SrI:
Dear Members :
My thanks are to Sriman Sudarshan for sharing
this article .
I am reelasing this article for the sake of
presenting the other side of the story from
a News Paper , which is accused often of
hiding under rationality to avoid unpopular stands .
That is its prerogative.
In this e-list , we will be fair and share
the views from both sides (Vaadhis & PrathivAdhis).
V.Sadagopan
Dear members,
Here is an article from the Hindu dt. 1 june'06. It should be of great topical
and current interest to many list-members. Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan
=============================================================
This article has been sent to you by M.K.Sudarshan (
mksudarshan2002@xxxxxxxxxxx )
=============================================================
Source: The Hindu
(http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/06/01/stories/2006060105551100.htm)
Opinion
-
News Analysis
Temples and traditions
A. Srivathsan
Opening up of temples and the priesthood to all castes is part of the fight
against discrimination based on birth.
ON JULY 8, 1939, a few Dalits entered the Madurai Meenakshi Amman temple and
were given prasadam and honours due to any devotee. This sounds like an
everyday event until we remind ourselves that it was the first temple in the
Madras Presidency that allowed Dalits entry. The Hindu then reported that
leaders such as Gandhi and Rajaji were ecstatic over this. Subsequently, the
Temple entry Authorisation and Indemnity Act was passed in August 1939.
Temple entry for Dalits was achieved after a long campaign. In the case of
Madurai, it started as early as 1874. It, however, was not accepted easily.
Priests in Madurai boycotted the temple. Some left its service and rejoined
only in 1945. In Cuddalore and other places incidents of stone-throwing were
reported. A few women's groups vociferously resisted this. A visit to these
temples now reveals that neither the faith in their sanctity nor the crowds
thronging them has waned. If anything, they have only increased manifold.
Resistance, it appears, was vigorous only at the threshold of change.
It is important to recall this the context of the recent developments in Tamil
Nadu. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led Government recently passed an order
allowing qualified persons irrespective of caste to become temple priests. The
order challenges what is considered the last preserve of the Brahmins. It has
received opposition from certain sections and has raised issues about the
waning sanctity of temples and disrespect to tradition, texts, and practices.
Questions have been raised as to whether matters relating to religion and
worship can be changed? What role does the state have in interfering in such
matters?
It is important to view the present order as a part of a long corrective
process. Discrimination based on birth is fundamentally flawed. The privileges
and hierarchy built around a discriminatory worldview have to change. If temple
entry for Dalits was the beginning of such rethinking, opening up of priesthood
for them can be taken as its conclusion.
The idea of appointing Dalits as priests finds place in the 1969 report of a
Government of India-appointed committee headed by Elayaperumal, a prominent
Congress leader from Chidambaram. This committee studied the economic
development of the underprivileged, from 1965 onwards, and submitted its report
in the Lok Sabha. Among other things, it suggested the abolition of hereditary
priesthood and replacing it with an "ecclesiastical organisation of men
possessing the requisite educational qualification" as priests. It also stated
that the priesthood could be open to anybody regardless of caste and creed. The
appointment of Dalits as priests was considered an important step towards
social justice and development of the underprivileged.
In 1971, the DMK Government abolished the hereditary rights of the priests and
paved the way for people of all castes to be appointed as temple priests. A few
criticised this for allowing "all and sundry" to become priests. Subsequently,
a stay order was obtained against the decision in the Supreme Court. In 1982,
M.G. Ramachandran, the then Chief Minister, appointed the Justice Maharajan
Commission to look into the reforms of temple practices. This committee too
recommended appointment of priests from all castes after undergoing proper
training. In 1984, as a follow-up to these recommendations, announcements were
made for starting an agama college for all communities in Palani. The All-India
Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Government soon dropped this idea, but revived
it in 1991 only to drop it again.
In October 2002, the Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court judgment that
allowed non-Brahmins to officiate as priests. The Bench, comprising Justice S.
Rajendra Babu and Justice Doraiswamy Raju, observed that any custom or usage,
irrespective of its existence in pre-Constitution days, cannot be countenanced
as a source of law to claim any rights when it is found to violate human rights
and social equality. It also remarked that if traditionally Brahmins alone had
been performing the jobs of priests, it might be because a person other than a
Brahmin was prohibited from doing so. Hence it observed: "There is no
justification to insist that a Brahmin alone can perform the rites and rituals
in the temple as part of the rights and freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of
the Constitution."
The pride of the Constitution is that it does not allow any form of
discrimination. The state is within its right to challenge and correct all
forms of discrimination. The state and the judiciary can look at not only what
a "religion was" but also "what it can be." In such a pursuit, traditional
texts and practices are subservient to social objectives. This might not sit
well with the traditional idea of a secular state, but we have our own
histories and social trajectories to deal with rather than worry about a
perfect fit. Marc Gallanter's Law and Society in Modern India shows that the
broad constitutional mandate disposes of the notion that the law might confine
itself to ascertaining and respecting a preordained religious sphere. Instead,
it has an overall arbitral role to perform. In this particular case, it has
arbitrated the issue of discrimination and social justice.
Religion and worship have evolved. The evolution includes modification of
viewpoints, incremental changes, and flowering of new thoughts as witnessed in
temples.
The temple as an institution flourished in the bhakti period. The bhakti
movement, which was centred in south India, moved away from ritual orthodoxy
and laid emphasis on devotion. It deified people of varying caste backgrounds
as saints. Both the Vaishnavite and Saivaite traditions have deified
non-Brahmin Alwars or Vaishanava saints and Nayanmars or Saivite saints. Not
only have they been deified, there are temples and festivals commemorating
their devotion. These accommodations did not severely challenge the then social
set-up. But they showed the need to change religious practices and make them
inclusive on the basis of devotion, not on the basis of birth.
Culture of inclusiveness
Contemporary temple practices too have undergone changes. Temples have taken to
simple offerings, local language, and social inclusiveness. Temples expanded in
scope and scale because they drew larger participation. They now own property,
runs colleges and hospitals. Ritual patterns are conveniently chosen at a few
places and changed at a few others. Hinduism has accepted temples built
overseas and priests and acharyas visiting them. If we were to go by texts and
their prescriptions, this could be unacceptable. We seem to have come to terms
with the new diasporic conditions.
If we define tradition only through texts, then practices such as opening of
temples to Dalits and abolition of the Devadasi system can be viewed as going
against the agamas. The presence of fans, tube lights, and air conditioners in
temples can also be seen as being against agama injunctions. The Maharajan
committee too warns us against this.
Opening up of temples and the priesthood to all castes is a fight against
discrimination based on birth. What is required is to expand the definition of
discrimination and include women in it. It is time for the question: when will
women be allowed to become priests?
Copyright: 1995 - 2006The Hindu
Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly
prohibited without the consent of The Hindu
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |