Indian temples are among the wealthiest religious organisations in the world. Every year, through donations, offerings, and many other forms of charity, devotees contribute hundreds of crores of rupees to different temples of India. All these donations are made voluntarily by the people, who have placed their trust in these temples and entrust them with their hard-earned money, as these donations are not made out of any legal or governmental compulsions. Seeing that the temples are public trusts and the temples get money from the people, should they not be answerable to the people?
The recent incidents related to the Ram Mandir trust have again brought to the table the discussion on this issue. There have been many issues raised about the transparency of money dealings, property buying and selling, as well as the management decisions made by the Ram Mandir Trust. While we must wait for the investigation of all the allegations made against the Ram Mandir Trust to come to any conclusion, what we have seen in connection with the Ram Mandir Trust raises some serious issues about the accountability of temples that could extend far from the Ram Mandir temple.
It is all about governance. People believe in institutions like public trusts and banks. When many people have contributed, then there are certain expectations on behalf of the contributor on the use of their money. Most of the large temples in India have a great deal of money. The money is normally used for the maintenance of the temples, religious ceremonies, charity work, education initiatives, medical services, and other social welfare activities. The use of this money could prove very helpful for society. But in most cases, the contributor to the temple himself/herself knows very little about the sources and uses of money by the temple.
Transparency becomes a very important element in ensuring that people or organisations become accountable for their deeds. Public corporations and government departments are required to undergo auditing processes to ensure that they have used their resources appropriately. Many non-profit organisations are also required to have external audits, which make them come up with audited financial reports. Moreover, there are a lot of reports that show how taxpayers' money has been utilised by various firms and government departments. All of these institutions can be able to give the public access to their financial affairs, but most religious organisations cannot.
In case an organisation lacks financial information, people tend to have some doubt or suspicion regarding the organisation. Although there might not be any flaws in the organisation itself, the absence of information is likely to harm the image of credibility of the organisation. Conversely, organisations that voluntarily provide their supporters with external audited financial records, vendor purchasing agreements, and expenditure reports appear to have greater credibility in the eyes of their supporters.
Supporters of increased transparency believe that audits of the church organisations do not amount to an assault on the church community, but rather that religion and fiscal accountability are two different things. Actually, the transparency of religious organisations will help these religious organisations as it will show that the donations are being used wisely and responsibly. A responsible organisation does not have any problem with being audited.
Arguments against the regulation of faith-based organisations include the potential threat to the extent of interference by the government in terms of faith practice and/or faith of the government itself as an entity. The argument is quite valid and justified in light of the importance and value that we place on religious freedom as a democratic value. Nevertheless, while there might be more financial transparency due to the regulation, it does not automatically follow that there would be interference in religious faith practice, traditions, or belief. There must surely be a clear distinction between governing faith and managing public funds.
The necessity of having more financial transparency becomes even more relevant in the light of all sacrifices these donors make to support their religion and religious institution. The majority of these donors are not rich people, but ordinary hardworking citizens who actually lack the means to offer anything else. Most of them are ordinary people, workers, farmers, shopkeepers, students, etc. All these donors give money from their incomes, considering that the contributions they make would be used for fulfilling their religious obligations. Therefore, when such people are asked about financial transparency, it is not only the issue of management; for them it is the issue of trust.
The provision of information on the process of how contributions are made, the use of those contributions by the faith-based organization, and the way that the faith-based organization ensures oversight of the utilization of the contributions through different forms of reporting, such as public accounts (audited financial statements), independent oversight committees, open procurement processes, and annual reports, will certainly help to resolve a large number of the criticisms outlined above. Such initiatives will not only reduce the opportunities for corruption and mismanagement in faith-based organisations but also increase trust in faith-based organisations.
In fact, this case is not only related to Ram Mandir; this principle can be applied to other religious buildings such as temples, mosques, churches, gurdwaras, and any organisation that takes a lot of money from the citizens in donations. In most cases, people make charitable donations out of their belief and conviction. But to believe in the work done by an organisation you gave your donation to, you need to know something about the organisation’s activities and financial transactions so that your belief won’t be betrayed. Democracy presupposes the existence of freedom of religion and accountability, characteristic of a free state. The only thing that remains to be asked is “Can we have both at once?”
The main question is rather simple: if many ordinary citizens make donations to a religious organisation, do they have the right to know what is going on with these donations?
Sources & References
- The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
- Supreme Court of India judgments relating to the administration of religious institutions
- Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports on public trust governance
- Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) guidelines on transparency and accountability
- The Hindu – Reports on temple administration and governance
- The Indian Express – Investigative reports on public trusts and religious institutions
- Hindustan Times – Coverage of temple trust management and financial accountability