PoW, an abbreviation for “Prisoners of War,” is also appropriate for the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which outlaws changing the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15 1947, with the exception of Ayodhya. While all other nations have dealt with ethnic and sectarian tensions and conflicts by “Truth and Reconciliation” exercises, the Secular State of India prefers “Lies and therefore Repetition.” Simply lie about history, repeat ad nauseum that history was reset in 1947. Hence, the “PoW Act.”

But, for the time being, let us set aside pre-1947 history and consider if the “religious nature” of the temples has not been altered since 1947 by the Secular state itself. Flagrant violations at Sabarimala and Shani Shingnapur are just two recent examples of temples losing their sacred essence.

However, the Supreme Court’s Seculacharyas have self-conferred authority to define what is ‘essential’ and what is not in Hindu religious observance. It’s almost as if saying, “I promise not to intrude into your private space. But I get to define the boundaries of that private space”.

Secular governments utilise a similar ruse in their devious strategy to colonise Hindu temples, claiming that only the temple’s non-religious functions are under the control of the State. Consider applying the same logic to a private company, such as Tata Motors. The company’s primary function is to manufacture cars. So the government says it will not interfere, and Tatas may manage it on their own. But everything else – finance, human resources, accounting, marketing, and so on – will be managed by Sarkari Babus. Will it continue to be a private company?

But that is exactly what is happening with Hindu temples – they are being treated as POWs. Secularism is waging war on our country’s native heritage. Hence, the PoW Act is fairly fitting, because it protects only the invasive structures from Mathura to Mylapore (San Thome church erected by destroying the original Kapaleeshwara temple), but allows the Secular State to carry out destructive activities against the imprisoned Hindu temples. Prisoners don’t get good treatments, do they?

In any case, there is a growing awareness among Hindus that the Hindu temples are innocent and have been imprisoned by the state.

However, it bemuses me that even those who want temples freed from political control have a hazy sense of what freedom entails. Some of their expectations include:

• The BJP’s proposal to establish a separate board for the administration of Hindu temples: But why should Hindu temples require additional authority that is not required of other registered organizations such as associations, NGOs, private companies, and so on?
• Administration by saints, swamis, and corporate gurus: But why put that duty on people who are primarily Sannyasis/renunciates, which is not their traditional role? Yes, numerous Mathas, Adheenams, and Ashrams came to the aid of the temples when communities were decimated by Islamic invasion or colonial exploitation. But isn’t it past time for Hindu households to reclaim that responsibility? Are we still being colonised? They can, of course, serve as mentors and advisers. But why should they be involved in the management or make decisions? Isn’t that a road to establishing a theocracy for Hindus?
• To be freed, temples must give a comprehensive standard management model: But why should there be a single model or standard? The splendour of Dharma is in its diversity; each sampradaya, each temple, has its distinct traditions – Pancharatra, Vaikhanasa, etc. The only common standard they must all follow is the laws of India, just like any other institution – companies, associations, NGOs, etc. Why should they be obliged to commit to yet another common standard on their own?
• The money/assets liberated from governmental control should be utilised for Hindu causes such as anti-conversion, etc: This is equivalent to declaring that you will regain your freedom and property, but only in the ways, we specify. Yes, temples can use their assets for such purposes, but only on their initiative. Interested Hindus should get involved to accomplish this, but it cannot be an expectation or a precondition for the temples to be freed.

Consider the Hindu Temples to be a group of innocent people who were wrongfully imprisoned and are now being released, with their property and dignity supposedly restored, but with the following caveats:

• Even if out of imprisonment, you will be monitored. Don’t worry, the supervision will be by well-intentioned folks.
• All of you must live exactly the same way, conforming to one standard lifestyle.
• A parole officer -Sadhu/Swami, will be assigned and they will make the life decisions for you.
• Here is your property, but you should spend the income for the good causes we indicate.

Is that even freedom for the innocent, or conditional parole for the criminal?

Consider the recent case of Vishnu Tiwari, an innocent man imprisoned for 20 years on false charges in the name of social justice and released now with no prospects, no family, a broken body, and Rs. 600 in hand. Is he owed an apology and compensation from the judiciary or a list of rules for how he should live the rest of his life?

“We apologise as a society, here is all your property, please let us know how we can help you live well and prosper,” is how innocent people should be freed. Not with such finger-wagging preconditions.

These innocent prisoners -Hindu Temples- have a rich and glorious history and have kept substantial agency even while imprisoned. Helping the temples to revive and rejuvenate themselves should be done without further infringing on their agency. Instead of assisting temples in regaining their strength and independence, some Hindus wish to infantilize them. It’s fine to be concerned, but our private concerns cannot be used as a stipulation for the freedom of Hindu temples. Instead, these concerns should motivate us to reach out to a local temple or the kula devata’s temple to see how we can help. Even if we can’t, we shouldn’t be an impediment to their independence with our imagined fears.

We want freedom for temples, not parole.