The imperious missionaries of liberalism have no respect for the diversity of India’s belief systems and have taken it upon themselves to reform everything they perceive as outdated and incorrect
Do we want to create a world in which everyone thinks alike? A world in which there is no space for divergence of views or foolish people? I write this after witnessing poor Rahul Easwar, one of the young hereditary priests of Sabarimala, being flagellated on television for the nth time on January 7, 2013, for allowing the presiding deity of his temple to shun the company of female devotees.
The media’s job is first and foremost to inform and not browbeat people to “reform.” TV news programmes in particular have come to resemble inquisitions or kangaroo courts with anchors and their hand-picked panellists flagellating those with politically incorrect views, issuing diktats on everything from political views to religious practices and rituals, and even the conduct of gods and goddesses.
Intolerant
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 male deity who has likewise vowed eternal celibacy avoiding the company of women. They take it upon themselves to cure this kink because in their moral universe with its borrowed vocabulary, this amounts to misogyny and gender discrimination!
Rahul Easwar has asked each television anchor who has grilled him over the years how would they deal with all those temples which only allow female devotees, where the presiding goddess forbids men’s entry. Would they likewise force “women only” temples to open their doors to men? Not one has ever condescended to answer this simple question; nor did any of the anchors tone down their aggression or hostility towards Rahul’s intelligent defence of his faith and his Ishta dev.
Following in the footsteps of our British rulers, who despite their disdain for our gods and goddesses, took away shiploads of priceless ancient idols to display as art objects in their museums and living rooms, so also our westernised elites have taken to displaying paintings, bronze and stone carved idols of diverse gods and goddesses as decoration pieces in their homes as proof of their aesthetic lifestyle. But their disdain for those who treat them as objects of worship remains as ferocious as that of our colonial rulers.
Respect for differences
If that were not the case, they would have no difficulty in appreciating that Hindu divinities are not unknowable, distant entities. They have distinct personalities, character traits, likes, dislikes. Even in matters of food, floral offerings, puja ritual, each deity has his or her preferences. If you don’t respect their unique temperaments, you are free not to worship them and choose the devata or devi that suits your taste.
Even the most illiberal among Indians do not insist on uniformity of rituals or modes of worship. They let each faith group, each sect decide for itself how to define their relationship to their chosen deity, what foods to offer her, what modes of worship they think appropriate to express their devotion and how they interpret her likes or dislikes. 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 our self-proclaimed modern liberals can’t deal with these lived forms of diversity. They can only relish in museumised versions such as folk dances on Republic Day or as consumer goods. For example, possessing a collection of Kanjeevaram, Ikat, Chanderi or Patola saris, Madhubani and Worli paintings, Moradabad brassware, wood carvings from Kashmir, Tanjore paintings, Rajasthani miniatures, etc. is a fashion statement. But the moral universe of those who create these diverse art objects is unacceptable. It is assumed that they all need a dose of reform to cleanse them of antiquated beliefs and values.
For engagement
I won’t be surprised if tomorrow someone decided to reform the food habits of our gods and goddesses saying, for example, that modak and laddoo are both high cholesterol, high calorie food items. They encourage devotees to have pot bellies. Therefore, they should be banned in favour of sugar-free diet chocolates!
It is time the imperious missionaries of “liberalism” understand that our temples are not meant to be tourist centres — where entry must be free for all. Most of our traditional temples are run by specific sects for the devotees of that particular deity. If you don’t like the values of that sect, if the preferences of that particular deity are offensive to you, just avoid going to that temple. There are lakhs of others to choose from.
If I walked into the homes of our self-appointed reformers and insisted that they change their lifestyles and food habits, I’d be shown the door and asked to mind my own business. What gives these non-believers the right to dictate to Lord Sabarimala how he should live and act in his own abode or dictate terms to harmless little sects among Hindus who prefer to indulge in the whims and wishes of their chosen deities?
Young Rahul Easwar has been pleading for respectful engagement with faith leaders in order to bring about changes in allegedly outmoded customary practices and cultural values. In the Hindu faiths, nothing is written in stone. Devotees have the right to dictate their deities to change with changing times. But they can’t be ordered around by those who only have contempt for them. They cannot be bullied into surrendering their unique
Being and become colourless and soulless robotic creatures that yield to every new wave of political fashion we import from our intellectual mentors in distant lands.
