Taking the
Sabarimala temple to court for restricting the entry of women of a certain age
group is akin to meat-eaters suing vegetarian restaurants for discriminating
against non-vegetarians by refusing to serve meat. Common sense response would
be to say—‘Go find a non-veg restaurant, of which there are plenty’. Tomorrow,
self-styled, ill-informed reformers might demand that Durga-Kali worship be
stopped because it legitimizes violence or declare the worship of Shiv lingam
as “obscene.” This is not farfetched
because politically motivated groups have been decrying Durga as a whore and
Krishna as womanizer. Therefore, they
declare these deities are not worthy of reverence.
In any
civilized society, gender equality is to be treated as one of the core values.
However, with apologies to Faiz Ahmed Faiz, aur
bhi gham hein zamane mein gender equality ke siwa”. There are many more important values a democracy must
uphold while standing up for gender equality—certainly not make a fetish of women’s
rights.
Other core
values of our democracy & Indic civilization are respect for diversity
among the enormous range of communities co-habiting in India with substantial
differences (as well as commonalities) in matters of faith, cultural practices,
value systems, family structure, dress codes, food habits & ways of relating
to the world as well as the Divine. While the leftist-feminist reformers have
no difficulty in respecting the rights of ‘religious minorities”—namely Muslims
and Christians—to live by their own cherished cultural and faith traditions,
when it comes to diverse Hindu groups, they consider it their divine right to
dictate terms.
The
unique grandeur of the Hindu faith lies in the fact that each group, each sect
and each individual is free to envisage the Divine in whatever form, shape, and
temperament that devotees like. That's how we have millions of Devis and Devatas with new ones taking avatar as and when the situation so
demands or their devotees so desire. Practically every village in India has its
own gram devi or devata. Our devis and devatas are not distant, unfathomable
entities forever sitting in some distant god-land or heaven. They take avatar
on earth to offer succour & comfort to those in need. In the process each
one acquires distinct personality traits as well as preferences with regard to
mode of worship.
Take
the contrasting tastes of Ma Kali and Vaishnodevi, both of whom are
manifestations of the same Shakti.
While Vaishnodevi demands strict vegetarianism, animals are routinely sacrificed
as offerings to Ma Kali. Lord Ganesh likes modak as prasad while Hanuman ji
prefers boondi and Lord Shiva devotees offer milk and even bhang. Devotees of various deities do not begrudge the practices of
others. This freedom has kept alive vibrant diversity in our faith traditions
because they allow individuals and groups to define their relationship to the
Divine according to their preferences.
It
is the same freedom which allowed Manushi to invoke ten armed Ma Swachhnarayani, as our isht devi.She wields ten different
non-traditional weapons that include a broom as symbol of cleansing society of
corruption, weighing balance to symbolise social justice, a calculator that
demands honest accounts of government, and a video camera that points to the
need for an accurate grasp of ground realtity for those engaged in social
reform. (For Swachhnarayani aarti click here). No Hindu has ever questioned or protested against the powers we attribute to
our Isht devi or our mode of worship
that includes jhadu puja.
The
Hindu faith has thus remained amongst the most liberal in the world, with different
groups and individuals exercising the right to relate to the Divine in whatever
way they wish, without insisting that others must follow their chosen path.
Even the most conservative
among Hindus don’t insist on uniformity of beliefs and practices. This
spontaneous, mutual respect for differences in ways of being, ways of worship,
singing, dancing, clothing, cooking and so on, is what enabled the rich
diversity of India to survive through millennia. But in the name of equality
rabid feminists can’t stomach such freedom and liberalism.
Traditional Hindu
temples are run by different sects with each choosing a
particular deity in a particular form as their isht dev or devi. They’re not meant as tourist spots for all to
come & go as they please. If you don’t respect the unique temperament of
that deity or find beliefs of a particular sect offensive, you are free to opt
for the devata or devi that suits your taste. There are lakhs of others to choose from.
Just
as our colonial rulers with their faith in the superiority of their
monotheistic faith, despised Hindu religious practices, with their millions of
gods and goddesses, our modern day missionaries can’t stand the temperamental
nuances of our diverse deities. They have no problem in accepting that women
are barred inside friaries meant to house Catholic priests who have taken a vow
of celibacy. But they can’t stomach the idea of a Hindu deity who has vowed
eternal celibacy which involves avoiding the company of young women. They take
it upon themselves to cure this kink because their feminist indoctrination
interprets it as misogny and gender discrimination! They choose to ignore that it is only one or
two temples in all of India where women of certain age groups are denied entry
whereas there are several ‘women-only’ temples where males are denied entry.
As
far as the issue of gender justice is concerned, the Hindu faith can hardly be
considered anti-women, considering it is the only faith that worships the
feminine as Shakti--the mighty force that moves the universe. Male deities are
powerless without feminine Shakti
from whom various devatas derive
their strength.
When
I find the case against Sabarimala frivolous, it is not to suggest that Hindu
faith traditions are writ in stone and unchanging. Devotees reserve the right
to change their dharmic practices as
well as demand improved behavior by their chosen deities as per the
requirements of changing times. That is how we have countless re-writings of Ramayanas in different ages with each
one interpreting Ram in their own way and many even improving upon Valmiki's
depiction of Ram’s conduct in various ways, especially his abandoning Ma Sita
even after she had gone through an uncalled for agni pariksha or the deceit involved in the killing of Baliraja. But it doesn’t behove non-believers or hostile
attackers of Hindu faith to impose their fads and sensibilities on groups who
don’t share their worldview, especially if their practices don’t impact, leave
alone harm the non-devotees. A genuine
devotee has the right to demand change but not politically motivated hateful critics.
Ironically,
the flag bearers of women’s equality don’t seem to have any problem with
special compartments reserved for women in trains. Most of them insist on our parliament
enacting a law to reserve 33% constituencies for women whereby males are barred
from contesting from those seats. They’re not satisfied with laws that promise
equality. They insist on legislation that is unjustly loaded in favor of women.
You can’t have it both ways – Fetishize
equality when it suits you and insist on special concessions and previliges as
per your dictates.
It
is ironical that the Supreme Court has entertained this petition at a time when
Hindu groups are already in the Apex Court demanding that Hindu temples be
freed from statist controls whereby ruling parties in every state have the
power to appoint their political flunkeys as well as favoured bureaucrats and
politicians to Management Boards of all major shrines and dharmasthans. This power has mostly been used to control and siphon
off the enormous loads of money that devotees offer to these temples. The
government of India dare not take such liberties with running of mosques and
churches.
First posted at http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/restrictions-on-women-at-sabarimala-it-is-complicated/article19887180.ece on October 20, 2017
No comments :
Post a Comment
Comments will be moderated only to censor profanity