Why Vaishno Devi, Sabarimala, Sharda matter more than ever?

Faith in The Dock

Ranbir Singh Pathania
mlaudhampureast@gmail.com
Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board in J & K finds itself today on a hot platter right now. From land acquisition for Sri Vaishno Devi University and the Super-Speciality Hospital, Narayana, to the controversial Tarakote ropeway project at Katra, and now the recent outcry of major number of medical seats in SMVDU going to non-Hindus – a series of developments have reopened the old fault lines that date back to the very birth of the Shrine Board itself.
From Dharmarth Trust to State Control
In 1988, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board Act, was passed vesting the temple’s management and endowments in a statutory board – effectively transferring control from the traditional Dharmarth Trust of the Dogra rulers to a government-controlled entity.
Dr. Karan Singh, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir and Chairman of the Dharmarth Trust, had opposed this move tooth and nail. He warned that placing the shrine’s sacred affairs under a state agency would “breed opaqueness, politicization, unwanted State control and dilute the very sanctity of the shrine.”
His apprehension, viewed from today’s perspective, seems almost true.
The Act, on paper, restricts the Board’s powers to “management and superintendence of the affairs of the Temple and its endowments.” Yet, over time, the Board has assumed the role of a sprawling socio-economic power centre – controlling land, businesses, a super-speciality hospital, Medical College, Nursing College, University, and now, even ropeways and commercial spaces. Local landowners allege inadequate compensation, traders fear loss of livelihoods, and devotees question, again and again – whether the Temple’s donations are being used in line with the spirit of the faith of the pilgrims.
Moot Question
It is undeniable that the Board survives on donations made by millions of Hindu devotees from across the world. Yet, its functioning is bound by the Constitution and various other laws, as it is a statutory body created by legislation. And State cannot restrict the arc of educational opportunities and employment for Hindus. This paradox lies at the heart of the present crisis.
Can the Shrine’s revenues in the form of donations from devotees be used for ‘secular’ ventures?
If the institution is financed by the offerings of the faithful, can those funds be lawfully diverted towards projects not directly linked to the promotion of Sanatan Dharma or the welfare of Hindus? May be those belonging to below poverty line or needy sections of society? Secondly, if the reservation rules/modules for ‘SC/ST/OBC/etc or EWS (economically weaker sections) are in place vis-à-vis recruitment against various posts in the Shrine Board?
More crucially, can employment, educational opportunities or free-treatment linked with the Shrine Board’s institutions – like the Vaishno Devi University or the Narayana Hospital – not be partially reserved for displaced Kashmiri Hindus, or for the economically weaker sections among Hindu devotees?
2011 census certifies Hindus as 28-29 % of J & K’s population. Jammu and Kashmir Assembly itself recognizes Kashmiri Pandits and refugees from Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir as special categories for representation. Maharashtra Govt has a specific quota for displaced ‘Kashmiri Hindus’ in educational seats. Bharat Sarkar too recognises right of employment and residence of Kashmiri Hindus through ‘PM Package”.
A similar gesture through statutory reservation or institutional policy in SMVDSB would not only be just but morally compelling.
Minority Paradox Regarding ‘Hindus’ in J & K:
Hindus today constitute a minority in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, yet paradoxically, they are denied minority status and the protections that accompany it. The majority community gets benefits of ‘minority’ status hereinover.
Should not there be a ‘legislative initiative’ to recognize this reality – allowing for targeted welfare, cultural preservation, and protection of ‘minorities’ in J & K, preservation of their culture, cuisine, attire, language, and more importantly, religious assets in the region?
The Hindu shrines and temples of Kashmir – symbols of an unbroken civilizational continuum – have suffered neglect, encroachment, and desecration during decades of turmoil. Despite repeated pleas, the long-pending Kashmir Hindu Temples and Shrines Bill remains in cold storage. The silence of successive governments on this front is deafening.
Courts and the Sacred: Sabarimala Case
The wider question goes beyond Vaishno Devi. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Sabarimala case (2018) reignited debate on whether the judiciary, or for that matter, the State, can define or modify the practices of faith-based institutions.
Do courts have the competence to sit in judgment over what constitutes “essential religious practices”? Can a secular bench reinterpret centuries-old customs through the prism of modern rights discourse – without understanding the metaphysical foundations of those practices?
When the State and judiciary enter the sanctum of faith, ‘Freedom of religion’ needs to be properly understood and harmonised.
Permanent Corridor to Sharda Peeth
Long before the Shrine Board or legislatures, Kashmir was known as Sharda Desha – the abode of Mahasaraswati. The ancient text Sharda Mahatmya reverently records, and is rented by Hindus across the world during Pooja:
– “The sacred seat of Goddess Sharada, the giver of all knowledge, lies in the land of Kashmir.”
That sacred abode – the Sharda Peeth – now lies across the Line of Control in Pakistan-administered territory. If we can negotiate an international corridor for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, why should access to Sharda Peeth remain an unfulfilled dream?
‘Right to religion and pilgrimage’ is not just constitutional; it is recognized under international covenants on civil and cultural rights.
Faith Vs Accountability
The core challenge, therefore, is not one of faith versus secularism – but of faith versus fairness. The Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board must restore transparency, accountability, and community participation.
Above all, there must be a reaffirmation that institutions born of faith cannot be reduced to mere revenue-generating corporations with brute State control. The sanctity of the Shrine and that of the pilgrims must remain supreme.
WAY OUT: –
A comprehensive review of the 1988 Act – its scope, functions,
and oversight mechanisms – is overdue. There must be clarity on how temple donations are spent, how land acquisitions are handled, and how recruitment is balanced and transparent.
There should be clear demarcation between religious and secular functions; mandating that a ‘fixed’ portion of the Shrine Fund be devoted to pilgrim welfare, restoration of Hindu shrines, Sanskrit education, and cultural preservation; creating transparent audit mechanisms overseen by a mixed committee of devotees, priests, and civil administrators; and empowering the Board to institute need-based scholarships, healthcare, and relief programs prioritizing economically weaker Hindu devotees.
Procedurally too, on pan-India level too, we must come out with model guidelines for temple trusts across India to ensure that religious donations serve their originating faith’s welfare objectives, while remaining within the broad constitutional discipline of public accountability and equality.
Epilogue
From the neglected shrines of Kashmir to the debates over Vaishno Devi, the deeper question is the same: Who speaks for the sacred?
Faith built these institutions – not law. But faith must now reclaim its rightful, dignified space within the law.
Only then will India’s civilizational spirit – the spirit of Sharda, of Vaishno Devi, of Sabarimala – truly endure.
( The Columnist is member of Legislative Assembly of J&K )

The post Why Vaishno Devi, Sabarimala, Sharda matter more than ever? appeared first on Daily Excelsior.

News