SHIVANG SATYA GUPTA
A rising wave of discontent is building among devotees and civil society groups over the functioning of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board (SMVDSB), as protesters question whether sacred offerings to the shrine are being diverted toward private healthcare and education projects instead of religious and pilgrim welfare activities.
What began as murmurs of concern over the recent MBBS admissions at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi institute of Medical Excellence (SMVDIME) Katra has now crystallised into street protests, media campaigns and public statements across Jammu and Kashmir in general and rest of the country in particular demanding full financial disclosure, bringing the issue into sharp focus across J&K union territory and beyond.
At the centre of the controversy is the allegation that “Dev Dravya” — donations made by pilgrims as religious offerings — has been used to support the operations of a private medical institution associated with the Shrine Board. Protesters claim that shrine funds have been used to cover recurring losses and capital expenditures of the hospital, sparking a broader debate over accountability, transparency and the ethical management of religious trust revenues at one of country’s most revered pilgrimage centres.
Over the past few weeks, protest gatherings supported by social, religious and trade bodies have intensified in various parts of Jammu. Demonstrators argue that the shrine is not a commercial enterprise but a sacred space tied deeply to the faith, identity and cultural roots of millions of devotees across India and abroad. Many point out that pilgrims contributing money at the cave shrine do so with the belief that the funds will be used primarily for religious services, pilgrim facilities, emergency relief and charitable works directly linked to the shrine’s spiritual mandate.
These expectations, they say, are at odds with revelations circulating in public discussions and activist briefings based on Shrine Board records. According to these discussions, annual revenues from offerings, rentals, royalties, shop leases, investments and other income streams crossed ₹380 crores in one financial year and exceeded ₹400 crores in another. Protesters maintain that the concern is not the size of the revenue but the alleged diversion of a portion of it to non-religious institutions.
A key flashpoint is the allegation that over a five-to six-year period, more than ₹100 crores has been spent to meet the losses and operational expenditure of a privately run hospital functioning under a public-private partnership model. In one year alone, activists claim, approximately ₹78 crores were reportedly released to absorb the hospital’s financial deficit. This was followed, they say, by subsequent payments running into tens of crores in later years.
This financial support, protesters argue, was extended even as the Shrine Board’s own establishment expenditure including staff salaries, allowances and recurring administrative costs rose sharply from around ₹99–100 crores to more than ₹170 crores within 4-5 years. In later audit periods, the figure has reportedly crossed ₹200 crores.
Civil society groups argue that if such major financial commitments have been made, they must be publicly explained through detailed audited statements placed in the public domain, rather than left to speculation and leaked figures.
Those leading the agitation emphasise that they are not opposed to healthcare or educational initiatives. Instead, their appeal is rooted in the principle that sacred funds should be managed with the highest level of transparency and moral responsibility. Several activists have questioned whether large-scale financial decisions concerning shrine revenues were taken after adequate community consultation, or whether the Board now operates too far removed from the sentiments of the devotees it represents.
The tone of the protests has hardened in recent weeks, with slogans calling for restructuring of the Shrine Board and even for resignations at the top level. Many say this is the first major public backlash of its kind since the Board’s creation decades ago, signalling a rare erosion of trust between the management and sections of the devotee community.
The debate has also entered online spaces, with social media platforms carrying videos, statements and campaign messages from those raising concerns. Supporters of the movement argue that transparency is not an adversarial demand but a necessary step to preserve the sanctity of the shrine’s institutions.
At the emotional core of the protests lies the belief that the shrine, the deity and the pilgrimage tradition form an inseparable part of cultural heritage. Any perceived deviation from the sacred purpose of offerings is therefore seen not just as a financial lapse but as a moral breach.
Speakers at rallies have also drawn attention to the broader national context. Across India, major shrines and religious trusts handle significant public donations, making governance structures and oversight mechanisms a subject of growing public debate. Protesters argue that the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi shrine — given its stature and scale — should ideally set the benchmark for transparency instead of becoming a focal point of controversy.
Among the key demands repeatedly articulated by demonstrators are: An independently verified, publicly released audit of shrine finances; a detailed breakup of revenue earned from offerings and associated income; and full disclosure of spending on pilgrim facilities and welfare
A clear accounting of funds spent on hospitals and educational institutions; transparency around public-private partnership agreements; and defined accountability mechanisms for Board members
Some groups have gone further, calling for senior officials to take moral responsibility and step aside until an objective review is completed.
So far, the Shrine Board is yet to issue a comprehensive public clarification addressing the specific figures and allegations raised in the protests. While the Board has reportedly maintained that all its decisions are taken within legal and administrative frameworks, observers believe that a detailed financial statement and open engagement with the public may be essential to restoring confidence.
The unfolding developments have opened a larger conversation: should religious institutions with vast revenues function like corporate entities, or should they remain deeply rooted in community-based decision-making guided by spiritual accountability?
For now, the protests show little sign of fading. As more devotees seek clarity and public pressure builds, the Shrine Board faces a critical challenge — to reassure the faithful, uphold transparency and safeguard the sanctity of one of country’s most cherished pilgrimage destinations.
