Author: Chandan Mitra
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 9, 2006
Assorted secularists, self-righteous social
reformists, atheists, agnostics, jholawalas, human rightswalas, rent-a-cause
walas, gender busters and sundry bleeding hearts are busy these days vocally
denouncing Hindu temple practices with particular reference to a certain quaint
custom prevailing at the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.
This cacophonous outburst has its origins
in a has been Karnataka starlet's yearning for a return to the limelight.
In a desperate attempt to get TV cameras scurrying for her bytes, this actress
made a clean breast (pun unintended) of her alleged success in sneaking into
the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and touching the idol. This is sacrilege
according to the temple's centuries' old custom, for women of menstruating
age are prohibited from entering its inner core. The taboo may be regarded
as discriminatory, but to date nobody has demanded it be changed. In fact,
it was given legal legitimacy by a Kerala High Court order of 1990, which
confirmed the practice and empowered the custodians to prosecute violators.
According to local mythology, the baby god
Ayappa is celibate and, thus, has to be "protected" from temptation.
Legend has it that Ayappa was born of a union between Shiva and Vishnu in
a female avatar (Mohini) in peculiar circumstances. He was then entrusted
to the care of a local King and eventually emerged as the Lord of the jungle
with magical powers over all living creatures, especially tigers that once
roamed the forests of hilly Kerala.
Ayappa vowed celibacy, perhaps to atone for
the temptations that his mythological father submitted to. Consequently, only
pre-puberty and post-menopausal women are permitted to enter the inner precincts
of the mandir. The rules are so strict that even men making the arduous journey
to the hilltop are required to observe celibacy for 41 days prior to undertaking
the pilgrimage.
Arguably few people outside the rarified environment
in which Delhi's superficial secularists reside, are agitated over the issue.
Of course none of these bleeding hearts has probably ever visited a temple,
leave alone respected the sentiment of genuine devotees. Understandably, therefore,
no woman of consequence in Kerala has joined the chorus to demand an end to
Lord Ayappa's celibacy although a substantial number of Malayali women profess
radical views and the powerful Nair community retains a matrilineal structure.
The CPI(M)-led Government of the State has wisely refrained from entering
the debate and has left it to the Devaswom Board to deal with the only concrete
issue that has arisen: Should the offending Karnataka starlet be prosecuted
for violating the Temple's sanctity?
Going by the existing rules, she indeed should
be. A place of worship is sanctified by the faith of devotees and anybody
who wilfully disregards prevalent rules must be punished. For instance, the
custodians of a Gurdwara would be within their rights to take action against
a visitor who refuses to cover his head upon entering its precincts. Conversely,
the authorities of a Church have every right to proceed against a person who
insists on keeping his headgear on inside the shrine.
It is well known that mosques have a separate
enclosure for women who are not allowed to pray alongside men. In fact, a
few days ago the custodians of the Ajmer dargah decreed that women stay away
from the shrine during namaz so as not to distract men offering prayers. Many
such customs may not stand the scrutiny of western rationality. But then,
places of worship are allowed to observe their own rules in accordance with
popular belief. They can't be governed by the mottos of the French Revolution
or the principles of the American Charter of Independence.
The domains are entirely separate and it is
this separation between Church and State that constitutes the dictionary definition
of the most abused term in contemporary India, namely, secularism.
Further, it is the perverse ignorance of Hindu
traditions that leads textbook rationalists to rail against many such customs.
Hindu rituals differ widely from region to region, even temple to temple.
For example, the Bhairon Temple across Pragati Maidan in the heart of New
Delhi accepts liquor as an offering. The priest opens bottles of whisky or
rum offered by devotees, pours some of the contents on the idol, places them
at its feet and returns the unconsumed portion as prasad.
Many puritanical Hindus, particularly Vaishnavites,
would consider this disgusting. At various Kali temples in Eastern India,
such as at Kalighat in Kolkata or Kamakhya in Guwahati, animal sacrifice is
routine. Tantriks indulge in bizarre rituals at cremation grounds that psychologists
would term necrophilia. If just one major temple in this vast country of nearly
900 million Hindus who worship an estimated 330 million gods, does not permit
women's entry on account of a sacred institutional belief, does that make
the religion anti-women?
This does not mean that every practice can
be defended in the name of preserving tradition. For example, sati was a hideous
custom not sanctified by any religious text or social sanction. It was an
aberration that crept into some sections of Hindu society, possibly inspired
by the tradition of jauhar. That had a particular historical context. Women
members of Rajput households committed collective suicide to save their honour
against likely rape and torture at the hand of conquering hordes during the
mediaeval period.
In time that practice was used to justify
sati, a custom not widely prevalent except Rajasthan and Bengal - two regions
that bore the brunt of these conquests. sati evoked consternation and revulsion
among most Hindus and Lord Bentinck would not have succeeded in stamping it
out without the vocal support of Hindu reformists.
Similarly, the disgraceful prevention of Dalits
from entering temples in certain areas was rightly opposed by Hindu leaders,
most prominently Mahatma Gandhi. These abhorrent practices were widely followed
in certain places and, therefore, demanded collective action. They cannot
be compared to specific customs prevailing in individual temples.
As it now transpires, there are temples in
Kerala that are reserved exclusively for women. Delhi's male secularists do
not go around demanding that the doors of these places of worship be thrown
open irrespective of gender. All temples, like all colleges, need not be co-ed.
It is the impunity with which the bleeding hearts rail against Hindu rituals
and customs but are deafeningly silent on other faiths that gives their game
away.
There was an outcry recently over the refusal
of the Puri temple authorities to permit a Thai Buddhist to enter Lord Jagannath's
abode. Since I defend the Muslims' right to debar the entry of non-believers
to Mecca, I see nothing wrong in the ban non-Hindus at certain temples. 'Ye
of little faith' need not enter shrines at all. Places of worship are not
mere architectural structures or tourist curiosities. They have a sanctity
that only believers can appreciate. So please leave Ayappa alone.
