It’s never easy to predict where the next piece of wisdom will sprout in this world. It was certainly a surprise then that an income-tax tribunal should be so emboldened as to comment at length on the definition of Hinduism in allowing exemption to a Nagpur-based Shiva mandir.
The exemption had been denied by an I-T officer who is thought to be part of a tribe eternally accustomed to trying to squeeze what they can out of each and every one.
It is received wisdom that Hinduism signifies a wide variety of religious traditions that have been known to exist since the ancient Indus valley civilisation. While many might feel offended at the presumptive nature of the learned officers in saying that the worship of Shiva is not a religious act, students of the history of orthodox religions might recognise a whiff of truth in this pronouncement by a quasi-judicial body whose functions have more to do money and tax.
Would a theologian please take up the argument arising from the sweeping comment “Religion meant belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, a particular system of faith and worship”. It is arguable whether such a judgment makes many millions of us non-believers despite the propensity of Hindus to think of hundreds of gods. The land of the Vedas might shudder at the thought of being branded as not having a formal religion any more although the Shiva trust itself might benefit by a few thousand rupees.