4 ms·

> hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution o

> hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. The reasoning is simple: 1. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. 2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. 3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. 4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. 5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. However, their religious institutions are rightly allowed to be run by members of their own community. So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes.

quetzthecoatl 6y ago
I love how you glossed over like 95% of my comment and latched on to temples and institutions. Anyway, let's see. >Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. and there is real danger of religious fundamentalism among muslims, christians, sikhs, parsis.. you name it. In fact, if you look at instances of religious fundamentalism, both christian and muslim fundamentalism vastly outnumber anything from everyone else combined. It's nothing but bigotry that you justify discrimination based on religious identity. Especially when your argument is "fundamentalism" - given you want to discriminate all hindus based on the expectation that some would be fundamentalist? This is pure bigotry, and your own religious extremism that wants to discriminate every single hindu. Remember it's the lower caste hindus who are not only poor, but discriminated and oppressed for good thousand years, and you want to discriminate and oppress the more? because some hindus might be fundamentalist? what kind of bigoted thought is that? anyway, let's look at the rest of the arguments. >. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. You cannot administer temples without interfering in religious affairs - as they are for only religious purposes. But that's not it. It's fundamental right - every where in the world - to be able to run your own religious affairs. Secondly, government oversight and management leads to plunder of Hindu religious institutions and temples by those appointed by the government. Almost every single major temple has lost it's lands and wealth. Wealth that should have been used to start schools, hospitals and colleges - things that are useful for the devotee base. The political appointees are given exorbitant salaries while temple affairs are ignored (hell in 2018, tamilnadu priests had to approach the high court to increase their monthly salary from RS 20 - almost a third of a dollar - https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-priests-salary/article23443980.ece https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-pr...) >2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. I already covered this in my first para. Use this logic on your own religious affairs and see how you feel. It's nothing but bigoted excuse for religious discrimination. >3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. Nope.Patently false. The temples and institutions are managed by state governments. Almost every tamil nadu, kerala goverments have been openly inimical of hindu affairs. True for current Andhra government too. Sometimes the appointees are not even hindu. In fact the last government put a christian in charge of Tirumala affairs, and had to change it after public outrage. So, just not true. A hindu politician in power means nothing to me as a lower caste hindu. Again, it doesn't matter. It's a fundamental right - anywhere in the world - to be able to manage your own religious affairs. I also want to address the "hindu majority" part - organized minority always wins against unorganized divided majority. The upper caste were minority. The hordes of islamic invaders who committed unspeakable horrors on native Indias were minority. The british who colonized entire India were minority. The europeans who conquered and genocided the natives in the Americas and Australia were minority. Also, Hindu community isn't monolithic. It's thousands of languages, millions of gods, even more traditions that wary within a few kilo meters, even more sacred texts - all collectively given a name. Hindu, Sindhu, India all have the same linguistic root. Viewing all of that with a single collectively identity is the work of Christianity and Islam - non Indic thoughts. It's like calling everyone on earth "people". I also want to address your majority/minority thing. Why do you view everyone through the prism of religious believes/identity? Why not left handed person vs right handed ones? coffee lovers vs tea lovers? football vs cricket? Just because religious believes and identity is important to you and you view the world through the prism of religious believes doesn't mean the world should run based on it. It definitely shouldn't mean laws should be based on that. The only reason i speak on behalf of hindu rights is because the poor lower caste hindus who were oppressed for a millennia are discriminated even now based on their religious identity. Otherwise, who cares? Keep your religious believes to yourself and let others have theirs. >4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. Again, upto every single institution to prioritize things important to them. What is priority for your community maynot be what is priority for others. If you think government oversight is so good, do it for everyone. All I am asking is for equality. No discrimination. If I donate to a temple, I am donating to that temple/deity. This is not charity. Again, maybe