Temples can turn around monetisation scheme
Though the Union Government's gold monetisation scheme, launched last month, has had a steady though slow start, it is heartening that temples across the country, which house large amounts of the precious metal, are at least considering investing in the scheme. Mumbai's Siddhivinayak temple, one of the five richest temples in the country, has made a modest start — it has decided to deposit 40kg of the gold. Others like the Dakshineswar Kali Temple in West Bengal and the Somnath Temple in Gujarat have welcomed the scheme and are looking at different investment proposals. The Union Ministry of Finance is also reaching out to temple authorities and working to bring them on board.
It is estimated that India has about a trillion dollars worth of privately-held gold and a large percentage of this is just sitting in temple vaults. Since the gold isn't monetised, it isn't useful for anyone. It doesn't contribute to the welfare of the devotees (temples fund their charitable services through other sources of revenue, such as cash donations) and definitely does not benefit the economy. It is a colossal waste of a precious resource. In contrast, the Government's gold monetisation scheme is a smart investment plan; it will bring financial benefits to temple bodies in particular and buttress the nation's economic growth in general. It will help bridge India's growing current account deficit partly the result of large amounts of gold imports, directly linked to our voracious appetite for the metal). Moreover, it will also relieve the temple management of securing billions of dollars worth of gold.
Of course, investing in the scheme is easier said than done. First, there is the issue of religious sentiment —devotees offer their gold and other precious items to god, and it's unclear how much power even the temple management, primarily tasked with safe-keeping the wealth, has in deciding if the offering can be used for other purposes. Mumbai's Sai Baba temple, for example, had earlier wanted to auction some of the temple wealth to raise money, but after petitioners appealed against it, the Bombay High Court stayed the decision.
A few other temples are also caught up in similar legal hassles which have tied their hands from investing in the scheme. A second sensitive issue is that the Government's monetisation scheme requires melting of the gold to flush out impurities and allow for standardisation. Temple authorities worry that this will lead to a loss in value while devotees aren't comfortable with such ‘contamination' of religious offerings. Third, there is the perception problem of the Government taking away temple wealth — this should be fought back with the simple fact that the scheme does not transfer ownership, and the gold can be taken back (albeit in a different form). Finally, while the gold monetisation scheme is a good one, the state must not be seen as arm-twisting temple authorities to participate in the scheme.