The thesis of this paper is that public religious institutions in India, which historically have enjoyed the patronage of India's aristocracy, are today resting upon the financial response of the masses, who are unprepared culturally or economically to carry the burden. I shall maintain that the masses have rarely accepted the responsibility for building or maintaining public religious institutions in India, and have expected the elite to provide the sancturaries and the priests. The hypothesis is proposed that neither Hinduism, nor Buddhism, nor to a certain extent, Islam, expected the common people to provide a major share of self-support for temple, monastery, or mosque. Jainism and Sikhism, while expecting more from an economically advantaged laity, have also waited for the king, the noble, or the merchant to volunteer finance to construct a religious edifice and to support its functionaries thereafter. So pervading has been this expectation from the upper classes, this dependence upon the well-placed and the powerful, that it may be called a characteristic of Indian culture, not related to any particular religion, but shared by all Faiths. The Christian Mission in India did not inspire a new expectation, but rather harmonized with what already existed as custom, as folkway, as the standard order. Just as the rajas built temples for the use of the people, endowed his edifices with lands and villages, staffed them with gardeners, cooks, sweepers, and drawers of water, so the Christian Mission arrived in India with money, free religious functionaries (missionares), and salaries for every grade of staff.