In a short time, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, which used to confine its activities to temple administration, has turned into one of the most important arms of the DMK government, “waging an ideological war”. Questions are being raised on whether the department and its proactive Minister, P.K. Sekarbabu, are the DMK’s answer to criticism that it is a party dominated by atheists, who make light of the role of temples.
“It is an indirect answer to the critics,” said K. Thirunavukkarasu, a historian of the Dravidian movement.
“Activities of Mr. Sekarbabu have proved that the DMK government has drawn a clear line between ideological moorings of the party and the duties of a welfare State,” he said.
The DMK, as a mainstream party, faces two challenges in a highly polarised enviroment in the country. Leaders of its arch-rival, AIADMK — from MGR to Jayalalithaa and O. Panneerselvam to Edappadi K. Palaniswami — never made secret of their religious faith. Of late, the BJP and some Hindu outfits have tried attracting Hindu voters critical of the DMK’s avowed atheist ideology.
Is the DMK govt. pulling off a balancing act between two communities?
Ever since it returned to power in May, the DMK government has been under compulsion to strike a balance between the aspirations of the devotees, longing for improvement in the administration of temples, and a section that is particular about introducing reforms. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has headlong tread into an area, the appointment of priests from all castes, where others, including his father M. Karunanidhi, have had to think twice before entering. He brought to fruition the all-community archaka policy, introduced by his father. The dual tasks of silencing the conservatives and winning the confidence of devotees was left to Mr. Sekarbabu, whose day-to-day activities seem to have taken the wind out of the sail of Hindutva forces.
However, writer V. Geetha disagrees with the view that DMK was under compulsion to pay attention to temple administration.
“They might be doing it strategically. They are sending a message that one need not be wedded to Hindutva ideology to intervene in the functioning of Hindu temples. Temples have been administered by the State at different moments in history, after all. The DMK government appears to want to invoke the long history of the Dravidian movement in this context,” she said.
The Justice party and the independent Ministry under Subbaroyan argued for secular control of public funds made over to temples, and supported unfettered temple entry.
“We know that the DMK has abjured atheism as a political policy, and has upheld the unity of faiths. But their leading thinkers did not entirely give up their public critique of religious power and wealth, at least until the 1960s. The AIADMK’s leadership was less invested in this sort of critique, and were more resolutely ‘Hindu’. The DMK is trying to connect perhaps to an older political lineage, which viewed temples as both places of worship and as public spaces, supported by public funds and public labour,” she said.
The announcements made by Mr. Sekarbabu in the Assembly on Saturday, particularly that of launching 10 arts and science colleges, a major task even for the Higher Education Department, have taken many by surprise. Immense wealth, in the form of lands, buildings and jewellery, in the possession of temples, has made it possible for the Minister to come out with such projects which were unthinkable in the past.
Mr. Thirunavukkarasu also said the government was under no compulsion. “On the contrary, the Minister is telling the world that he is doing what was waiting to be done and what remained undone,” he said.
