions to the chief minister,
devaswom minister and the LDF convenor. The petition requested that devaswom
rules may be amended only after consulting Hindu organizations, that the devaswom
board should not lose its power of self-governance and that devaswom board
should include representatives of devotees. The council of ministers twice
discussed a draft ordinance prepared by the law ministry based on the suggestions
of the devaswom minister. They then left it for the LDF's consideration. The
government was perturbed by the strong negative reactions of Hindu organizations.
LDF constituents like RSP and Kerala Congress expressed complete disagreement
with the government's attempt to control the devaswom board. Based on this,
the council of ministers again discussed a draft ordinance on January 30.
Conditions like submission of the devaswom's audit report to the legislature,
implementation of the government's suggestions about the audit report by the
devaswom board and the requirement that devaswom board members should take
their oath of office in front of the chief secretary, were removed from the
ordinance. The council of minister approved the amended ordinance and the
governor signed it on February 4.
FAULTY CONDITIONS STILL REMAIN
Many faulty and dangerous stipulations remain even in the amended ordinance
signed by the governor. Some changes made in the conditions that were severely
harmful to the temples and which put them in strict control of the government,
are welcome. The most important point about this ordinance is that the government
is unwilling to give the right of unconditional self-governance to the devaswom
board as a basic right of Hindu society.
The following are the clauses in the ordinance which can harm Hindu society:
Following the ordinance, the governance of the temples under the Cochin-Travancore
Devaswom Board was handed over to a government secretary (Section 13A).
From now on, devasom board members must take their oath of office in front
of the government secretary (Section 2AA).
The devaswom commissioner must submit a working report on the devaswom board
to the government once in three months (Section 29, sub-section 3A).
The devaswom board must submit an annual audit report to the government (Section
32, 8A).
The Public Service Commission will appoint employee of the devaswom board
(Section 20, 29A).
The above clauses reduce the devaswom's board right to self-governance and
are harmful to the right of worship and religion of those who believe in our
temples. The deveaswom ordinance is therefore anti-Hindu and unconstitutional.
The governor has said this in the preamble to the ordinance: "It has
become necessary to take this urgent action, that is why the state governor
has signed this ordinance." This statement is baseless. Nothing has happened
that makes a drastic change in the governance of temples necessary. There
is no crisis in temple management. There is no rebellion or conflict and no
temple has closed down. The ordinance does not clarify what are the circumstances
that made it necessary to bring out the ordinance.
It is clear that there was no need to bring out an ordinance just a few days
before the legislature was to meet. But there is one thing that the devaswom
minister keeps saying again and again - corruption. He keeps repeating that
this ordinance has been brought to save the temples from corrupt temple managements.
Even if we assume this to be correct for the sake of argument, the question
remains as to why the government has not invoked the provisions of the Devaswom
Act until now to take strict action against those it considers to be corrupt.
According to Clause 69 of this act, the High Court can removed members of
the devaswom board after receiving a complaint from the advocate-general.
According to Clause 124, the government can file a suit against devaswom board
members in the district court. Clause 226 gives the high court the right to
take strong action the devaswom board. Moreover, since the anti-corruption
laws cover the devaswom boards, the government can even prosecute the board
on charges of corruption. The government's evil intentions are clear from
the fact that it dismissed the devaswom board even when such provisions exist
for taking strong action against corruption.
If corruption is the reason for dismissal, why was the Cochin Devaswom Board
dismissed even though there is no vigilance case against it? The minister
says that it was the hurry to appoint a scheduled caste man in a powerful
position that the reason for the hasty dismissal of the devaswom board. Was
it out of love for the scheduled castes that a devaswom board, which had SC
man A.C.Velayudhan as a member, was dismissed? Was it done because of corruption?
Both are not true.
THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTATION
The government claims that scheduled castes and women have been given representation
by its 'revolutionary' act. That these sections of society have been assured
membership of the devaswom board is welcome. No one has opposed it. But leaders
of the CPM and Congress must clarify why these sections of society were kept
away from positions of power or why a scheduled caste brother was never made
the chairman of the devaswom board though existing laws do not prevent it?
These leaders must apologize to these sections of society.
It is clear that it is neither opposition to corruption or love for the scheduled
castes or women that is the reason for this ordinance. The only objective
of dismissing the devaswom board after reducing its tenure was to infiltrate
relatives into positions of power. Every one knows that a mere two years is
just not enough to administer the Travancore and Cochin devaswom boards which
have 1300 and 400 temples respectively under their control. The political
gain of this ordinance to the LDF government is that it can infiltrate its
own people into 12 positions of power in the two devaswom boards twice during
its tenure of five years.
