Temple Legislations, Maharashtra
What Acharyas can do?
Dr. Shrikant Jitchkar, (Courtesy: Arsha Vidya Newsletter, Dec. 2003)
Synopsis - The temple funds should not go to the consolidated fund of the State – The different temples or Mutts must have different legislation – Twin examples of Maharashtra – Separate legislation prevents misuse of temple funds – Why the Church is the biggest landlord in the country Hindu temples too should take the benefit of the Societies Registration Act of 1860 – Legislation is made by the representatives elected by the people – These constitutional authorities run the country – These are the opinion makers in this country – Four parties contest these opinion making bodies.
The temple funds should not go to the consolidated fund of the State - Legislation concerning the temples is a State subject and the Government of India does not come into the picture. The legislation is passed because of the dispute about the temple property. All of us know that the famous landmark case viz. Keshavananda Bharati. It concerned a land dispute. Legislations would come up if society and situation need it. Opposing the legislation might not be practical. But we ought to understand that the temple funds should not go to the consolidated fund of the State. If it did, the legislature of the State had power over the money.
The different temples or Mutts must have different legislation - We must see to it that the different temples or Mutts have different legislation. Then the money would not go into the consolidated fund of the State. The Tirupati temple is an example. Its money does not go into the consolidate fund of the Andhra Pradesh.
Twin examples of Maharashtra - In Maharashtra, there is a separate Act for the Siddhi Vinayaka Temples as well as the Shirdi and Pandaripur temples. Because of the legislation, the Pandas could not appropriate the money and it ensured that the money could be spent only for the temple and it could not be appropriated for any other purpose. The development of Shirdi had come after the Act had come. Government needed the Dharma Acharyas to be in the Committee for the management of these temples.
Separate legislation prevents misuse of temple funds - If the legislations were separate, then the problem of temple funds being misused would not arise. Acharyas should tell the Government to have separate legislation for each.
Why the Church is the biggest landlord in the country - Church was the biggest landlord in the country and all of them get protected because of the Societies Registration Act of 1860, which was enacted by the British only for the purpose of protecting the church. All of them had taken the protection of this Act.
Hindu temples too should take the benefit of the Societies Registration Act of 1860 - No amendment had taken places so far to the Societies Registration Act of 1860. Hindu temples also should take the benefit of this Act. The Acharyas could make a detailed analysis of this.
Legislation is made by the representatives elected by the people - This legislation is made by the representatives elected by the people. There are 550 Lok Sabha members in this country, 250 Rajya Sabha members 300 MLSs, 700 MLCs, 500 Zilla Parishad members, 39,600 Panchayat Samiti members, 28,000 Corroborators, 3,700 Municipal presidents, 11,200 Municipal members, 12,600 other Board members.
These constitutional authorities run the country - These 1,25,000 constitutional authorities are the people running the country. Whether we like it or not, they are the constitutional authority and they are running the country. in this, the village panchayat people have been excluded.
These are the opinion makers in this country - There are six lakh villages in this country and four lakh village panchayats, and there are 40 lakhs panchayat members. They have 1,25,000 members who are the opinion makers in this country.
Four parties contest these opinion-making bodies - Four parties contest these opinion-making bodies, viz Congress Party, BJP Party, local party and independents. As many as 3,75,000 people are defeated. Together they make a total of five lakhs.
Who would be the voice of the Acharyas? - Most of these five lakh people are the devotees of the Acharyas. You need to have only 10% of them, who would be committed. They would be your voice.
End of matter.
Mumbai's Famed Siddhivinayak Temple in Trouble Over Funds
http://www.ndtv.com (the link takes you to the NDTV site).
MUMBAI. INDIA, February 3, 2004: The Maharashtra government has admitted to the Bombay High Court that funds from Mumbai's Siddhivinayak temple are being diverted to a charity run by a politician. In response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the state said that US$190,000 from the temple trust was transferred to
Dada Undalkar Smarak Samiti -- a trust run by Minister for Welfare, Rehabilitation and Textiles Vilasrao Patil
Undalkar.
After the Saibaba Temple at Shirdi, the Siddhivinayak is the second richest in the state.But unlike other temples, whose finances are regulated and controlled by a charity commissioner, the finances of Siddhivinayak are under the purview of the state government. It also decides on the distribution of funds, something the PIL argues is being misused by the politicians for their benefit. The Siddhivinayak Temple trust has now countered those charges in their own affidavit.
But the petitioners' claim that at the time when the funds were sanctioned in April 2000, Undalkar was the Minister for Law and Judiciary -- the department that regulates the distribution of money from the Siddhivinayak trust. "Why did the temple give out $190,000, when the demand was made only for $165,000 according to the affidavit, was the extra $25,000 given because he is a politician?" queries Kewal Semlani, petitioner. The Siddhivinayak temple sets aside about $1.3 million every year for funding welfare activities.
While the temple denies all charges of siphoning funds, it does say that it's worried about the money being sent to the two charities -- the Shikshan Prasarak Mandal at Kankavali and the Shivtej Arogya Sewa Sanstha at Khed. And these worries will be addressed when the case comes up for hearing on the February 4, 2004, in Mumbai.
