The experts’ committee, constituted by the State government to look at the nature of rituals and worship at the controversial Bababudangiri shrine in Chikkamagaluru, has made it clear that Shah Khadri is the administrator of ‘Sree Dattatreya Bababudan Swamy Dargah’ and also the performer of the rituals.

The committee, headed by Justice Nagamohan Das, said the issue of management of the shrine was part of the “concluded findings” from the historical records.

Shah Khadri is Sajjada Nasheen (hereditary administrator) of the shrine. Syed Ghouse Mohiyuddin Shah Khadri holds the post at present.

The three-member committee submitted its report to the State government and the same has been accepted by the State Cabinet. The government has said that the report would be submitted to the Supreme Court, as the hearing of contempt petition against the government is coming up on April 6. Shah Khadri had moved the SC alleging that the government had been delaying to settle the issue, despite clear instructions from the court.

Ritual status

The committee, after verifying historical records and previous legal proceedings held since 1837, listed seven findings on the dispute. They include the name of the place (which is Sri Guru Dattatreya Bababudan Swamy Dargah) and location of the shrine on the hills. Both Hindus and Muslims are the devotees of the institution, it says. Regarding the rituals at the institute, the report states that the practice of reading Fateha, offering food items, placing flowers on the tomb and paduka, applying sandalwood paste, burning of incense, lighting of Nandadeepa, raising flags, beating of nagara (drums) and offering holy water to the devotees are performed by Shah Khadri. The institution is declared not a wakf property, but one under the jurisdiction of the Muzrai Department.

With regard to allegations against the administrator, the committee states that whenever Sajjada Nasheen committed acts of mismanagement, misappropriation etc., the Muzrai Department had taken action in accordance with the law.

Based on these findings, the committee rejected the Endowment Commissioner’s recommendations filed before the Supreme Court on March 10, 2010. The commissioner had recommended the appointment of a Hindu priest to offer prayers in accordance with Agama. Citing the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the committee opined that the Endowment Commissioner’s report was liable to be rejected. The Act prohibits a change in the religious character of any such place after August 15, 1947.

The Endowment Commissioner’s report had cited historian Suryanath Kamath’s article titled ‘Karnataka Dattatreya Aradhane’ to recommend the appointment of a Hindu priest. The experts’ committee stated that Mr. Kamath’s article was “not based on any authentic evidence.”

source: http://www.thehindu.com / The Hindu / Home> News> States> Karnataka / by Sathish G.T. / Chikkamagaluru, March 15th, 2018