Keeping the Sacred Sacred

The Kedarnath Temple controversy underscores that if mosques and churches can enforce strict codes, then why should temples be treated differently?

The controversy surrounding the alleged sale and consumption of meat and alcohol near the Kedarnath shrine has reignited a larger question of Hindu temples being treated with casual indifference while religious discipline is stringently upheld elsewhere? Reports that mule owners and workers, predominantly from Nepal and other communities, are consuming non-vegetarian food and alcohol along the pilgrimage route have led to calls for a ban on non-Hindus in the area. While such a measure would be controversial, the demand for stricter regulations on activities near Hindu temples is long overdue.

Hinduism is often characterized by its inclusivity, but this openness has paradoxically resulted in a lack of safeguards for its most sacred spaces. Kedarnath, one of the four holiest shrines in the Char Dham circuit, is a site of deep spiritual significance. The idea that liquor and meat, both traditionally considered impure in Hindu customs, are being consumed so close to the temple is a cause for genuine concern. Yet, unlike other religious institutions, Hindu temples have historically been left to the whims of state governance, while stricter rules are imposed elsewhere.

Consider the contrast. Mosques, gurudwaras, and churches maintain well-enforced codes of conduct, with strict prohibitions against behaviour deemed disrespectful. The upkeep and administration of these places of worship are often managed by dedicated religious bodies that exercise clear authority over who can enter and what activities are permissible. In contrast, Hindu temples are frequently treated as open spaces, often under state control, with inadequate regulation over who enters and what practices they follow. This discrepancy creates a permissive environment where anything goes, eroding the sanctity of these sites.

In contrast, other religions maintain strict codes around their sacred spaces. Mosques, for instance, universally prohibit alcohol and often restrict non-Muslims from entering. Churches enforce decorum, modest attire, and silence. Synagogues maintain dietary laws with unwavering consistency. And yet, when it comes to Hindu temples, rules seem to be more negotiable, subject to political correctness, or dismissed as parochialism.

Critics argue that banning non-Hindus from Kedarnath’s vicinity would be discriminatory. But is it truly discrimination or an assertion of religious identity? When the Vatican enforces rules about entry, it is viewed as cultural preservation. When Mecca remains off-limits to non-Muslims, it is seen as a matter of faith. But when Hindu sites seek to impose dietary or entry restrictions, it is labelled exclusionary.

The broader problem lies in how Hindu religious spaces are administered. Unlike the management of mosques and churches, which remain largely within the purview of religious authorities, many Hindu temples fall under state control. This paradoxically results in temples being treated as public spaces rather than sacred ones, allowing for external influences that would be unthinkable in other religious contexts. The fact that liquor and meat vendors operate anywhere near a temple of Kedarnath’s stature is a testament to this neglect.

Beyond the religious debate, there is a pragmatic argument for a vegetarian zone around Kedarnath. Pilgrims visiting the temple do so under the belief that they are stepping into a realm of divine purity. Regulating food consumption near temples is neither new nor radical; several temple towns in India already enforce such restrictions. Tirupati, one of Hinduism’s wealthiest temples, bans meat consumption in its vicinity. Jagannath Puri, while famous for its chhappanbhog, discourages non-vegetarian fare within its immediate surroundings. Why, then, should Kedarnath be any different?

At its core, this debate is not about exclusion but about respect. Respect for the traditions of a place that predates modern political constructs. Respect for the sentiments of millions who consider Kedarnath sacrosanct. If other religions can demand adherence to their codes, Hinduism should not be the exception. Enforcing a vegetarian and liquor-free zone around Kedarnath is not a radical demand but a necessary measure to preserve the sanctity of one of Hinduism’s holiest sites.