THE writer asks who is advising the CRL Rights Commission on Hindu matters.
Image: SUPPLIED
THE South African Hindu Maha Sabha (SAHMS), established in 1912 and recognised nationally as the representative body of the Hindu community, has raised serious concerns regarding the way the CRL Rights Commission has initiated the process of establishing an ad hoc Section 22 committee for the Hindu sector.
While the SAHMS remains committed to constructive engagement, interfaith co-operation, and principled collaboration, the procedural and constitutional shortcomings that have characterised this process cannot be ignored.
The decision to establish a Section 22 structure was taken without prior consultation with recognised stakeholders in the Hindu community.
Consultation is not a procedural courtesy – it is a constitutional requirement essential to transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation. The absence of early engagement not only disregards these principles but also undermines the initiative's legitimacy.
The subsequent invitation to a consultative meeting does not remedy the fact that decisions were already conceived and announced without the involvement of those most affected.
The SAHMS further emphasises that the core issue is not the receipt of an invitation to a meeting, but rather the CRL’s failure to engage the Hindu sector before announcing a predetermined framework for the Section 22 structure.
A critical question is: who is advising the CRL on Hindu matters?
In its earlier communication, the SAHMS identified significant deviations from constitutional and statutory obligations relating to transparency, participatory governance and administrative fairness.
These concerns remain unanswered. The CRL has yet to provide clarity on the legal authority underpinning the establishment of the Section 22 structure, the objectives and scope of the proposed body, or any documentation guiding its formation.
This lack of transparency raises questions regarding the procedural integrity of the process and whether it aligns with the CRL’s constitutional mandate, which is to promote and protect cultural, religious and linguistic rights – not to regulate or supervise religious communities.
The CRL has argued that the process is “consultative in nature” and “has not been concluded.” This does not resolve the fundamental problem raised by the SAHMS – the lack of prior consultation, which must occur before initiating formal processes or announcing structures.
The announcement of an ad hoc Section 22 committee - accompanied by invitations to nominate, predetermined agendas, and a process framework – clearly indicates that a structure had already been conceived and partially constituted before any engagement with the Hindu sector.
A consultation meeting scheduled after such decisions have been taken, cannot be deemed authentic or meaningful participatory governance.
The consultation meeting announced is framed as an opportunity for stakeholders to
“nominate representatives” and “shape the structure” – but this presupposes a structure that is:
Already decided upon.
Already announced.
Already framed administratively.
True inclusivity requires co-creation from the outset, not retrospective endorsement.
The CRL emphasises inclusivity, yet its actions suggest the opposite.
National Hindu bodies, such as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (Iskcon, established in 1975), Arya Samaj South Africa (established in 1925), Shree Santhan Dharma Sabha of SA (established in 1941), with affiliates and footprints across the country, were not invited to the meeting on March 28.
The SAHMS also remains deeply concerned about the broader implications of the CRL’s approach. Decisions that exclude affected communities risk eroding trust and weakening institutional legitimacy.
The Hindu community has consistently contributed to interfaith collaboration and national civic engagement. Processes that appear exclusionary create a perception that the views, needs and values of an entire minority religious community have been disregarded.
This may, in turn, strain interfaith relations, create uncertainty about the new structure’s purpose and powers, and undermine confidence in the CRL’s decision-making processes.
Furthermore, the SAHMS cautions against the establishment of separate Section 22 committees for different faith groups. Such an approach entrenches siloed and fragmented religious structures, and minority faiths get reinforced as insular, marginalised communities, reminiscent of outdated apartheid-style models that divide rather than unify South African society.
Rather, the SAHMS strongly advocates a single, inclusive, multifaith consultative platform through which religious communities can collectively contribute to nation-building, ethical leadership, social cohesion, the promotion of common values, and the much-needed integration in South African society.
To restore credibility to the process and rebuild trust, the SAHMS respectfully requests that the CRL provide a full and transparent explanation of the rationale, legal basis, and intended purpose of the Section 22 structure. The SAHMS further calls for a genuine, sector-wide pre-consultation process involving stakeholder mapping, scoping, and shared problem definition, as well as a written commitment to procedural fairness and meaningful future engagement.
Only through such steps can the process align with constitutional principles and reflect true participatory governance.
The SAHMS reiterates its commitment to constructive engagement and to fulfilling its longstanding role in representing and advancing the interests of the Hindu community within South Africa’s diverse religious landscape. However, participation in the current process cannot be interpreted as endorsement of its procedural shortcomings.
The SAHMS urges the CRL Commission to address these concerns urgently and decisively to restore confidence, uphold constitutional values, and ensure that all affected communities are accorded the respect and inclusion necessary for equitable participation.
Professor Brij Maharaj is deputy president of the South African Hindu Maha Sabha.