(Madhu Purnima Kishwar is founder, Manushi, and professor, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.)
Reforms are needed to suit the modern times. Good point indeed. How
about uniform civil code and abolition of polygamy among the entire
population? But, then the liberal intellectuals will run and hide under
the cloak of secularism!
It is a timely and beautifully written article. Ms Madhu Purnima has
brought out her argument very clearly. She has come out in support of
the need to understand and permit the diversity in Hinduism and, at the
same time, avoiding leaning towards right wing ideology. Thanks to The
Hindu for printing such an article.
Very thought provoking.If we do not like something we must not ban it just for the sake of modernity.All kinds of opinions and traditions will have to be included in our society if we call ourselves democratic.
And so called modern,open minded and educated people should learn to respect everyone's view even if he or she takes it as backwardness.
Excellent article, very thought provoking and real fact about so called "secular-liberal" hindus.
It's heartening to read Ms Madhu Purnima's views on the need to understand and permit the diversity in Indian religious practices. She has beautifully highlighted the overzealous and insensitive attitude of some of the so-called modern and liberal thinkers who have taken it on themselves to reform everything in existing systems; not taking any sincere efforts, at the first hand, to understand the complexity and innate diversity of the various Hindu sects.
Timely reforms are essential for any religion and they, verily, have been part of existing religions worldwide- from Martin Luther in Europe to Vivekananda and Gandhi in India, just to name a few. Bullying and coercion, as being done with Rahul Easwar and his like on public forums these days, only builds up contempt and strife in society. Religious reforms, if necessary, have to be carried out in a more sensible manner.
Am I reading The Hindu!!!!!! Surprise
If the temple authorities have a right to follow a tradition because they think it's what the deities want, they are free to do so. But if there are devotees, female or those born into other religions, who feel excluded due to the bar on their entry into temples, they are free to protest, question and try to change the minds of temple authorities. The author has even conceded this at the end. It's nice that she's defending the freedom of people to worship as they choose, but why does she give into anger and accuse dissenters of being influenced by the West, colonialism, being imperious and browbeaters? Giving respect does not equal unquestioning acceptance.
There is no point of not concurring to the author's views. Let me give a simple example - Karva Chauth , a very popular Hindu tradition. Does anyone question , why should women only fast on that day .. Their counterparts should also be doing the same. Answer is NO because this has been the tradition and every religion / sect has its own set of principles which its devotees are more than gratified to follow. Similarly the case mentioned in the passage also points the same fact and that is it their tradition not to allow women in the temples which must have some historic reason . So in case someone does not like their tradition , then don't follow it. Few can argue against me citing gender discrimination as an argument but remember we have a festival in Haryana where women beat up the males with sticks as part of the celebration acts. No one ever questions that right ? And why should we because that is their tradition and they like to follow it . Period !!
The concept of biased, discriminatory and intolerant God makes me remind
of what a philosopher said earlier..
I dont know whether God exists or not.. But it would be good for His
reputation if He dont!!! "
Till a few decades back, Dalits were not allowed into most temples in
this part of India. The author's logic seems to justify that! How
about the practice of separate tumblers for Dalits, and separate wells
for fetching water? To say that the Dalits should go to some other tea
shop or public well would be ludicrous, appalling and even criminal. A
whole lot of demeaning practices like untouchability, apartheid could
be justified, if the likes of the author have their way. It is
disappointing that such opinions even find acceptance among a
significant number of people. And to all those who say the author has
voiced the view of "hundreds of millions of Indians", please don't
grand-stand for "Millions of Indians" to propagate your retrograde
views. You don't represent me.
What the author completely misses is that the central premise of Hinduism is that everything is open to questioning and debate, so if a priest is unable to defend his stand when people question him, then, as a proper Hindu, he is expected to either change his stand or set himself on fire (or at least step down from his post if he is a little less traditional). Also, the author repeatedly talks of 'morals' with regard to Hinduism which clearly shows the very western influence on his/her ideas (morals = rules = black&white = western concept; shades of grey (not that horrid
book) = think for yourself = eastern concept).
Simple and succinct article. Indian temples are a microcosm of india's cultural
sophistication. Most of our temples have had very liberal outlook on gender since yore. But
some temples like sabarimala are an exception and the sthala puranam of the temple will
help appreciate the unique practices - Presiding deity Lord Iyyappa symbolizes the vow of
celibacy to be undertaken by men.
