this temple matter is a separate thing – i still don’t know whether govt is making or losing money there.

Check this. Clearly, atleast the TN govt is making profit running temples. I can dig up some proof for other govt’s too, I am just too lazy. In any case, I have checked this data before, and while there may be some occasions when the govt’s spent money on hindu temples, on average running hindu temples have been profitable for the govts.

Also, Amarnath Yatra is not subsidized by the government (a reference about this in this article). But I think Kumbh Mela was indeed subsidized heavily. Also, Gujarat govt subsidizes pilgrimage to Manasarovar. All in all, quite a messy affair, with Hindu temples losing quite a bit in the bargain.

there is no way for the govt. to lose money when it comes to temples the govt. earns money from temples, money it uses for non-temple purposes. if the govt. wasn’t earning loads of money from temples, they wouldnt’ be that eager to take over the management of more and more money-making temples. the money that goes to hindu pilgrimages is not really coming directly from taxpayers (even if it’s not the exact same money collected from temples) because indirectly the temples are funding their own pilgrimages by giving the govt. money. so it doesn’t really matter what account it comes from when it comes to hindu pilgrimages. and nothing is far-fetched in india cheers.

i don’t see how you can compare the two, when one is subsidized by public money and the other by basically its own money returned to it in another form. this is not to say that i object to subsidizing the hajj in principle. i don’t.

as for the loudspeakers, i agree. the cacophony caused by competing loudspeakers at churches, mosques and temples is annoying.

I think the “hajj” subsidy by itself is not a big thing. If you consider the maximum number of Indian pilgrims (are around 150000) and even if everyone avail the benefits it won’t amount to much. Compare the expenditure incurred by the govt. in organising or helping organise “amarnath yatra” / kumbh mela etc..

The worst part is the use of “loudspeakers” everyday by the mosques and by the temples during festivals.. No courtesy shown by these “religious” folks for old / sick and other neighbors..

i think this is different to the hajj, where govt. (or public) money, and not money collected from mosques or other muslim institutions, is used to benefit muslim pilgrims (whereas, if the govt. subsidizes hindu pilgrimages, this “subsidy” is really paid for by the hindu temples themselves who have given up revenue to the govt.) so your point about the buddhist/atheists also applies to hindus who see temple revenue used for the benefit of other religions (whether its hajj or development of churches, mosques in Karnataka). as i said before, this wouldn’t be a problem if the govt. collected and controlled the revenue of all religious institutions.

ideally, you’re right, the govt. shouldn’t control any religious institution’s revenue or it should control revenue of all religious institutions, and ideally govt. shouldn’t use any public money to fund any religious institution (because as you pointed out, why should atheist taxpayers fund religious institutions?)

I am not sure whether it is only a portion of the revenue that gets returned to the temples – my impression is that the govt. uses more than what they get from revenue to cover the cost. someone with data on this can correct me. As for hajj, the way it works is that compared to the private trips which is what 50% of muslims take, the officially organized ones are cheaper (but the quality is less too) and the govt resources are used in it as well. There are several domestic hindu pilgrimages that are subsidized in the similar way.

“:So it’s unfair to say that India isn’t meeting a certain standard when that standard isn’t even an aspiration. Lets talk more about the failures of Indian style secularism instead.”

May be it isn’t an aspiration for you – but it is for many people. How is it fair to a budhist/atheist while his taxpayer money is used for someone else’s religious cause?

also, i wasn’t aware that the money that the govt uses to subsidize the hajj is collected from mosques etc. it is my understanding that this is public money used to supplement or subsidize the cost of hajj for muslims (to make hajj as affordable to as many as possible). please correct me if i’m wrong, but it wouldn’t be a subsidy if the govt. took muslim money to pay for a muslim pilgrimage.

Yes, there is. In both cases, govt resources are used to benefit the religious groups. In temples, they collect money and run it – you know the massive apparatus required to manage 250 cr in Andhra alone? For Haj, govt. takes the money from muslims and organizes flights, manages people who want to go on the trip, etc. How are they any different?

i think that’s an important distinction.