|
|||||
|
"Profoundly convinced of the truth and validity of Our religion, believing that it is based on divine guidance and on all-comprehending toleration, knowing that in its practice it has, throughout the centuries, adapted itself to the needs of changing times, solicitous that none of Our Hindu subjects should, by reason of birth or caste or community, be denied the consolations and solace of the Hindu faith, We have decided and hereby declare, ordain and command that, subject to such rules and conditions as may be laid down and imposed by us for preserving their proper atmosphere and maintaining their rituals and observances, there should henceforth be no restriction placed on any Hindu by birth or religion for entering or worshipping at the temples controlled by us and Our Government."
THE above proclamation issued in 1936 by one of the last maharajas in India, Chithira Tirunal Balarama Varma, threw open the doors of all government-run temples in Travancore, then a theocratic Hindu state and "the home of the most exclusive orthodoxy", to all Hindus, irrespective of caste or creed. It was a revolutionary act, despite the compelling circumstances under which it was made. Nearly 70 years later the significance of the event has been brought home to a new generation as Kerala once again comes under the grip of a controversy over the right of "all believers" to enter temples.
Before the proclamation was issued the oppressed castes, which formed nearly 40 per cent of all Hindus (74 per cent) in Travancore (according to the first "scientific" census in 1875), were banned from using many roads, public buildings and government schools and approaching, much less entering, temples, because of an inflexible and ruthless caste system. The obnoxious concept of untouchability ordained that a Hindu man or woman "polluted" another higher up in the caste hierarchy not just by touch, but also by sight or even by coming within a specified distance of the other.
The proclamation came at the end of a long struggle begun in the late 1800s by lower-caste Hindus for civic rights The struggle resulted in a never-before unity of lower-caste people of varied educational and economic backgrounds that the princely government in British-ruled India could not ignore because of its political potential, not merely based on caste, but increasingly on class, as it grew into one of the most progressive elements of the nationalist movement in the country.
Moreover, the maharaja's government, which was "charged with the trusteeship of Hindu orthodoxy", was compelled to prevent what it saw as an "alarming rate of conversion" of the oppressed sections (as revealed by census figures) to Christianity to escape the caste system and to gain modern education and economic and social status with the help of missionaries from Europe. This growing population of Christians argued for "political and executive power commensurate with their commercial and economic power". Furthermore the most prosperous of the lower castes, the numerically strong Ezhavas, threatened to convert. The young maharaja and his advisers, who were staunch Hindus, found that the threat could be averted only by uniting all Hindus into "a single, devout community without distinction of caste".
As social and political historian Robin Jeffrey points out (Temple-entry Movement in Travancore 1860-1940, Social Scientist, volume 4, no.44.), "the fate of the princely government was in many ways bound up with the success it might have in rallying its Hindu subjects around it. In that game the grant of temple entry was a valuable card to play."
Offering the right of temple entry to all Hindus "was well within the gift of the high-caste Maharaja" and his advisers chose to announce it at an opportune moment, despite the long years of struggle for it and the opposition to it by orthodox caste Hindus. At the time the proclamation was issued there were nearly 10,000 temples in Travancore. Only 2,000 or so government-owned temples were included in the Maharaja's declaration. Other temples in Travancore had to open their doors to Hindus of all castes.
However, the governments of the princely state of Cochin (Kochi) and British Malabar were not so farsighted. These regions had also witnessed similar mass movements for civic rights that revolved around the demand for entry into temples. Among the most important were agitations in 1924 for the right to walk along the roads around the Mahadeva temple in Vaikkom on the Travancore-Cochin border, in 1931 for the right to enter the Sree Krishna temple in Guruvayur, in Malabar.
After much public pressure, the Malabar Temple Entry Bill was passed by a Congress Ministry in Madras in 1938 and a 1948 proclamation by the Rajpramukh defined the temples of the region of Cochin as public places of worship "dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or any person thereof."
The Temple Entry Proclamation in Travancore and the events that led to it are today part of the history of political and social renaissance in Kerala. But less known are the rules laid down by the Travancore government that provided for "the observance and maintenance of the customs and usages relating to worship and ceremonies" and continued to specify "classes of persons who should not enter temples". Among the list of "those under pollution" were those who had recently had birth or death in their families, drunken or disorderly persons, women "at certain times", professional beggars and significantly, "persons who are not Hindus". It appears that it was from that point that a number of temples in Kerala began to insist in bold letters on boards displayed outside their temples: `Non-Hindus Not Allowed'.
For the past seven decades the restriction has been a reminder of Kerala's dark past for any visitor. But its import dawned on the people of the State on May 18, when the thantri (high priest) of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna temple ordered a punyaham (purification ritual) inside the temple after Union Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs Vayalar Ravi, his son Ravi Krishna and daughter-in-law Nisha conducted a `feeding ceremony' for his grandson before the deity, in the presence of the Devaswom authorities and in full glare of the media.
In 2000 a furore arose over a similar incident at Guruvayur. Soon after Ravi Krishna's wedding with Nisha, the couple went to pray at the temple and the then thantri, Chennas Divakaran Namboothiripad, ordered a similar purification ritual. The thantri had claimed that since Vayalar Ravi married a Roman Catholic (former Member of the Legislative Assembly Mercy Ravi), their son Ravi Krishna was not a Hindu. And, he said that if a non-Hindu entered the temple, tradition demanded a "purification ceremony". Vayalar Ravi and his family subsequently insisted that all of them were "believers of Guruvayurappan", that Ravi Krishna was "brought up as a Hindu" and all his certificates "proved" that he was a Hindu. The uproar that followed was hushed up. After May 18, thantri Chennas Raman Namboothiripad insisted that he was duty-bound to conduct the rituals in the temples as per the system inherited by him - he insisted on a punyaham because he saw "no change in the circumstances that required such a ritual".
