The Colonial Legacy of Temple Control

India gained independence in 1947, but Hindu temples didn't.

You know how sometimes people inherit the bad habits of those who they consider their superiors without realizing it? India did that with British colonial policy, except the bad habit was seizing control of Hindu temples and the inheritance has lasted seventy-seven years.

Here's how it worked under the British. Colonial administrator sits in his office in 1850, looks at reports about Hindu temples collecting donations and managing their own affairs, and thinks: "These heathens are obviously corrupt. Their institutions must be dens of corruption and avarice." So he drafts the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. All temple revenues now flow through colonial bureaucracy. Problem solved, from his perspective.

The British weren't subtle about their reasoning. They genuinely believed Hindu religious institutions were inherently untrustworthy. This wasn't policy based on evidence of widespread corruption—it was policy based on the assumption that non-Christian religious institutions couldn't possibly govern themselves properly. The same mentality that justified colonizing India in the first place.

So native communities that had managed temple affairs for centuries suddenly found government officials deciding how much money they could spend on festivals, which priests to hire, even which rituals to perform. Revenue from ancient temple lands, devotee donations, gold offerings—all of it redirected through colonial administrators who would only allocate back whatever they deemed appropriate for "religious purposes."

Then 1947 arrives. Independence. Time to dismantle colonial control systems, right?

Nope. The new Indian government looked at this ready-made revenue stream, this established bureaucratic apparatus for controlling religious institutions, and thought: "We'll keep this one." The justifications got updated for the independence era. Now it wasn't about heathens being inherently corrupt—it was about preventing corruption, ensuring transparency, protecting devotees from exploitation. Same system, new branding.

Walk into any major Hindu temple today and you'll see the continuation. Government-appointed boards making decisions about religious practices. State revenue departments collecting temple income. Bureaucrats who've never studied Hindu theology deciding which festivals get adequate funding.

The Tirumala temple in Andhra Pradesh—one of the richest religious institutions in the world—operates under a government board. The Sabarimala temple's rituals get decided by Kerala High Court judges. Tamil Nadu's Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department controls over 36,000+ temples. At Tirupati, devotees donate hundred of millions in gold and cash annually, yet the temple board—appointed by politicians—decides how much gets spent on actual religious activities versus being diverted to state coffers.

The contrast with other religions is stark and telling. Mosques manage their own affairs through mosque committees. Churches handle their finances through parish councils and denominational bodies. Gurdwaras operate through their own elected committees under the Sikh Gurdwara Act. The Haj Committee of India governs Muslim pilgrimage independently. Christian missionary organizations control vast educational and healthcare networks without government oversight of their religious practices.

Only Hindu temples remain under the colonial control model.

The underlying assumption never got questioned: that Hindu religious institutions need external oversight to function properly. The British believed this because they considered Hinduism inferior to Christianity. Independent India maintains the same system while claiming secular governance. But the practical effect remains identical: Hindu communities cannot fully control their own religious institutions.

Government control of Hindu temples has become so normalized that most people don't notice the differential treatment. It feels like natural administration rather than religious discrimination. The colonial narrative has become common sense.

Temple revenues that could support traditional education, community welfare, or cultural preservation get diverted to general government funds. Religious festivals require bureaucratic approval. Ancient practices get modified by committee decisions from people who view them as cultural curiosities rather than sacred traditions.

The British succeeded in making Hindu communities dependent on state permission for their own religious life. The independent Indian state found this arrangement too convenient to abandon.

This is exactly how institutional capture functions. Make the controlled group forget they were ever autonomous. Make the control seem natural, necessary, beneficial even. The single most effective way to maintain power over a community is to convince them they need that power exercised over them for their own good.

But next time someone explains why Hindu temples need government oversight "to prevent corruption," ask them why the same logic doesn't apply to every other religious institution in the country.

The pause before they answer will tell you everything.