RULE BY GOVERNMENT SECRETARY
With this ordinance, nearly 1700 temples in the Cochin and Travancore regions
have come under the control of a government secretary. The government will
administer the devaswom boards directly until the new boards are constituted.
No 'secular' government of Kerala has directly managed the temples in the
past for such a long time. When the devaswom boards were dismissed, the government
should have handed over the management of temples to the devaswom commissioner.
It was to ensure government control over Hindu temples that a government secretary
was appointed as the devaswom administrator. During this period, all activities
of temples in Cochin and Travancore will be conducted under the supervision
of the government secretary.
For example, for the first time ever, the Shivaratri festival on the banks
of the Periyar river in Aluva was conducted under the supervision of a 'secular'
government. Even the Kumbhamasa pooja at Sabarimala temple was done under
the supervision of the Achuthanandan government. That an IAS officer -- who
draws his salary from the government's treasury and who functions as a representative
of a government - should become the administrator of places of worship of
people belonging to a particular religion, is against India's constitution.
In the Guruvayur Devaswom case, the high court had given its verdict that
a government officer should not manage temples (Devaswom Act 2004, 6A). The
ordinance requires the devaswom boards to submit a working report to the government
once in three months. The ordinance is silent on what action should be taken
if the report is unacceptable to the government. This is intended to create
conditions for total government control over the devaswom boards.
AUDIT REPORT AND PSC
The ordinance compels the devaswom board to submit audit reports to the government.
Accounts are to be given final approval by the high court. The court also
has the right to seek explanations and take corrective action. That same report
is to be submitted to the government. The government is duty-bound to table
in the legislature all reports submitted to it. Which means the devaswom reports
will be discussed in the legislature. The decisions that follow will surely
be binding on the devaswom boards.
The requirement that devaswom board members must take their oath of office
in front of a government secretary shows that the board will be under the
full control of the government. A government secretary is a representative
of the government. If board members take their oath of office in front of
the government, the board will be bound to accept the government's decisions.
Till now, board members used to take their oath in front of the devaswom board
secretary.
It is clear that the government wants to assert its full control over the
devaswom boards because it want the boards to give up their right to appoint
their staff to the Public Service Commission. The PSC is a secular institution.
The PSC will not able to advertise, conduct examinations and recruit people
belong to a particular religion. The ordinance gives a Hindu member of the
PSC the right to make appointments. But the ordinance does not say that only
Hindus must be appointed. The remark of PSC member P.R. Devadas that a secular
institution like the PSC has never conducted a selection process for members
of a particular religion, is noteworthy.
If the devaswom boards give up their right to make appointment to the PSC,
it is not unlikely that the government will gradually take over all the remaining
duties of the boards. It is probable that the government will seek to transfer
all construction work at the temples to the PWD giving the excuse of preventing
corruption. Will it be wrong for devotees to fear that the government's finance
minister will soon ask the devaswom boards to transfer all the funds and gold
in the temples to the treasury on the pretext of 'transparency' of financial
deals?
The Hindu religious instiutions law that governs the temples of Malabar is
a good example of very old social practices. This outdated law will affect
the survival of temples. The salaries of temple staff are pitiable indeed.
The governments that have come and gone never cared to improve the conditions.
They ignored reports of commissions and court verdicts. The government callously
ignored the request of devotees and temple employees. It is important that
a devaswom board for Malabar is created and changes made in the management
of temples. Creative and urgent steps must be taken to save the temples of
Malabar.
ARE TEMPLES MILCHCOWS?
Kerala's temples are in crisis because of the interference and negative approach
of the ruling class. All the lands belonging to the temples were made part
of government revenue during the time of Colonel Monroe itself. Devotees did
not have the strength to react or protest at that time. Not only those lands
have not been returned to the temples till now, the temples were not even
given adequate compensation for the lands taken over. If Colonel Monroe hindered
the development of temples, Minister Sudhakaran is now attempting to concentrate
power by capturing the management of temples. What is the difference between
the two?
The present government has the evil intention of laying its hands on the incomes
of the Shabarimal and Guruvayur temples after tightening its grip over the
devaswom boards. The Shabarimala temple's annual income comes to about Rs200
crore. The Guruvayur temple has fixed deposits of about Rs350 crore. Besides
that, 2500 kilograms of gold and assets worth crores. It is possible that
the government, facing a cash crunch, may compel these temple funds to be
deposited in the treasury. Despite not having this authority, governments
have twice in the past attempted to get temple funds deposited in the treasury.
No one buys a milchcow to give it a bath and decorate it. You can extract
milk from it and, when that is no longer possible, it can be killed for meat.