Why are some ridiculous people on this forum talking about untouchability when the writer is talking about the cultural diversity of the temples?? Untouchability is a abominable social practice that has been eradicated . And is unconnected with what the writer is talking about.Some hyperbolic leftist take secularism to mean that state can interfere in religious affairs even while maintaining that religion cannot interfere in state and political affairs.
A very good article. We don't hear of anyone complaining about the separate prayer spaces for men and women in mosques, or that women are not allowed to become priests in churches, or that women are not allowed to enter a gurudwara without covering their heads. Everyone only seems to have an issue with the way hindu practices are followed. As the author said, if one doesn't like the way a particular temple is being run, choose another one.
There is another reason why women are not allowed into Sabarimala, if only people used their sense to understand it. Going to Sabarimala takes a long time, and women can be in their menstrual cycle then. It is not advised to be in such crowded places at that time as it is not hygenic or safe.
After coming out praising Narendra Modi, Madhu Kishwar has now thought fit to write in support of an anti-women temple. While I celebrate India's diversity as much as anyone else, exclucivism that keeps women or men or Dalits or Muslims out from this or that venue is not the kind of "diversity" I want to see upheld.
I have seen that many people have not understood the author correctly. The issue
here is of freedom & choice. More importantly the freedom to disagree. The temple
is NOT a government institution and does NOTuse public money. It temple board
mainly manages the donations from the devotees.
The main duty of the temple board is to maintain the traditions & routines of the
temple and not to cater to the whims and fancies of the public. Tomorrow the news
channels may start demanding that it is discriminatory to only ask men to dress in
black clothes and take a vratham for 41 days. It should be a free for all. Will we
listen to that also??
Lord Ayyappa is known for his celibacy. Based on this belief only,ban
on entry of young women is imposed.There is nothing
discriminatory.There are so many places where we can fight for equal
rights.Leave alone Sabarimala.
Democracy promises its citizens right to practice their form of religion. The author is write in pointing that out. A mere prayer in a temple limited to only favored men in no way constricts rights of others. The thought that only male can offer prayers seems a archaic practice in today's world. But the temple doesn't preach that males only have the sole right to offer prayer in the society. Nor does it preach its visitors that women at their homes shouldn't be allowed to pray. So to say the temple is trampling on someone's rights is the imposition of a view of liberals on them and not vice-versa.
About the unbalanced views on tv shows. Temple has no argument there. Anchors are free to put forth their views and what they perceive as archaic. Untill liberals are not powered by laws of the state to abandon the practice, apart from a request to make the tv show more balanced, temple authorities need to look the other way.
Let us not waste our time in arguments for or against. God is every where with every one of us. Let us try to see him in ourselves and see him every where and Love all. As the Great Ramana Maharish has said that "who are we to say right or wrong".
"Madhu Kishwar is the founder of Manushi Sangathan, an organisation committed to strengthening democratic rights and women’s rights in India" quotes CSDS. Apart from that the founder of Manushi and her team's efforts in carving out a place for hawkers in Delhi is exemplary. I have not watched the TV episode and I ignore all the religions. Sabarimala deveasthanam cheats the pilgrims by conducting Makara Jothi which is a manmade drama. All the prominent temples in India accept money, gold, diamonds from any bootlegger, blackmarketer, human trafficker, murderer and politicians are given the best attention. I am so disgusted with the way the Gods have been taken away from us and the little piety of seeking solace from a saviour from the misfortunes of existence is shattered (for us). I beg to differ with the author as far as this article is concerned.
Ma'am, while I appreciate your view that diversity of Indian traditions must be upheld and appreciated, we often see that traditions and even entire cultures can at a given point in time prove to be detrimental to society and even counter-evolutionary. In a religious context and a religious debate, perhaps in 1600s a
tradition or a religious belief such as one exhibited by the priest or
in your article would hardly be ill placed or frowned upon. However,
in today's society and especially in a context where religion starts
to affect society detrimentally; the priest received his due, nothing
more, nothing less.
If certain traditions, cultures and religious sentiments are contrary
to the benefit of social progress, then yes, those traditions deserve
to be eradicated. It is not merely a choice between diversity and
social progress, it is a choice between decadence and evolution.
