Do not expect graphs or charts in this article: it covers the Indian government's spending on religion and related infrastructure, a topic that has long been a closely guarded secret, even within the halls of Parliament. Pertinent information only leaks out when some smart member of the national or state legislature strikes it lucky. One such incident took place last year in the Rajya Sabha, when Minister of State for Human Resource Development D Purandeswari, in a written reply to Andhra Pradesh representative C Ramachandraiah, stated: "The state government of Andhra Pradesh has submitted a proposal for financial assistance of Rs 243.27 lakhs for modernization of madarsas." This was meant without any irony, even though newspapers were simultaneously reporting a Lok Sabha answer that the union government was seriously considering the enactment of new legislation to check the receipt and utilisation of foreign funds by madrassas and other organisations.
Religion is a touchy subject in India, and the interface of government and religion even more so. Most political parties, including the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), often come dangerously close to being disqualified from parliamentary politics by the vigilant Election Commission for dabbling in the spiritual with an eye on the electorate and the next elections. To be fair, the Constitution does force on the government an entirely Western concept of the secular state, with religion completely divorced from governance and the instruments of state. Yet tradition and culture nonetheless compel the state players to devise radically new definitions of secularism – from the Nehruvian 'Equal distance from every religion', to the BJP's 'Equal respect for every religion'. But in this, Hinduism still remains the native, the 'default', form. The 'non-Indic' – a new term evolved by academics loyal to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – faiths are ultimately tolerated only as minority panths, or denominations, rather than as separate religions.
The New Delhi government has been challenged repeatedly to state its attitude towards religion – or worse, to take sides in religious wars in the name of communal violence. The controversy surrounding the Babri Masjid is just one such dispute. The latest is the Ram Sethu controversy, where the government's maritime dream to have a sea channel linking the Bombay and Cochin ports with Madras through Adam's Bridge, thereby cutting 30 hours out of the shipping time, has long been stymied by Hindu devotees. Top scientists have been dragged into the fray, and by mid-September, the government found itself in the unenviable position of having to tell the Supreme Court that there has been no evidence of Ram, the bridge or Ravan. But roadblocks in various cities, and accusations levelled at Sonia Gandhi's United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for "insulting Hindu sentiment", had the UPA do a quick about-face, and state that "the existence of Ram cannot be doubted".
Not that other religions have not similarly charged the government with bias. Christians are angry that New Delhi has given Hindu Dalits privileges denied to Christians converted from the same caste. Sikhs, meanwhile, are still nursing wounds from their last encounter with the Indian state, in 1984. Buddhists are fighting for an identity, and Jains are struggling just to establish that they exist separate from Hinduism. Such is life, but it is made more complicated by various maverick judges. For instance, Justice K Srivastava of the Allahabad High Court, on 10 September, just days before his retirement, ruled that Muslims were not to be treated as a minority with special rights, and that the Bhagwad Gita should be regarded as the national holy book.