Entry
To Lord's Abode:
Who Can Qualify?
By Ram Puniyani
15 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
On June 11(2007) the Guruvayur
temple trust issued an apology for the purification ritual carried out
by them, in the aftermath of the visit of Vayalar Ravi with his family
to the temple. The purification was performed to cleanse the temple
as Mr. Ravi's wife Mercy is a Christian. In this temple the ones' from
other religion are not permitted, as the purity pollution is strongly
adhered to in this temple. In the apology it said that since Mr. Ravi's
son Krishna is a Hindu, so performing the purification ritual was a
mistake. On the heels of this the minister for temple affairs of Kerala
is planning to come up with a law to ensure that all those born in Hindu
families are permitted to the temples.
Guruvayur temple, one of
the most famous temples of Kerala, Dwarka of South, performed punyaham
(purification), rites in the temple, after the chief tantri (priest)
declared that the temple is not open to non Hindus. And since Mr. Ravi's
wife Mercy is a Christian, his son's being a Hindu is doubtful, so the
need for purification. (May 2007). Minister along with his whole family
had come to perform chorronu ceremony (ceremonial rice feeding of the
infant) for his grand son. The Chairman of the board of the temple said
that the verdict of the tantri is final. Of course he also pointed out
that though temple entry is banned for non Hindus traditionally, we
should change with time. Tantri's son in a press conference said that
though this norm should not be violated, if the Government comes forward
and makes a law about this they will let the non Hindus come to the
temple.
Temple entry has been an
important part of social reform movement. While this case in particular
belongs to non Hindu, the major battle fought by social reformers has
been about the entry of dalits to the temple. During freedom movement
when many a social movements breaking the hegemony of upper caste and
against patriarchal norms were going on, the struggle for dalits right
to education, temple entry and the struggle for women's right to education
were the major challenges. In 1920s two major such movements for temple
entry were the one of Kalaram temple in Nashik and the other was the
one in Viakom, where Periyar Ramasamy Naicker took the lead. Gurvayur
temple was also in the news seventy five years ago, when the issue was
entry of untouchables to the temple and that of permitting them to use
the road crossing in front of this temple.
The lead given by leaders
like Ambedkar and Periyar, was taken up by other major national leaders.
Mahatma Gandhi registered the dalits plight and went on to initiate
moves to appeal to upper caste Hindus to eradicate untouchability in
all sincerity, to respect the then untouchables on equal footing. He
himself commingled with dalits in a genuine way. While there are many
criticisms of Gandhi's approach to the dalit issue, one thing is sure,
he was addressing the upper caste, appealing to their conscience to
overcome the age old practices and mind set.
For pioneers like Ambedkar,
this temple entry was a symbolic one as he realized that the Hinduism
as practiced broadly, the major assertive form of it, is a Brahminic
theology and it cannot have respectable place for his people, the low
caste. That's why he declared that he was born a Hindu, that was not
in his hands but he will not die as a Hindu. He embraced Buddhism in
1956 along with many of his followers in due course. The same trend
is visible even today with mass conversion ceremonies being organized
by various dalit groups.
The reform in the temple
norms could not go beyond a point. Many an ideologues did call for temple
entry for all. In the prevalent social situation, the absence of proper
land reforms sustains the hold of Brahmincal norms and landlordism,
the twin pillars of pre modern India. The major incidents like the refusal
of entry of Adivasis in Lord Jagggnanath temple in Puri, refusal for
entry to Indira Gandhi in the same temple on the ground that she is
a married to a Parsi, the refusal to permit a woman civil servant to
Sabrimala temple on the ground that the ruling deity of the temple is
a bachelor so women in the reproductive age group should not be allowed,
continues. Still there are diverse rules in different temples, regulating
the norms of entry.
Guruvayur must be being ruled
by a set of very conservative clergy. The case of singer, musicologist
Yesudas is very interesting. This noted singer is very outstanding in
his contributions, his rendering in praise of the Lord of Guruvayur,
his music is also played at the temple but he himself is not permitted
to enter the temple as he is not a Hindu! India's syncretic and plural
traditions are very charming at one level, and at another the orthodoxy
of clergy is equally painful Had poets like Rahim and Ras Khan, the
devotees of Lord Krishna, who wrote beautiful songs in praise of the
Lord, been alive today, will they be permitted to enter the holy precincts
of the Lord in whose praise they have contributed phenomenal work? Would
Prophet Mohammad approve of women not being permitted in the mosque?
Or would Lord Jesus approve of separate churches for those who have
converted to Christianity from dalit background?
Many a major drawbacks still
persist in the social reform process. In Ayaapan Temple in Sabrimala
the women in the menstruating age group are not permitted. In Jagganath
temple, Puri, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Budhists are allowed while those
belonging to other religions are barred. In Venkateshwarsa Temple Tirupati
also non Hindus are not allowed though they can go up to the sixth hall.
Muslims till sixteenth century used to pray there. Dwarkadhish temple
does not discriminate on the grounds of religion and caste and all are
permitted. Even today in the interior villages at many a places, dalits
are not permitted entry, and most of the times it is not reported, while
sometimes this does come in as news though it is a regular feature in
the countryside. In Hindu temples the norms are diverse and the rigidity
is kept despite marginal changes here and there.
As such the rigidities imposed
by the clerical elements are not the monopoly of any single religious
tradition. One knows that in Moques, at various places women are not
allowed and just a few years ago, in Kerala, Maulvi Kutty opened his
mosque to women against strong opposition to the same. Earlier in Kerala
again there were separate Churches for dalit Christians. These traditions
which have been rooted have been slow to change, in most of the religions,
while in current times the orthodoxy of Muslim clergy is highlighted
and put forward as an example, the
other religions generally escape the butt of criticism. Mostly clergy,
priestly class, is the most inflexible part of the institution of the
religion. In the popular religious traditions like Bhakti, Sufi and
Christian mystiques, religion is seen as the uniting point, inclusive
in nature, open to all and regarding all as equals. But where ever clerical
elements rule the roost, irrespective of the religion, exclusionism
is the norm.
One also hears at times that
'we' the Hindus are very liberal and permit all the people in our religious
places while the others don't do the same. This is as far from truth
as can be possible. As such the norms in Holy abodes change from place
to place depending on the controlling clerics, who claim to be the repositories
of the norms and traditions of the particular religion. In Hinduism
also, the norms controlled by Brahmanism are more rigid than the one's
around Shramanic traditions like Bhakti, Nath, Siddha etc. Amongst Muslims
also the pattern amongst Shias and Sunnis is not the same. Parsi fire
temples display a prominent board banning non Parsis to enter their
temple. It is also a symbol of times that despite such restrictions
many a people feel like going to the same place due to their faith.
While one feels the need
for reforms amongst most religious places, to dub it on one particular
religion is what is disturbing. The political elements, the one's operating
around the identity of religion, try to glorify their scripture and
philosophy and compare it with the practices of the other religions.
The whole ploy is to claim the superiority of their religion. As such
the correct approach should be to compare the practices with practices
and pick up the humane aspects from the moral teachings of religions.
This incident should wake all of us again to the ills prevailing in
the practices of religions and make efforts to overcome it.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.