different for you, but that is fine. Don't generalize and apply your worldview on others. That's the literal definition of religious fundamentalism - that even others live your religious code. >5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. No they don't. I know instances of Sunday masses and mosque committees openly campaigning for chosen political candidates. Article 29/30 gives you absolute freedom to run religious institutions and affairs however you want. Then you have article 25, NCMEI, and a slew of local bodies. Not saying it's good or bad, but this is what it is. >So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes. Ahh yes. Every hindu voicing about discrimination is because he is "right-wing". Never mind it's oppressing the ones who were already oppressed for good thousand years. Never mind overwhelming majority of the Hindus is impoverished. Never mind the only means for social mobility for vast majority of them is education, and these bigoted discriminatory laws prevent opening schools. I want you to look at your own sentence and replace "hindu" with your religious identity. I also want to address a few points mentioned in your other post. 1) secularism is a function of state. Individuals aren't secular. In India, it's just code for non hindu, or a hindu that isn't religious. 2) caste schools - if you are so concerned, why not minority status for the lower caste hindus? 3) 50% - patently false. There are islamic schools where i am from that is 100% muslims. Schools which start at early morning and ends at 6 PM evening. Schools that kids young as 6 year old go in purdah. I want to know where you got the 50% from? 4) Hindus are allowed to operate schools - yes, but making it practically impossible with article 25, 29, 30, RTE and 93rd amendment. Also, as a dalit who escaped the system, it's ILLEGAL for me to start a school for impoverished and ignored dalit kids, as RTE forbids me in screening kids. Now if you argue this is to prevent upper caste only schools, then the same must be applicable to Muslims only schools and Christians only schools. Also, read point 2. Do the same exceptions for lower caste hindus. I want to end this long post by saying that if you want to discriminate based on religious believes/identity, then you are a bigoted religious supremacist. No two ways about it.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  See, this is where the whole argument falls bunks and your ignorance becomes apparent - You believe, wrongly, that the indian constitution only permits the government to "interfere and manage" the affairs of only the majority Hindu religion. That is a false propaganda spread by the right-wing because the indian constitution also permits the government to oversees the administration of even the minority religious institutes by framing laws and regulations. And they do so. (Some states even have a whole ministry and their own state laws added to it). E.g: - Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee - This organisation is governed by the Chief Minister of Punjab (an elected politician) and is entrusted with the security and maintenance of all Gurudwaras and religious places of importance of the Sikhs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 defines how Sikh's religious institutes can be administered in the Delhi union territory. - Waqf Act (1954 and 1995) and the Central Waqf Council of India: The religious and charitable institutions of muslims are administered by Waqfs (Trusts). The Central Waqf Council is headed by a Union Minister, along with 20 other members appointed by the Government of India. They oversee the administration of all the musim waqfs in India, creating the rules and guidelines and advising the state bodies. (By the way, there are now 30 government run Waqf boards in 28 states and other UTs in India). - Indian Church Act, 1927 - Till it was repealed in 1960, it dictated the rules on administration of Churches. No new law replaced it. One of the reason being that that Christians forms less than 3% of the population and they often choose to register their movable and immovable properties under the the Societies Registration Act, and not under the Religious Endowment Act or The Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. Thus, many of them come under the more stringent NGO laws in India, voluntary, and are managed more professionally. (After a recent scandal on misuse of church funds and properties in Kerala, the Kerala government plans to introduce a law to oversee their activities more stringently - https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-draft-bill-regulate-churches-and-controversies-around-it-97754 https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-draft-bill-regu... ). So understand clearly that such arguments and propaganda of the right-wing that only Hindu religious institutes are governed by the Government of India is an absolute lie. Their real anger is with the fact that they cannot take-over the Temples and manage and misuse it for their political purposes. It has nothing to do with "secularism". In fact, with The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 the government even clearly defines what it considers to be illegal in any religious institute. All the rest of your arguments that you believe and are just plain lies of the right-wing, without an iota of truth in them (some are facts that you have been misled into believing is wrong). I can point out the actual facts to you if you cite your sources for them.

