Hare Krishna! The entire country of India is in a state of uproar following the discovery that laddus offered to Lord Tripathi Balaji contained forbidden elements, including remnants of meat and other substances that are completely unacceptable for offering to the deities. How can we make sense of this situation from the perspective of the Bhagavad Gita?

In the Bhagavad Gita, in Chapter 18, Verse 30, Krishna says: “Intelligence in the mode of goodness is that which understands what is to be done and what is not to be done.” I will address three key points, using the acronym ARC: Autonomy, Responsibility, and Culpability.

The most widespread demand coming up right now, which could address this issue at its root, is the need for autonomy. Temples should be managed by themselves or by communities of Hindus. It is a perverse anomaly in India that, in the name of secularism, there is systematic discrimination against the majority religion. While minority religions are given full autonomy to manage their own institutions, the majority religion, especially some of its most influential temples, is not given civil autonomy. At first glance, this seems not just discriminatory, but outrageously so.

The rationale behind this comes from India’s history. At the time of independence and the formation of the constitution, the concept of secularism was imported from Europe. Secularism emerged in Europe as a way to reduce inter-religious conflicts, particularly between Catholics and Protestants. The idea was to have non-interference of the state in an individual’s right to believe and practice their faith.

However, this idea was redundant and unnecessary in India because, within the Hindu tradition (originally known as Sanatana Dharma), there was already a deep level of inclusivity, which contrasts radically with the exclusivity that characterized the Abrahamic religions. For example, during the Mahabharata, there were people of different religious affiliations on both sides of the battle. On the Pandava side, Drupada was a Shaivite, while on the Kaurava side, Bhishma and Kripacharya were Vaishnavas. Religion was not the primary basis for division; instead, people formed alliances based on strategy. This is why secularism, when imported into India, was politically motivated and did not align with India’s history or cultural reality.

Secularism, mixed with communist ideals of protecting the powerless from the powerful, assumed that the minority religion was weak and the majority was powerful. However, this doesn’t reflect India’s historical reality, as the colonial rulers were always a minority but held power, and the Brahmins, who are often blamed for caste discrimination, were also a minority. Unfortunately, a framework that neither religiously nor geopolitically applied to India was imposed, resulting in Hindu temples—especially the more influential ones—coming under government control.

There is some justification for government oversight due to allegations of mismanagement, but mismanagement can happen anywhere. Often, government-run departments are the most mismanaged, and corruption is widespread, even within the government. So, bringing temples under government control does not guarantee they will be free from corruption or mismanagement. Therefore, autonomy is needed, and followers of Sanatana Dharma are more than capable of managing temples effectively.

As the Indian diaspora has spread worldwide, temples have been established in countries like the United States, Australia, and the UK, and these temples are being managed by Hindus. Eventually, this should lead to an awakening and a demand for autonomy in temple management. Up until now, this demand has been seen as irrelevant to the majority of worshipers, as long as the temple worship is continuing, and people can visit the temples.

To give credit where it’s due, Tirupati Temple is overall well-managed, and the experience for those visiting as tourists is smooth. However, this incident serves as a stark reminder that without autonomy, there are aspects of worship that may be overlooked. This brings us to the second point: responsibility. Those responsible for maintaining the temple—not just as a tourist center, but as a religious and devotional center—must have a particular religious sensitivity. This sensitivity is essential for them to take responsibility for the actions occurring on temple premises.

For example, if someone is an artist, and a person is responsible for organizing an art exhibition displaying the artist’s works, that person must have an artistic sensibility. Without it, they may manage logistics but fail to appreciate the artistic sensitivity needed to organize the exhibition properly. Similarly, those who are responsible for temple worship must have a deep understanding of the religious sensibilities involved. Not everyone can take on this responsibility. Those involved in worship rituals may not always be the best suited to manage a large organization. Expertise in ritual worship does not necessarily equate to the ability to manage the complexities of a large institution.

Thus, responsibility must be given to those who have both the sensitivity to understand the worship rituals and the capacity to manage effectively.

The final point is culpability. Currently, those responsible for contaminating the food offered to the deities, and the food that was reverentially accepted by the worshipers, must be held accountable. There must be consequences for this egregious act. If there are no consequences, this will only become a fleeting scandal—like a ripple in a pond or a passing social media storm.

There must be a concerted effort to ensure that such actions are met with accountability and that they do not go unpunished.

Thank you.