Law above Lord

Do religious institutions like temples have social obligations? This is something debated across the world. Nepal is no exception. In fact, the debate has resurfaced once again following allegations labelled by the Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) that the priests of the Pashupati Nath temple are blocking the measures that the Trust wants to carry out. As a result, the 10-year master plan drawn by the PADT for development of the area is in jeopardy, following the ‘we are above the law’ attitude of the priests. The Trust suffers from paucity of funds for project implementation on one hand, and on the other, the head priest and his team have continued to refuse to pay 25 per cent of the offerings made to Pashupati Nath as stipulated in the statute for developmental activities.

Over a period of time, the offerings estimated to run in millions have no doubt been considered private property of the priestdom. There are shining examples of how temples and religious institutions have contributed to the social, economic, educational and developmental growth in the society they belong to. In neighbouring India, offerings at the Lord Venkateshwar Temple in Tirumalai in the south are pumped for the purpose. The Vaishno Devi temple in the hills of Jammu has been developed with the combined effort of the Trust, which manages it and the devotees. The institution of the Shankaracharyas in four different ‘peeths’ (locations) have opened hospitals, medical colleges and schools. The list is long.

The Christian missionaries and churches are expanding their activities throughout the world in charity and as part of poverty alleviation programmes either independently or by assisting
INGOs or certain international donor agencies. They are largely transparent about the income they earn and what they spend. Then why is it not possible for Pashupati Nath, world’s one of the holiest Hindu shrines, to be a shining example of dedication and social responsibility? Pashupati Nath could be a role-model for other temples in the country as well, and it will help in keeping people’s faith over religion intact. After all, temples should not be allowed to function as a ‘personal shop for profit making by certain individuals’. PADT’s case should, therefore, get a wider endorsement by the government and the devotees. The government should ensure that the statutory provision governing the PADT Act and that regarding the auditing and spending of the ‘temple income’ are followed strictly. The priests should be made to adhere to the law. Besides, there should be total transparency in annual or periodic auditing of the offerings made to the temple. The government should not allow a pre-French revolution order where priest rules supreme in the Pashupati Nath temple.