A few days ago the Supreme Court had ruled that non-Hindus must be allowed to rent/lease temple properties as long as they are not inside the temple premises. Muslim shop keepers of Srisailam temple in Andhra Pradesh have welcomed this decision The court may not have known but abrahamics who rent temple properties are upto no good.
Hindu organisations have accused Muslims of encroaching the areas around Srisailam Mallikarjuna temple and renting temple shops by using Hindu names in the auction. VHP alleged that out of the 400 constructed shops Muslims leased 40% of them. VHP made these accusations in 2012 when the Muzrai department conducted auctions to lease temporary shops during Brahmotsavam festival.
In 2019 when there was an uproar over non-Hindus working in Tirupati Devasthanam, the employees of Srisailam temple were subjected to inspection. The Executive Officer of the temple found that 17 employees were non-Hindus, 3 of them Muslims and the remaining Christians. What’s more, the Christians had got employment by giving Hindu names even though they had changed their names after conversion.
Justice DY Chandrachud who heard the case said that “it cannot be that you will not sell bamboo, flowers or children’s toys if you don’t belong to the Hindu religion”. But is that what Muslims owning shops and given contracts are up to? In July, BJP had accused that Muslims who rented shops are defacing the temple and stealing temple properties. Goshamahal MLA Raja Singh alleged that Razaq and Rafiq who have rented temple shops have been butchering cows in the temple goshala.
He had also accused them of using the flower baskets carrying garlands for the deities to hide and carry meat. Hindu organisations had lodged a complaint against Razaq for the same which is said to be pending. EO had mentioned once that the Muslim brothers are twoamong the 17 non-Hindus employed/rented to, by the temple. BJP leaders accused Razaq of stealing gold and precious items when a treasure was found during renovation work in the temple.
Denying these allegations the EO said that Razaq was present in the site as a “contractor”. However BJP leader Raja Singh revealed that Razaq is a close aide of Srisailam MLA Silpa Chakrapani Reddy and Razaq’s brother is a TDP leader and using their political clout the Muslim brothers are controlling temple affairs. Razaq’s wife is the supervisor of temple goshala and has been allegedly helping him steal cows from there for butchering.
In August 2019, the then EO Ramamurthy was “transferred” to another temple after Hindu organisations went to court seeking to dismiss him. Ramamurthy had converted to Islam, married another woman and helping the Muslim brothers gain upper hand in temple affairs. He was also accused of letting non-Hindus rent temple properties in the first place. However due to incessant opposition and protest the AP government decided to enforce section 13 of the AP Endowments Act which says only Hindus should be allowed to conduct all types of activity on temple premises.
It is these 2 Muslim brothers who went to court against this decision but we’re snuffed by the AP High Court. They appealed against it in the Supreme Court and got what they wanted as they fortunately had a judge who had no inkling of what they were upto. It doesn’t end here. When the legendary NT Rama Rao was the CM, 25 acres of land close to the temple in Kothapeta area were given away to some people to build houses. But these lands have been encroached by Muslims for the past 30-40 years, the EO said to The Hindu.
To give you few examples of what employing or allowing non-Hindus in temple affairs could result in,
In 2017, HRCE officials had rented the marriage hall of the ancient Madhava Perumal temple in Chennai for a Christian wedding. The hall is located in the temple premises and it was desecrated by serving wine and non-vegetarian food.
A TTD officer, gaining employment despite being a convert, refused to take prasadan and used TTD’s car to visit church.
There are thousands of incidents where non-Hindus desecrated Hindu temples out of hatred for Hindu Dharma even when they were in no way connected to the temples. How could they behave any differently when they are given employment by the temples? Of Course one cannot and should not generalize. But when it is a petty crime or a crime of passion it applies to everyone.
The same cannot be said for those who nurture inherent hate for a religion because their religious scriptures teach them to. Non-Hindus who see Hindus as kaffirs and infidels and think murti worship is a sin, cannot be generalized. Surely Hindus who are poor or in the same standards as non-Hindus who have no respect for the Hindu way of life have more right to access temple properties than the latter?