I don't entirely believe in it but I do believe major chunks of it. This is my understanding from talking to people living in India.
I'm always open to different views. That is why I tagged Joe because I knew he would have a different opinion. I'd be happy to receive them from you too
@xeuss .
There are as always, kernels of truth in the stuff you posted, to make these fanciful stories all the more believable. At the heart of all this is prejudice that permeates society, that makes all these half truths believable and more palatable.
Take the example of what you stated that Muslims are allowed to run their own mosques while Hindus are unable to run their own temples, as government has involvement in the trusts.
Both have some element of truth in it, but the reality is very different. Most of the mosques that were built before 1947 fall under the authority of the Waqf board (state delineated). The Waqf Board of Muslims does have government oversight and the president of the board is usually a government appointee. They manage the properties (rent/buy/sell) controlled by the board and the income generated from them goes towards the upkeep of the mosques. Sometimes, salaries of mosque imams are also paid by the board.
Some of the larger Muslim shrines, like Ajmer Sharif, are run entirely by a government appointed board, separate from the Waqf board. Some newer mosques do not fall under the ambit of the Waqf board and are run by the own trustees, without involvement of the government.
A similar practice exists among the temples of India. Most pre-1947 temples were controlled by the principalities that they fell under. After 1947, the government of India became the sovereign inheritor of the these temples, and created a trust to run them. There were other reasons for the government to take control, most notably to end the caste discrimination, and wrest control of these temples from the mismanagement of trusts. Not all temples fall under this ambit, but I believe some states have provisions in the law that allow for the state to take over in the event of mismanagement or infighting.
Now is this the best practice - that can be debated. I can say for sure that in the case of Muslims, the political appointee of the Waqf board usually indulges in heavy corruption where Waqf land is sold. The Ambani residence in Mumbai is a prime example where Waqf land was illegaly sold to the Ambanis.
You stated:
"All major Hindu temples are controlled by the Government but Mosques and Churches are not controlled by the Government"
As evidenced, your statement is does contain some elements of truth, but is stated as such to imply that Muslims are receiving a perceived benefit that is being denied to the Hindus.
The complaint invites further ridicule when in some states in India, the supposed pro-Hindu BJP government has been ruling for 20-30 years, but has made no attempt to alter the situation. In fact in the state of Gujarat, where Modi has made an ideal Hindu state, no attempt has been ever made to change this situation.
In fact, both Narendra Modi and Amit Shah sit on the board of trustees of Somnath Temple, appointed by the government of Gujarat of course. 
