Other-worldly aspirations never went against worldly acquisitions ? any well-to-do temple in India would stand witness to that. Managing the wealth of the houses of worship is a complicated job, and the Supreme Court does not think that it need be left to believers alone. This is suggested by its response to a petition challenging a Kerala high court ruling, brought by the president of the Guruvayoor temple protection committee and a Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader. The petition objects to Marxist ministers nominating members to the temple committees as Marxists are against religious practice. The Supreme Court has made two points in its judgment. It has said that to be a Hindu a person need not go to a temple or follow particular rituals. This statement makes an incisive distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva. Its second, and equally important, point is that management of a temple has nothing to do with religion, it is a secular task and should be conducted in the same manner as the administration of any other institution. That is, when the state has taken over the job of managing the worldly affairs of a temple, as in the case of Guruvayoor or of many of the temples in Tamil Nadu, the system of ministers nominating members to temple managing committees should not be affected by the faith or political ideology of the government in power.

The Supreme Court?s clarity is in contrast to the murky tussles concerning temple management that must lie behind the petition. Whatever might have been this petitioner?s primary concern, it would seem that, generally, faith is hardly the core issue. The sphere of temple management offers an arena for tourneys for power and less metaphysical prizes, with the aura of sanctity as a useful screen behind which such profane struggles can continue undetected. The lurid tale of the Kanchi math is a good recent example.

So while the Supreme Court has made the relevant clarifications, it is also necessary to take the question further. A secular state can be secular only by divorcing itself strictly from the functioning of the various religions of its people. Its ?tolerance? need not be exhibited in the organizing and subsidizing of pilgrimages or ceremonies for all faiths. Neither should its leaders try to curry favour with the electorate by displaying their deep respect for the spiritual heads and holy men of different religions. But such a divorce is impossible if the state takes over the administration of places of worship. A government in a secular state does not provide the places of worship; there is no reason why it should look after them. As it is, the notion of secularism is a deeply troubled one. A secular state administering temples is likely to confuse perceptions further.