The Guruvayur Devaswom Act 1978, which governs the administration of the temple, declares that the thantri is the final authority on "all religious, spiritual, ritual and ceremonial matters" at the temple. The punyaham, was, therefore, carried out at the behest of the thantri, despite the objections raised by the Devaswom authorities. This evoked memories of a-not-so distant past, when Kerala was the cradle of casteism, where untouchability reigned supreme, and upper castes sought "purification" rituals against perceived threats from their brethren.
Guruvayur Devaswom chairman Thotthil Raveendran told Frontline that in the light of a formal complaint by Ravi Krishna, "the Devaswom Board managing committee has decided to apologise to him, and declare that on the day of the `feeding ceremony' of his infant son, he had conducted all the rituals inside the temple as a true Hindu." He said the Board would convene a meeting of "all concerned" to reach a consensus on the "timely changes that are needed in the rules that governed temples" and ask the government to amend the Guruvayur Devaswom Act to implement the changes suggested.
The Board will also request the government to curtail the powers granted by law to the thantri in religious, spiritual, ritual and ceremonial matters at the temple, according to Raveendran. "This was the root cause of such problems. Times are changing and as an enlightened society we need to recognise the needs of the changing times. We say that all Hindus can enter the temple. But who is a Hindu? Do we define him by birth or by his faith? Several such questions need to be revisited. That is the purpose of the meeting of religious experts, political parties, priests and all others that we propose to convene," he said.
A month earlier, Kerala Minister for Devaswom, G. Sudhakaran, triggered a similar controversy when he questioned the propriety of the Guruvayur temple authorities' repeated refusal to allow the veteran playback singer K.J. Yesudas (a professed devotee of Guruvayurappan, a practising Christian and a disciple of Carnatic maestro Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar), from praying at the temple and participating in the annual Chembai Music Festival near the premises.
Widespread support
The absurdity of it all is clear from the fact that every day, foreigners, obviously non-Hindus, armed with a certificate stating that they believe in the Hindu faith that they can obtain for a small fee from the Arya Samaj in Kozhikode, are allowed into the Guruvayur temple. According to the thantri this is permitted because it was made law by the Zamorin of Kozhikode. Many non-believers frequent temples in Kerala without the knowledge of the authorities. Many temples have no such restrictions.
That the controversy has struck a chord in the State is evident from the widespread support that the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the youth wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has received for its call for a "second Guruvayur satyagraha" from June 16 against the revival of archaic rituals and customs.
DYFI national president K. Sreeramakrishnan said: "Kerala has a tradition of a very effective renaissance movement. But efforts to negate that tradition and to seek a revival in rituals are increasingly evident. That is why we see such controversies being triggered under the leadership of thantris. We cannot accept a situation where thantris alone take decisions on religious issues. They deny all the humanistic elements and values of religion and spirituality and instead deliberately focus on the ritualistic aspect of religion alone. They are trying to institutionalise religion through a complex web of rituals."
He said the DYFI considered the purification ceremony at Guruvayur a violation of Article 17 of the Constitution that abolished untouchability and made the enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability illegal. "The Devaswom authorities can register a case against non-Hindu trespassers but to conduct a purification ritual at the temple is practising untouchability," he said.
Hindu organisations and political parties including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, reacted strongly against the incidents at Guruvayur and expressed their willingness to take part in efforts to reform temple rituals. But they also stressed caution. Coordinator and former general-secretary of the Yogakshema Sabha, Sreekumar Tamarappilli, told Frontline: "We welcome the move by the Guruvayur Devaswom Board to convene a meeting of all people concerned and seek a consensus on the changes that are required in the temple rituals and traditions. It is the Sabha's stand that such changes cannot be brought about through legislation, as Devaswom Minister Sudhakaran has been suggesting. It has to be through consensus. For example, the Sabha believes that the move to curtail the powers of the thantri is one in the wrong direction. It will oppose such moves tooth and nail. But we do believe that all believers can be allowed entry into temples. But there have to be some norms to retain the sanctity of our temples. That is why a consensus is necessary."
In an article published in Mathrubhoomi, a prominent Malayalam daily, director of the Baharateeya Vichara Kendra, P. Paramesawaran, said: "What reforms are being contemplated is important. But equally important is how such reforms are carried out and who eventually will bring about such reforms. For that, a scientific, amicable and as consensual an effort as possible is required. Moreover, the measures adopted should be comprehensive. And care should be taken that the treatment is not worse than the disease."
In another article written in the context of the controversy over Yesudas, historian and Chairman of the Kerala Council for Historical Research Professor K.N. Panikkar wrote in the CPI(M) daily Desabhimani:
"Over and above the desire of Yesudas the believer or the singer, we have to take into account the basic right of Yesudas the human being. Shouldn't all human beings have the right and freedom to enter any place of worship? Anyone can enter the world's churches and mosques. Why can't this be in Hindu temples? Is this a remnant of untouchability and the concept of pollution? If so it is high time that we stopped it."
As secular Kerala understood it, the issue at stake was not the insult and hurt caused to one person or his family, not whether Ravi Krishna or Yesudas was a Hindu or not, but whether a believer, a human being, irrespective of his cast or religion, could be denied the right of entry to a place of worship. For a State that considered the principles established through its socio-political reform movements its most valuable asset, this is particularly important.
Printer friendly
page
|
