The confusion and apparent discrimination in how the indian state treats its role in the administrative affairs of Hindu religious institutions and that other non Hindu religious institution,stems from the fact that the Indian Constitution,and its drafters,acknowledged,without being explicit about it,that the Indian state more or less represented the Hindus society and hence the natural purveyor of the Hindu societies,social,economic,religious and political interests and could act however it found expedient in furthering their interests,without bringing upon itself accusations of causing religious interference.
If the state were to declare,in what amounts to most explicit constitutional terms,that it represented the Hindu society and by such declaration was in effect a Hindu state,it would would be natural that the state reserve for itself a role in organizing the religious affairs of Hindus.Falling short of this, how can the state claim justification for any role it wishes to acquire for itself, which are beyond the provisions that define a secular state.
If such constitutional provision cannot be made,in interim period,all Hindu religious institutions and places of Hindu pilgrimage and religious veneration must brought under the autonomous administration of a universal,all-India 'Sanathan Dharma Maha Sabha" constituted with all the accompanying provisional rights,power and duties to manage and administer all Hindu religious institutions in India.
This is the only way forward for the state to extricate itself out of this perennial 'Dharma sankat'.