quetzthecoatl 6y ago

I love how you glossed over like 95% of my comment and latched on to temples and institutions. Anyway, let's see. >Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority. and there is real danger of religious fundamentalism among muslims, christians, sikhs, parsis.. you name it. In fact, if you look at instances of religious fundamentalism, both christian and muslim fundamentalism vastly outnumber anything from everyone else combined. It's nothing but bigotry that you justify discrimination based on religious identity. Especially when your argument is "fundamentalism" - given you want to discriminate all hindus based on the expectation that some would be fundamentalist? This is pure bigotry, and your own religious extremism that wants to discriminate every single hindu. Remember it's the lower caste hindus who are not only poor, but discriminated and oppressed for good thousand years, and you want to discriminate and oppress the more? because some hindus might be fundamentalist? what kind of bigoted thought is that? anyway, let's look at the rest of the arguments. >. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions. You cannot administer temples without interfering in religious affairs - as they are for only religious purposes. But that's not it. It's fundamental right - every where in the world - to be able to run your own religious affairs. Secondly, government oversight and management leads to plunder of Hindu religious institutions and temples by those appointed by the government. Almost every single major temple has lost it's lands and wealth. Wealth that should have been used to start schools, hospitals and colleges - things that are useful for the devotee base. The political appointees are given exorbitant salaries while temple affairs are ignored (hell in 2018, tamilnadu priests had to approach the high court to increase their monthly salary from RS 20 - almost a third of a dollar - https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-priests-salary/article23443980.ece https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-pr...) >2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes. I already covered this in my first para. Use this logic on your own religious affairs and see how you feel. It's nothing but bigoted excuse for religious discrimination. >3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu. Nope.Patently false. The temples and institutions are managed by state governments. Almost every tamil nadu, kerala goverments have been openly inimical of hindu affairs. True for current Andhra government too. Sometimes the appointees are not even hindu. In fact the last government put a christian in charge of Tirumala affairs, and had to change it after public outrage. So, just not true. A hindu politician in power means nothing to me as a lower caste hindu. Again, it doesn't matter. It's a fundamental right - anywhere in the world - to be able to manage your own religious affairs. I also want to address the "hindu majority" part - organized minority always wins against unorganized divided majority. The upper caste were minority. The hordes of islamic invaders who committed unspeakable horrors on native Indias were minority. The british who colonized entire India were minority. The europeans who conquered and genocided the natives in the Americas and Australia were minority. Also, Hindu community isn't monolithic. It's thousands of languages, millions of gods, even more traditions that wary within a few kilo meters, even more sacred texts - all collectively given a name. Hindu, Sindhu, India all have the same linguistic root. Viewing all of that with a single collectively identity is the work of Christianity and Islam - non Indic thoughts. It's like calling everyone on earth "people". I also want to address your majority/minority thing. Why do you view everyone through the prism of religious believes/identity? Why not left handed person vs right handed ones? coffee lovers vs tea lovers? football vs cricket? Just because religious believes and identity is important to you and you view the world through the prism of religious believes doesn't mean the world should run based on it. It definitely shouldn't mean laws should be based on that. The only reason i speak on behalf of hindu rights is because the poor lower caste hindus who were oppressed for a millennia are discriminated even now based on their religious identity. Otherwise, who cares? Keep your religious believes to yourself and let others have theirs. >4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations. Again, upto every single institution to prioritize things important to them. What is priority for your community maynot be what is priority for others. If you think government oversight is so good, do it for everyone. All I am asking is for equality. No discrimination. If I donate to a temple, I am donating to that temple/deity. This is not charity. Again, maybe different for you, but that is fine. Don't generalize and apply your worldview on others. That's the literal definition of religious fundamentalism - that even others live your religious code. >5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. No they don't. I know