In India, the intersection of religion, revenue, and governance reveals a stark asymmetry: Hindu temples, particularly those under state control, contribute billions to government coffers, while mosques, managed by community bodies like Wakf Boards, appear to contribute little to nothing. This disparity isn’t just a matter of numbers—it’s a reflection of unequal regulatory frameworks that demand reform, especially concerning the opaque and unchecked operations of Wakf Boards. As of March 18, 2025, with growing public discourse on fairness and accountability, it’s time to address this imbalance and bring Waqf institutions under a transparent, equitable regulatory regime.
The Temple Revenue Engine
Hindu temples, numbering around five lakh across India, are a cultural and economic powerhouse. Of these, roughly four lakh fall under state-managed Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) departments in states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. Temples like Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) generate staggering revenues—over Rs 3,000 crore annually—through donations, ticketed darshan, and commercial ventures like property rentals. Historically, state governments have siphoned off a portion of this wealth, with estimates suggesting Rs 10,000-15,000 crore flows into state treasuries each year from temples nationwide. The Ram Mandir Trust, for instance, has paid Rs 400 crore in taxes over five years, including GST on its commercial operations.
This revenue extraction stems from a colonial legacy—the 1863 Religious Endowments Act—and its post-independence successors, like the 1951 HR&CE Act. These laws placed temples under government oversight, ostensibly for administration, but effectively turned them into state-controlled cash cows. Temples must comply with GST on taxable activities, and their surpluses often fund non-religious state projects, sparking outrage among devotees who argue their offerings are misappropriated. This amounts to a “temple tax” yielding Rs 1 lakh crore annually—a figure that, while unverified, underscores the scale of public perception.
The Mosque Exemption
Contrast this with mosques, of which there are approximately seven lakh, managed largely by Wakf Boards under the Wakf Act of 1995. Mosques rely on community donations—zakat and sadaqah—and income from Wakf properties, which include vast tracts of land and buildings. Unlike temples, there’s no evidence of mosques systematically paying revenue to the government. Wakf Boards, autonomous bodies tasked with managing these assets, reinvest surpluses into religious or community purposes, per their mandate. Taxable activities like GST on commercial operations could apply, but data is scarce, and the lack of centralized oversight means contributions to the state are negligible. As some X users bluntly put it, mosques contribute “nil” to government revenue.
This isn’t due to legal favoritism—religious institutions of all kinds enjoy income tax exemptions if 85% of their earnings support charitable causes. But the structural difference is glaring: temples are tethered to state control, while mosques operate independently via Wakf Boards. This autonomy, while rooted in minority protection, has created a system where mosque finances remain largely unscrutinized, fueling perceptions of inequity.
The Case for Waqf Regulation
The disparity isn’t just about revenue—it’s about accountability. Temples, for all their government oversight, face audits and public scrutiny, yet Wakf Boards operate in a regulatory gray zone. With an estimated 8.7 lakh properties spanning 9.4 lakh acres—making Wakf the third-largest landowner in India after the government and railways—their economic footprint is immense. Yet, mismanagement, corruption, and encroachments plague these assets. A 2006 Sachar Committee report highlighted that Wakf properties could generate Rs 10,000 crore annually if properly utilized, but actual earnings hover around Rs 163 crore, per some estimates. Where does the rest go?
The Wakf Act empowers Boards with extraordinary autonomy, including the ability to claim properties as Wakf with minimal evidence, a provision critics call a “land grab” mechanism. Unlike temples, whose revenues are tracked and partially redirected, Wakf finances lack transparency. Encroached lands—up to 70% in some states, per a 2011 study—benefit neither the community nor the state. This opacity has sparked calls for reform, with the Modi government introducing the Waqf (Amendment) Bill in 2024 to mandate audits, digitize records, and curb arbitrary property claims. Opponents decry it as interference, but proponents argue it’s a long-overdue step toward fairness.
Why Regulation Matters
Regulating Waqf Boards isn’t about targeting a community—it’s about leveling the playing field. Temples, despite their contributions, face constant government intrusion, while mosques enjoy autonomy that shields inefficiencies and potential misuse. If temples pay billions to the state, why shouldn’t Wakf properties, with their vast potential, contribute to national development? A regulated Waqf system could unlock billions in revenue, funding education, healthcare, and infrastructure—benefits that align with the charitable ethos of Islam and India’s secular framework.
Moreover, transparency would dispel myths and mistrust. Social media amplifies claims of “Hindu exploitation” versus “Muslim privilege,” with temple revenues funding secular projects while Wakf assets remain untapped. Regulation could quantify mosque contributions, proving they’re not “freeloaders” while ensuring temples aren’t disproportionately burdened. A unified policy—applying GST uniformly to all religious commercial activities and auditing all major institutions—would align with constitutional equality.
Addressing the Counterarguments
Critics argue that regulating Waqf infringes on religious freedom, a sensitive issue in India’s pluralistic society. Temples, they say, are a Hindu-majority phenomenon, justifying state control, while mosques serve a minority needing protection. But this logic falters—freedom shouldn’t mean unaccountability, and minority status doesn’t exempt institutions from contributing to the common good. The state’s secular duty is to ensure all communities participate in nation-building, not to favor one system over another. If temples can thrive under regulation (albeit imperfectly), mosques can too, with safeguards to prevent overreach.
Another objection is logistical: auditing millions of properties is a Herculean task. Yet, digitization efforts under the proposed Waqf reforms, coupled with temple management precedents, show it’s feasible. The real barrier is political will, not practicality.A Path ForwardThe temple-mosque revenue gap—Rs 10,000-15,000 crore versus near-zero—underscores a systemic flaw. Regulating Waqf Boards isn’t about parity for its own sake; it’s about justice, efficiency, and national interest. A reformed system could:
Mandate Audits: Annual financial disclosures for Wakf Boards, mirroring temple oversight.
Tax Commercial Gains: Apply GST consistently to all religious institutions’ taxable activities.
Free Temples: Reduce state control over temples, allowing them to retain more revenue for religious purposes, balancing the scales.
Invest Surpluses: Channel Waqf and temple earnings into public welfare, not just state coffers.
India’s secular fabric thrives on fairness, not favoritism. Temples shouldn’t be cash cows while Wakf properties languish in mismanagement. As of 2025, with economic pressures mounting, the government must act decisively. Regulating Waqf isn’t an attack—it’s an opportunity to harness untapped resources, bridge divides, and build a more equitable nation. The time for half-measures is over; let’s demand accountability from all who steward India’s sacred wealth.