This is the mentality of the buyer of a milchcow. No seller of cow meat has
ever been known to have revered the cow as mother or done anything to protect
her. The government is interfering in the management of temples only with
an eye on temple funds. The minister's claim that the changes in the laws
are being made for the benefit of the devotees, is unbelievable. If the interests
of the devotees are to be protected, the devotees must be given representation
in the management of temples. The new rules deny the devotees even the right
to approach the court for redressing grievances. All existing devaswom rules
are outdated and need amendments. The Kuttikrishna Menon Commission appointed
by the government in 1965 had studied devaswom rules and had given clear recommendations.
The commission said devotees who drop money into boxes in temples must have
decisive influence in the management of temples. Following the meeting of
leaders of Hindu organizations led by the late H.H. Swami Chinmayananda in
1982 with the then chief miniser K. Karunakaran, a commission to reform devaswom
rules was created under K.P. Shankaran Nair. He recommended that temple committees
where devotees are represented and devaswom boads free of politics must be
created.
Shankaran Nair submitted his 400-page report to the government after visit
several temples in Kerala and collecting evidence from several representatives
of devotees.
Neither the Kerala legislature nor the council of ministers is known to have
discussed the reports of both the commissions. No action has been taken. In
1986, the government of Chief Minister E.K.Nayanar appointed Jacob Thambi
as a member the Guruvayur temple management committee. There were widespread
protests against this following which Jacob resigned. The agitation transformed
into a temple liberation movement. There were dharnas, picketing, public meetings
and demonstrations all over the state. The then devaswom minister Vishwanatha
Menon gave the assurance that representation of devotees in the management
of temples will be considered. The agitation was temporarily halted. Later,
Hindu organizations filed a case in the high court seeking the same rights.
The court gave its verdict in 1994 and 1996 that devaswom boards free of political
influence must be created. That a Malabar devaswom board must be created was
also recommended.
Despite commission reports and court verdicts in favour of devotees, the Nayanar
government in 1998 and the Antony government in 2002 introduced bills in the
legislature to amend devaswom rules. The government could not turn the bill
into law following strong opposition by the Hindu public. The matter was left
to select committees. The Achuthanandan government has brought forward, in
the form of an ordinance, the same devaswom amendment bills that had been
kept in abeyance by previous governments following strong protests by Hindu
society. The previous two bills gave the government the right to take over
temples, ashram and other Hindu institutions without any advance notice. The
temple liberation 'yathra' in January 1999. led by Prakashananda, head of
the Varkala Sivagiri Mutt, was a historic event.
WHO SHOULD MANAGE TEMPLES? GOVERNMENT OR DEVOTEES?
Who should manage temples? A secular government or devotee who comes to temples
for worship? This is a basic question that has been raised by Kerala's Hindu
society. It is ridiculous that political parties belong to the left and the
right, that talk day in and day out about decentralization of power and people's
participation, forget these principles when it comes to management of Hindu
temples? On the one hand, power is being transferred to the people through
programmes like 'janakeeyasuthranam.' People's participation is ensured both
in planning and implementation of programmes. It is regrettable that the government
is trying to concentrate the power to manage temples in its hands at a time
of decentralization of power. If this government believes in democratization
and decentralization of power, it should transfer the right to manage temples
to the devotees.
The Shankaran Nair Commission reports gives clear suggestions on how to find
representatives of devotees. Today, committees of devotes are able to conduct
festivals and yagnas in temples very well. Such people can undoubtedly manage
temples efficiently. Today, temple committees temple protection committees
and advisory committees are functioning robustly with the participation of
devotees.
TO PROTECT TEMPLES, HINDUS MUST UNITE
What will happen to temples when politicians and the government leave the
management of temples? Does Hindu society have the ability to manage their
places of worship? To whom must management be handed over? Kerala's Hindu
brothers and sisters will no longer be shaken by such questions. They will
not shy away from their duties. Devotees are not people who do not have the
ability to manage temples. Temples in which they have participation are progressing
step by step. This is an occasion when Hindu society must join hands to protect
their temples.
Hindu society must be able to set aside their caste differences, political
rivalries and regional problems to join hands for the benefit of society to
liberate their temples from the grip of the government and protect the interests
of the temples and devotees. All sections of Hindu society unite to draw up
programmes to achieve this.
In 1924, Hindus agitated for the right to walk on the road near the Vaikkom
temple. In 1931, a historic agitation for temple entry took place in Guruvayur
following which the temple entry proclamation was made in 1936.
In the year 2006-2007, which is the platinum jubilee year of the Guruvayur
agitation and the 70th anniversary of the temple entry proclamation, may Kerala
launch a great agitation by Hindu devotees for ENTRY INTO TEMPLE MANAGEMENT.
Yes, one more proclamation is need, this time for entry into temple management