instances of Sunday masses and mosque committees openly campaigning for chosen political candidates. Article 29/30 gives you absolute freedom to run religious institutions and affairs however you want. Then you have article 25, NCMEI, and a slew of local bodies. Not saying it's good or bad, but this is what it is. >So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes. Ahh yes. Every hindu voicing about discrimination is because he is "right-wing". Never mind it's oppressing the ones who were already oppressed for good thousand years. Never mind overwhelming majority of the Hindus is impoverished. Never mind the only means for social mobility for vast majority of them is education, and these bigoted discriminatory laws prevent opening schools. I want you to look at your own sentence and replace "hindu" with your religious identity. I also want to address a few points mentioned in your other post. 1) secularism is a function of state. Individuals aren't secular. In India, it's just code for non hindu, or a hindu that isn't religious. 2) caste schools - if you are so concerned, why not minority status for the lower caste hindus? 3) 50% - patently false. There are islamic schools where i am from that is 100% muslims. Schools which start at early morning and ends at 6 PM evening. Schools that kids young as 6 year old go in purdah. I want to know where you got the 50% from? 4) Hindus are allowed to operate schools - yes, but making it practically impossible with article 25, 29, 30, RTE and 93rd amendment. Also, as a dalit who escaped the system, it's ILLEGAL for me to start a school for impoverished and ignored dalit kids, as RTE forbids me in screening kids. Now if you argue this is to prevent upper caste only schools, then the same must be applicable to Muslims only schools and Christians only schools. Also, read point 2. Do the same exceptions for lower caste hindus. I want to end this long post by saying that if you want to discriminate based on religious believes/identity, then you are a bigoted religious supremacist. No two ways about it.

webmobdev 6y ago
See, this is where the whole argument falls bunks and your ignorance becomes apparent - You believe, wrongly, that the indian constitution only permits the government to "interfere and manage" the affairs of only the majority Hindu religion. That is a false propaganda spread by the right-wing because the indian constitution also permits the government to oversees the administration of even the minority religious institutes by framing laws and regulations. And they do so. (Some states even have a whole ministry and their own state laws added to it). E.g: - Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee - This organisation is governed by the Chief Minister of Punjab (an elected politician) and is entrusted with the security and maintenance of all Gurudwaras and religious places of importance of the Sikhs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 defines how Sikh's religious institutes can be administered in the Delhi union territory. - Waqf Act (1954 and 1995) and the Central Waqf Council of India: The religious and charitable institutions of muslims are administered by Waqfs (Trusts). The Central Waqf Council is headed by a Union Minister, along with 20 other members appointed by the Government of India. They oversee the administration of all the musim waqfs in India, creating the rules and guidelines and advising the state bodies. (By the way, there are now 30 government run Waqf boards in 28 states and other UTs in India). - Indian Church Act, 1927 - Till it was repealed in 1960, it dictated the rules on administration of Churches. No new law replaced it. One of the reason being that that Christians forms less than 3% of the population and they often choose to register their movable and immovable properties under the the Societies Registration Act, and not under the Religious Endowment Act or The Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. Thus, many of them come under the more stringent NGO laws in India, voluntary, and are managed more professionally. (After a recent scandal on misuse of church funds and properties in Kerala, the Kerala government plans to introduce a law to oversee their activities more stringently - https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-draft-bill-regulate-churches-and-controversies-around-it-97754 https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-draft-bill-regu... ). So understand clearly that such arguments and propaganda of the right-wing that only Hindu religious institutes are governed by the Government of India is an absolute lie. Their real anger is with the fact that they cannot take-over the Temples and manage and misuse it for their political purposes. It has nothing to do with "secularism". In fact, with The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 the government even clearly defines what it considers to be illegal in any religious institute. All the rest of your arguments that you believe and are just plain lies of the right-wing, without an iota of truth in them (some are facts that you have been misled into believing is wrong). I can point out the actual facts to you if you cite your sources for them.