Hindu Temples – Rubber tapper, keyboard tapper and need for temples

Do we really need all the temples in existence now? Can’t temples merge, become more professional in their management and thus serve a wider range of devotees? Let us have temples that truly serve the needs of the Hindus and the community even if that would mean fewer temples.

By SP Nathan

The demolition of yet another Hindu temple in Kuala Lumpur on 24th June 2010 brings forth the unresolved issues of Hindu temples located on 3rd party land and also unregistered temple management societies. 

While, the manner in which such demolitions are executed should be condemned as it is bereft of sensitivities associated with any places of worship, there is also a need to look deeper into the larger problems associated with temples. 

I am not going to discuss legalities associated with temples. But it may not be wrong to state that rights of the government authorities as well as the rights of the worshippers as enshrined in our constitution and other laws should be adhered by all concerned. 

What concerns and bothers me is the purpose and role played by temples in the lives of the Hindus particularly the temple worshippers and the current state of affairs of some of the temples in our country. Then, perhaps rationalize whether we do really need all the temples currently in existence.  

Lets start with why do we have temples. Its purpose is not only religious but also spiritual, cultural, educational and social. A place to pray and maybe recharge ourselves. A place to get to network and acquainted with the people in the Hindu community, a place to practice the virtues of the religion, a place where love and compassion reigns. 

But what is the current reality in some of the temples especially those located in estates which have been sold or closed and poised for redevelopment. 

Today, quite a few devotees visit temples with fear. While in the past, it would have been the norm to go to temples adorned with the finest jewellery of the household, its absence nowadays speaks volume of the emotions (fear) of the devotee. Robberies within and outside the compound committed by Indians, presumably Hindus are common. 

Then there is the issue of up-keeping of the temples premises. You find temple grounds without good drainage, rubbish strewn all over, inadequate toilet facilities and so on. Mind you, these are places of worship. To keep grounds clean does not need funds. You just need a proper attitude and mental fortitude. But when the “so-called management” fails to do even this basic house keeping requirement, do we still need to keep these kind of temples? 

Then there are the so-called family temples, basically a claim made by the families who were managing the temples when the estates were still existing. Squabbles among the managing families over issues of management (positions) and money are quite common and legendary. Transparency and accountability are unheard of.  

Most of these temples are unregistered and even if registered, membership is regulated to prevent “outsiders” (non-estate resident even though the estate has ceased to exist) from becoming members. Old estate dwellers who used to “tap” rubber have moved out, new dwellers who “tap” keyboards have moved in. But these new “tappers” are prevented from being equal with regard to temple membership by the old “tappers”. The often quoted excuse for refusal of membership is that  the new “tappers” will not understand the sentiments of temples and fear of losing control to more urban and educated devotees. 

While all the above may not be common to ALL temples, but it would not be wrong to attest some of the aforementioned to quite a few temples, enough to raise the concern of the common devotee on need to preserve all temples in existence. 

The illegal bulldozing of a temple structure is demeaning to the Hindu, but also should not criminal activities like robberies, fights, bad housekeeping or mismanagement of funds or irregularities in membership be construed as equally demeaning to the religion and thus should be protested with equal fervor as temple demolishment?

I think the time is apt for people involved in “protecting” temples from being demolished also to reflect upon the issues highlighted above. Some temples in the country also need “protection” from incompetent and dishonest management, safety and well being of devotees and a clean environment for devotees to discharge their holy duties. NGOs or activists who usually protest against demolitions should also protest against such developments in our society. 

Given the above situation, do we really need all the temples in existence now? Can’t temples merge, become more professional in their management and thus serve a wider range of devotees? Let us have temples that truly serve the needs of the Hindus and the community even if that would mean fewer temples. Let there be individuals with courage both from government and NGOs who are bold enough to make the right calls (even unpopular) as to the existence (or demolition) and proper management of temples which includes convincing the rubber tapper to recognize the rights of the keyboard tapper.