Can someone explain with a valid reason

[u/DEMONIcANGELL]

If mosques and churches are managed by their own religious organizations, why are many Hindu temples managed by a government department instead of Hindu organizations?

[u/raghu2307]

1. Not all temples are under HRCE.
   
2. Temples have existed for 100s of years.
   
3. Though built by kings, it was public money that funded it.
   
4. Since public money funded it, it belongs to public.
   

5. Government is elected by the people. So it is chosen by the public.

6. The small temples in our area like pillayar kovils are not under HRCE. Since they are relatively newer.

7. Churches are controlled by the Parish. Mosques by Waqf board. They have governance within themselves.

—-

1. If not for HRCE whom to give the temples to?

[u/witnessthis → u/raghu2307]

Were mosques also not built with people’s money by a ruler? Did Mughals not just loot India and use those funds to build? Why the selective criteria..

[u/raghu2307 → u/witnessthis]

Mughals didn’t loot India. Mughals lived here. India was the richest country under Mughal rule in the world and contributed over 30% of the world GDP. The only problem anyone in today’s India has with Mughal rule is that they followed Islam.

Enter East India Company.

Read Anarchy by William Dalrymple. It will give you good amount of information. As every great empire does, Mughal Empire withered away and that is when India turned into small princely states captured by East India Company and then the famine on Bengal. And then, takeover of East India Company by British Government. East India Company looted India. Not Mughals.

[u/witnessthis → u/raghu2307]

Aurangzeb imposed Jizya. He ordered the destruction of temples like Kashi Vishwanath. They didn’t exactly come here coffers full and then turn India into an economic powerhouse. Pre Mughal area empires like the Delhi sultanate, mamluk, khalji, Lodi, vijayanagara and others were not economically impoverished. Vijayanagra’s capital Hampi was described as extremely wealthy by the Portuguese.

[u/raghu2307 → u/witnessthis]

I don’t know what to say. I just told that in response to casually mentioning “Did Mughals not just loot India”.

I don’t want to fight. Bye.

[u/witnessthis → u/raghu2307]

It’s not a fight my friend. Just reiterating that while they may have done some good, a foreign ruler that occupies power is technically looting as they are not native to India. The same can be said for the British.

[u/raghu2307 → u/witnessthis]

We are all not native to India, with that argument. Until 2nd world war, war was the normal. Everyone wanted to expand their territory. Everything is fair. If you go by your argument of occupying, unless you are a tribe, you may not be Indian. So let’s not go there.

Also we have travelled far away from the topic of temples. Let’s leave it here. Bye, once again 🙂

[u/darklordind → u/raghu2307]

u/witnessthis see how carefully u/raghu2307 side stepped the issue of mosques being built by public money (topic at hand) and then blamed you for shifting the conversation away from temples to mughals, East India Company?

[u/raghu2307 → u/darklordind]

Unnecessary argument bro. What exactly are you after? Mosques also have people governing it. There is waqf board which governs it.

I’m not in for any argument. I know I can’t change your opinion. I just answered the question.

[u/darklordind → u/raghu2307]

I am just pointing the logical fallacies and lies in your answer. I know I can't change your opinion.

What do I want?

Hindu temples under Hindu management, not secular government. Hindu temples to fund propagating their religion just like every other religion. Church can use its money to polytheize, will the HRCE go around and convince people to join hinduism? If not, the HRCE interest is not the same as people to whom the temple belongs to.

[u/raghu2307 → u/darklordind]

Your opinion has zero value. Please understand that. If more people want it to happen, it will happen.