Ram Temple in Ayodhya was built on faith. What has been stolen isn’t money — it’s trust

The money belonged to the devotees; hence, they have a legitimate moral claim to know how the investigation is progressing. What safeguards have already been introduced? What systemic failures have been identified? Without compromising the probe, periodic public briefings will strengthen people’s confidence

The greatest theft at Ayodhya was not of money. It was a matter of trust. The Ram Mandir Trust is called a “trust” for a reason. The first duty of the trustees was not to manage property but to protect the faith reposed in them by millions. That is why the alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya is unlike any other financial scam. Millions of Indians donated voluntarily. Some offered a day’s wages, others jewellery, pension savings or family heirlooms. They donated because they believed they were participating in a historic civilisational moment. They believed every rupee would be used in the service of Maryada Purushottam Ram, who symbolises truth, justice and integrity.

The handling of the affair, therefore, raises more disturbing questions than the alleged theft itself. Ironically, the first question concerns the very institution entrusted with safeguarding the devotees’ offerings. When serious allegations of large-scale financial irregularities emerge and preliminary inquiries point to systemic failures, the obvious question is whether the governing body itself should remain unchanged while investigations are underway. The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust was constituted with the approval of the Union government. Its general secretary and trustee have resigned. But if its systems failed comprehensively, then why was the trust itself not suspended or dismissed, once investigations began? This is not about presuming guilt but preserving institutional credibility.

The second question relates to the role of the senior bureaucrats associated with the trust. Civil servants are trained to associate accountability with responsibility. If senior officers had positions in an institution handling enormous public donations, what precisely was their oversight role? Were they only there to exude power, or also to ensure financial discipline?

Public institutions cannot operate on the principle that authority resides at the top, but accountability stops at the bottom. Two trust members have resigned. What about the bureaucrats on the trust?

The third concern is the investigative approach adopted from the beginning. Every investigator knows that time is the greatest enemy in financial crime. Electronic records can be altered, CCTV images overwritten, digital trails erased, assets transferred, and witnesses influenced. Yet, the initial response was shockingly unprofessional. Instead of immediately lodging an FIR and preserving every possible piece of evidence, the process began with administrative mechanisms.

Hence, many questions remain unanswered. Could evidence have been better preserved? Were banking records, digital devices and financial transactions secured immediately?

The fourth issue concerns the nature of the investigation itself. An SIT can be an effective mechanism, but only if it is equipped with the expertise the case demands. Allegations involving substantial public donations, complex financial transactions and extensive documentary evidence require far more than an administrative inquiry. They call for specialists in financial forensics, cyber investigations, accounting, procurement, banking records and digital evidence, working alongside experienced investigators and legal experts. The objective must be not merely to establish the facts but to build a case that can withstand judicial scrutiny. When public faith and large sums of money are at stake, the investigation should be entrusted to the most competent multidisciplinary team available.

The fifth concern is institutional independence. The SIT’s findings reportedly moved through senior administrative channels, including functionaries associated with the trust. That inevitably creates a public perception of an inquiry moving within the same administrative loop whose functioning itself is under scrutiny. Justice must not merely be done; it must also be seen to be done. In matters involving public faith, visible independence becomes as important as legal correctness.

The sixth issue is the astonishing proposal floated by a retired bureaucrat that the solution lies in appointing yet another bureaucrat as chief executive officer. This reflects the thinking that has weakened governance across many public institutions. The question is not whether the CEO should be a bureaucrat or someone from the private sector. The question is whether the appointment process identifies the best professional available through an open, transparent and merit-based search. Managing one of the world’s most important religious institutions demands expertise in finance, audit, procurement, compliance, technology, risk management and institutional governance. Replacing one bureaucratic layer with another without first fixing accountability merely treats the symptom while ignoring the disease.

The seventh issue is transparency. The money belonged to the devotees; hence, they have a legitimate moral claim to know how the investigation is progressing. What safeguards have already been introduced? What systemic failures have been identified? Without compromising the probe, periodic public briefings will strengthen people’s confidence.

Finally, this episode compels the government and opposition parties to revisit the larger question of the relationship between governments and religious institutions.

The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that institutions receiving enormous public donations function honestly and lawfully. But bureaucratic supervision must never become a substitute for professional governance of temples, mosques, churches, or gurdwaras, which handle hundreds or thousands of crores. That requires professionally selected executives, independent boards, mandatory forensic audits, transparent procurement, digital accounting, conflict-of-interest declarations, whistleblower protection and periodic public disclosure of audited accounts.

The Ram Temple was never intended to be merely a magnificent structure of stone. It was meant to represent the ideals of the man whose name it bears — truth, duty, sacrifice, integrity and justice. That faith of millions now must be honoured, not with new promises, committees or with cosmetic administrative rearrangements, but with the full force of an independent, professional and transparent investigation. Because this was never about stolen money only, but also about stolen faith.

The writer is a retired IPS officer who has served as central information commissioner; secretary, security, GOI; and special director, Intelligence Bureau