JANUARY 29 — How many temples do they need?

About three in four Malaysians are monotheistic in background, so they are bound to wonder, how many facilities or spaces the Hindus in the country need for their places of worship?

The cute answer would be as many gods there are in the polytheistic universe, millions.

That is, however, a public policy nightmare considering there are X number of Hindus from the 2.5 million Indians in the country, mostly located in the west of the Semenanjung.

Which is why it is a cyclical issue arising in different localities.

There are practical considerations, like temples which were originally inside estates which over time have turned into suburbs as a natural result of city sprawl. 

There are legal shortcomings for small temples built by people long dead but supported by communities without documents to back their claim to the temple land.

While respecting property rights is central to the issue, it is necessary to remember there are faith-based objections, monotheists who are convinced society is better served with fewer polytheistic altars. 

Which is obviously the point where the diligent direct us to Article 3 of the Federal Constitution without having the care to add that the Article limits itself also to not transgress on other parts of the document. Cue, furious debate.

In this week leading to Thaipusam, which unintendedly turns out to be a celebration to remind the diversity of the nation, temples are worth a conversation. 

It also reminds us the potency of electorate math as Perikatan Nasional-run Kedah adds Thaipusam as a holiday in a potential general election year.

The Indians, especially the Tamils, are known as temple building people.

But do they deserve all the temples they want, wherever they want in the Federation of Malaysia?

It is very complicated but not getting stuck into it also invites disagreements in cycles.

Relocations, regroups and ends

The unpalatable truth is that the total number of temples has to drop. It’s not just demographics, it is practicality.

Indian cities themselves have problems dealing with temples built by their citizens. It is not possible to govern those cities while allowing altars in the middle of roundabouts.

In multicultural and non-Indian majority Malaysia, concessions and accommodations are absolutely necessary.

The various Indian-based political parties — which are not in shortage— have to rein in the enthusiasm and not just aim for cheap political points.

It cannot be one battle after another.

A temple, like all places of worship, is valued based on its social utility to those who access it. Which is why both the Batu Cave temple and the Maha Mariamman Jalan HS Lee which owns it are critical pieces to the community.

In my own locality, a temple saga played out. The temple which my late father chaired was demolished by the Kajang Council in the 1980s, then it was erected again. It went back and forth through four decades before relocating nearby with legal recognition.

The elephant in the room is the lack of leadership over the issue. No one wants to be on the wrong side. To ask the community to curtail and accept a drop in the number of temples risks losing political capital. 

Any Indian leader in an Indian-based party or multiracial party like PKR and DAP intimately know it is political suicide to be critical about temple numbers.

But they must realise, status quo cannot persist. They can either take the lead and produce equitable outcomes, painful in the short term but more importantly permanent in the long run, or lead the charge in squabbles with only reprieves as best outcomes.

They can use this Thaipusam to tell all the parties interested in Indian votes, that the community would rather have 100 temples’ statuses clarified positively than have free train rides to the one temple in Batu Caves.

A sensible process also translates to the end of X number of temples. A vibrant multicultural society has limits and no group gets it all their way. 

The land of temples

There have been temples on these lands for thousands of years, regardless of the identity of the builders or congregants.

It is the unease with the past which renders the debate even more intense.

Being a nation this long, it is time to be sensible about the matter with self-assuredness.

There are lessons from across the straits in Indonesia. Writers are never tired of referring to that country as the most populous Muslim country in the world. And it is.

It is also a land at ease with its past. Aside from Hindu Bali, there are thousands of temples in Java sidling millions of Muslims on the island.

Modern day realities may mean in Malaysia the total number of temples drop but there will still be temples, and modern day Malaysians have to come to terms with that.

It is not an accident that the Thaipusam celebrations across western Semenanjung capture the imagination of locals in numbers, and global media for its exoticness. 

I sound like a used car salesman to add Visit Malaysia Year 2026 is ongoing and visitors pour down fortunes on all Malaysians, not just those who look like me. 

Locals, that’s what all of us are. Some of us go to temples and most of us don’t. But all of us, locals, nonetheless. 

Look at temples as our strength as much as it is our unique problem to solve and the outcomes do not have to be a punch to any of our faces. 

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.