Dharmik Ttrustni Tapas Samiti

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Dharmik Ttrustni Tapas Samiti" (Committee for Investigation of Religious Trusts) from Prabuddha Jivan, 1948:

The text discusses the context of establishing a committee to investigate religious trusts in Bombay, highlighting the historical relationship between the Jain community and the royal family of a certain region, characterized by past grievances and ongoing financial obligations. It also details the formation and purpose of the "Tendulkar Committee" appointed by the Bombay government. This committee, headed by Justice Tendulkar and comprising other prominent individuals, was tasked with investigating charitable trusts, their management, and administration.

Key Points and Themes:

• Historical Context and Jain Community Concerns:

  • The article begins by referencing the strained historical relationship between the Jain community and the previous royal regime, which imposed significant financial burdens on the community, including an annual tax of ₹60,000.
  • It expresses optimism about the new regime, which is perceived as focused on public welfare, potentially leading to the abolition of such taxes and the liberation of holy sites like Shatrunjaya.
  • The integration of Saurashtra is seen as a positive development for the entire Jain community in India, urging support for the new administration and hoping for the cancellation of the ₹60,000 annual tax on Shatrunjaya.

• The Tendulkar Committee and Its Purpose:

  • The Bombay government has formed a committee to investigate public charitable trusts and their administration, aiming to address irregularities, mismanagement, and ensure that dormant funds are utilized for public benefit.
  • The committee has issued a questionnaire to various organizations and is seeking public opinion on improving trust management, suggesting government control, and defining the evolving concept of charity.

• Public Opinion and Concerns (as reflected in the Jain community's response):

  • Mismanagement and Misuse of Funds: A significant concern is the current trustees' failure to manage trust funds responsibly, with instances of embezzlement and personal benefit derived from trust funds. Accounts are often not maintained properly or made public.
  • Outdated Practices: Trusts established years ago continue to operate based on outdated principles, failing to adapt to the changing societal views on charity and the evolving needs of the public. For example, some trusts still spend money feeding animals while people are starving.
  • Need for Modernization of Charity Concepts: There's a call to redefine charity to align with current societal needs, acknowledging that the value of money and societal priorities have changed since trusts were initially formed.
  • Stagnant Funds and Underutilization: A major issue is the large amount of stagnant funds held by trusts, which could be used for education, medical aid, or other public welfare activities.
  • Trustee Appointments: The practice of trustees appointing their relatives or associates to fill vacancies, even when public bodies or communities have the right to appoint, leads to a lack of accountability and inertia.
  • Specificity of Jain Trusts: The committee has received generally uniform replies from Jain organizations, stating that their trusts are well-managed and do not require interference. This uniformity has prompted the committee to seek more diverse perspectives.

• Government Intervention and Regulation:

  • The committee is seeking public advice on whether to appoint commissioners for mismanaged trusts and if government control over the day-to-day operations of trusts is necessary.
  • The government intends to conduct investigations commission-wise (e.g., first Jain and Hindu trusts, then Parsi and Muslim trusts) rather than addressing all at once.
  • The aim is not to confiscate trusts but to ensure their optimal utilization for public welfare, respecting religious sentiments.

• Specific Issues Raised by the Mumbai Jain Youth Association:

  • They highlight that trustees often act as owners, neglecting proper accounting and public disclosure.
  • They suggest that every trust should be registered and receive proper publicity.
  • Independent audits of trust accounts should be conducted regularly and published.
  • They distinguish between accountable trusts (responsible to an institution, society, caste, or class) and non-accountable trusts (not directly responsible to any specific group).
  • For accountable trusts, the concerned society or community should have oversight. For non-accountable trusts, a charity commissioner's supervision is recommended.

• Views on "Devdravya" (Temple Funds):

  • There's a strong opinion that accumulated funds in temples and religious institutions, beyond their immediate needs, should be utilized for public welfare activities like education and medical relief.
  • The existing system, where temple administration is largely in the hands of conservative trustees, prevents such redirection of funds.
  • A call for legislation to ensure that surplus funds are used for public good, similar to the concept of "Harijan Mandir Pravesh" (Dalit Temple Entry).
  • The definition of "charity" needs to be broadened to include public welfare and the utilization of funds for purposes that are no longer relevant or beneficial to society.

• Role of Charity Commissioners and Oversight:

  • The establishment of a Charity Commissioner, similar to England, is supported, with the caveat that their powers and authority should consider India's specific context.
  • "Visitors" or oversight bodies are seen as useful, ideally appointed from within the community associated with the trust.
  • The primary responsibility for overseeing trusts should lie with the institutions or communities to which the trustees are accountable. However, in cases of indifference or non-accountable trusts, the Charity Commissioner should have full supervisory and regulatory powers.

• The "Prabuddha Jain" Publication:

  • The publication marks its entry into its 10th year, reflecting its commitment to its founding principles of promoting independence and serving both the Jain and broader communities.
  • Despite facing a decline in subscriptions, it continues to receive support and aims for self-reliance.
  • The editor expresses a desire for readers to actively support the publication.

• Testimonies and Expert Opinions:

  • Shri K. L. Kapadia (Mumbai Jain Youth Sangh): He personaly disagrees with the strict interpretation of "Devdravya" and advocates for its use in social causes beyond temple maintenance. He notes that public opinion is shifting, and while the leadership is conservative, there is a progressive segment within the community.
  • Shri Kasturbhai Lalbhai (President, Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi): He emphasizes that funds should be invested safely and cautiously, prioritizing capital preservation over high returns. He also stresses the importance of respecting the original intent of the donors and the religious sentiments of the community, particularly regarding temple maintenance and ornamentation. He opposes government interference in well-managed trusts but accepts it for cases of proven mismanagement. He also argues for the distinct identity of Jain religious practices and the need for separate representation and consideration, especially concerning the "Devdravya." He believes that while funds shouldn't be misused, the interpretation of what constitutes "Devdravya" usage can evolve with time and societal needs, as long as it remains within the spirit of the original intent and doesn't cause widespread public outcry.
  • Shri Kaka Kalelkar: He advocates for a broader interpretation of charity to include social and secular activities, arguing that the distinction between religious and social is often blurred. He believes that funds collected for specific religious purposes should primarily serve those purposes but can be redirected if they are no longer relevant or beneficial, with public consensus. He emphasizes the need for accessible and inclusive charity, suggesting that restricting benefits based on caste or community is a form of "crime." He advocates for reforms in existing charitable practices rather than outright abolition.
  • Shri K. M. Munshi: He strongly believes that charitable trusts should be utilized for the general welfare of society, regardless of religious or communal boundaries. He advocates for the removal of caste-based restrictions in charitable institutions and suggests that surplus funds from religious trusts should be channeled towards broader social causes like education and healthcare. He emphasizes the need for a flexible interpretation of charitable intent to adapt to changing societal needs, and a more unified approach to public welfare. He also expresses concern about excessive government control and prefers a system with limited oversight, perhaps through a committee with community representation.
  • Shri P. T. Thakkar: He supports the idea of a government-appointed committee (similar to the English Charity Commissioner) to investigate and regulate trusts, provided they are independent, impartial, and staffed by individuals with legal and judicial acumen. He emphasizes the need for minimal government intervention unless there is clear mismanagement or misappropriation of funds. He also highlights the risk of cost and bureaucracy associated with extensive government oversight.

In essence, the text is a collection of viewpoints and discussions surrounding the critical need to reform the management and utilization of religious trusts, particularly within the Jain community, advocating for greater transparency, accountability, and adaptation of charitable practices to meet contemporary societal needs while respecting the core religious sentiments and historical context.