New Delhi: Following the row over the Tirupati laddu, Andhra Pradesh deputy chief minister and Jana Sena Party (JSP) president K. Pawan Kalyan’s escalating demand for Sanatana Dharma Protection Boards – both at the national and state levels –could cause significant discomfort to his National Democratic Alliance (NDA) partner, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP).
Kalyan’s demand is not new. The call for freeing temples from state control and transferring it to Hindu religious leaders has been long standing, dating back to 1959 when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh passed its first resolution demanding that temple control be returned to the community. Kalyan has now added the qualification that these Hindus must be ‘Sanatanis’.
However, in Andhra Pradesh, it was the TDP, led by the then chief minister N.T. Rama Rao (NTR), which enacted the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act in 1987. Commonly known as the Endowments Act, it greatly democratised Hindu religious institutions that would otherwise have been concentrated in a few hands – a stark contrast to what Pawan Kalyan is now demanding.
In a public meeting culminating his 11-day penance, Kalyan announced the Varahi Declaration. He stated its purpose was “to echo the voice of millions who wish to bring the Sanatana Dharma Raksha Board to life.” Decrying state control of temples, he demanded a board of ‘Sanatani’ Hindus established through central legislation. This board’s role, he said, would be to “defend sanatana dharma against actions or statements that harm its core beliefs” and enforce “disengagement with individuals or groups that promote hatred or defame [it].”
Meanwhile, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has reiterated its position that Hindu temples and places of worship should be handed over to society rather than controlled by governments. VHP secretary general Bajrang Lal Bagra said, “This Tirupati incident further strengthens the belief of VHP that government control over temples leads to the entry of politics. Due to the appointment of non-Hindu officers there, such impurities are deliberately added to the prasad.”
Evolution of temple management
The issue of control over temples dates back to the colonial era. The British saw potential for massive wealth and grounds for government oversight. In 1863, they enacted the Religious Endowments Act to hand over control of temples to committees appointed under the Act. Later legislation, such as the Official Trustees Act and the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act of 1920, helped the government retain considerable influence.
These attempts took a specific form with the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act in 1925. This law served as a blueprint in post-independent India for various states. In 1951, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was passed, with other states like Bihar enacting similar laws. After the 1951 Madras Act faced judicial hurdles, it returned in a new form in 1959 with modifications.
Subsequently, states such as Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan have enacted laws governing the management of temples.
NTR’s legacy: The Endowments Act of 1987
The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987 sought to reform and modernise the management of religious institutions by replacing traditional, often opaque systems with a more structured and accountable framework.
By abolishing hereditary trustees (Point 16) and hereditary rights of Mirasidars, Archakas and other office holders and servants (Point 34), it aimed to dismantle the hereditary system where control was passed down through lineage – a significant step towards modernising management structures. The Act also mandated the formation of Boards of Trustees for all institutions and outlined their appointment, qualifications and disqualifications. This signified a move towards a more organised and transparent system for managing religious affairs.
Most importantly, the act sought to promote a more democratic and inclusive approach to managing religious spaces by encouraging community participation and representation. It mandated the inclusion of members from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women in the Boards, with a 50% reservation, aiming to diversify leadership and ensure representation from historically marginalised communities. It emphasised transparency and community involvement in decision-making processes (Point 41), particularly regarding the ‘dittam’ – the schedule of rituals and expenses. This signified an effort to make the administration of religious institutions more responsive to the needs and preferences of the communities they serve.
Also read: Letters, Reports and Penance: How the Tirupati Laddu Lent Itself to Politics
The Act also included specific provisions for the administration of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), underscoring its significance and unique position. It gave TTD a larger, government-appointed board of trustees, a separate management committee, and greater financial autonomy than other institutions. Thus, by abolishing hereditary control, appointing representative and inclusive boards, promoting community consultation and transparency and establishing a mechanism for dispute resolution and accountability, the Act sought to democratise the management of Hindu temples.
TDP’s dilemma
It is this democratisation that Kalyan and the Sangh parivar seek to dismantle. Moreover, this democratisation is the legacy of NTR and the TDP, whose outreach to the backward classes through numerous welfare schemes formed the backbone of their vote bank, in addition to their core vote bank of Kammas.
While, historically, caste has been the primary unit of social engineering in Andhra Pradesh, Kalyan’s exhortations to identify as Hindus first could cause serious trouble for the TDP, whose vote bank overlaps significantly with that of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
If the TDP continues to condone such Hinduisation of the electorate, it would be playing into the hands of the BJP by allowing for the creation of fertile ground for communal politics. Once the electorate is polarised and communal issues take centre stage, voters would more often than not choose the original ‘Hindu’ party over others, as we have seen happen with many NDA partners, thereby giving the BJP traction in a state where they’ve historically had minimal presence, polling less than NOTA.
While the TDP, with 135 out of 175 seats, does not electorally need the JSP or the BJP to stay in power, it might not be easy for it to sever ties with the NDA. The TDP needs the NDA as much as the NDA needs the TDP, if not more. Chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu has already promised to implement ‘Super Six’ welfare schemes, which cost approximately 1,20,000 crores annually. Moreover, the construction of the new capital Amaravati, requiring thousands of crores of rupees, and the completion of the Polavaram project, will require massive assistance from the NDA government at the Centre.
It remains to be seen how long Naidu will allow a belligerent Kalyan to continue his mission to manufacture a Hindu vote in Andhra Pradesh with the BJP and the Sangh parivar’s blessings – both political and monetary – before pulling the plug. However, he seems to be caught in a Catch-22 situation for now.