Is this what true Hinduism is about? Is this what diversity is about,
that a deity who is celibate has the right to "shun" women? Really!
And who speaks for the deity? Is Ayyapan Ayappan or Brahman? What does
the "celibacy" of a deity really mean? Does the sex of a deity really
represent human gender? Is there a gender for God? And why would any
God who is supposedly the creator of everyone state a preference for
some over the other? Does the fact that someone has a blog in a
national newspaper mean that this person's views are correct or should
be taken seriously? These are the real questions we should be asking.
The author fails to identify that reforms are suggested when certain
practices are considered discriminatory. Moreover, she rests her
arguments on several logically wrong premises. Television anchors
generally play devil's advocates and question the status-quo. They
argue for reforms in other religions also, as in the recent Irish
abortion case. We can take up the issue of not admitting men to
certain temples if men consider it discriminatory. And catholic
friaries are private residences, not public places of worship. Even
Catholic Church has amended its customs to allow ordaining of women as
priests. If we try to extend this argument, we will find ourselves
justifying untouchability and apartheid. Like, Gandhi could have
travelled in another coach in that South African train. And Dalits can
build their own temples if they want to worship. Sounds similar? The
food habits of gods have already been questioned by the movie Oh My
God.
The article fails to see the distinction between a public building
controlled by the government and a private building. We live in a
country that provides freedom of movement. This freedom is unlimited
unless it is specifically restricted for reasonable purposes. In this
specific instance the temple is a government run building using public
money. Superstitions apart, I don't see any rational reason why a
citizen should be denied the right to enter the place. The specific
building by the virtue of being a public building enjoys certain
privileges like its presence in a wildlife sanctuary, police
protection etc., Even when a public building is not owned by the state
it enjoys certain privileges by the virtue of being a public building.
The onus is on the authority to prove rationally why a particular
section of the population is not allowed entry despite enjoying the
perks of a public building. The fundamental rights guaranteed by the
constitution are primary and not superstitions.
The movement for the abolishment of untouchability was centred around
the right of dalits to enter temples, like that of Travancore, where
they were banned from doing so. The movement for Temple entry began
not out of fashion but the proclamation of dignity for the most
exploited lot in our society. Ambedkar, Gandhi, all our great leaders
were proponents of these movements. Going by Miss Kishwar's logic
though, it never should have happened, after all what can we do if
some deities only prefer the 'elite' company of higher castes.
Women throughout history have been just as exploited as the dalits.
Miss Kishwar seems utterly incapable of understanding the subtleties
of symbolism.
I do not agree with author. Simple because I am not the guest in Temple but I am host. Author is playing with words by making every one as guest in temple and hence not have any say in the matter.
Who told priest that this is the will of god not to allow women’s entry in the temple....GOD himself in the ears of priest?
This is age old tactics of such people to discriminate. One day priest will say that no backward class person should be allowed entry in temple. ..Are we going to abide by this suggestion???
What I am really fail to understand is that how come god who loves all, even animals can discriminate against women only??
Is god so fragile that even sight of women will pollute him?
Is this the will power of our GOD?
Is this particular god avoided his mother or sister etc in his own lifetime??
Answer is that I do not even consider GOD as GOD if he is weak.
A well written article. Someone has mentioned that Hinduism needs
reforms. Certainly yes. But, are these TV Anchors the reformers? Most
certainly not!
Reform is a continuous process. Hinduism is the only religion which
has an in built corrective mechanism, a scope for reforms. If we look
at history, we can cite many examples.
@Venky Swaminathan: You don't have the right to question what others think and do, believers are most welcome and non believers can find something of their choice . Nobody and nothing allows you to do that, if you don't like anything then get lost. like the heading says if you don't like find something else if you have guts and gumption then create your own and make it similarly or more acceptable. But it is not easy to create, it easy to destroy and exploit. Free speech, Free thoughts, liberty, non-discrimination, peace, liberalism, secularism, accepting diverse thought processes, accommodating people different from self are some traits exported from Bharat to distant lands, which are now being imported back to India without any value addition.
And take my word Indian society may be materially poor but no society is more developed, liberal and modern in all aspects than the India Society.
I fully agree with the author.Different sect have different views,
custom, practices.If you do not agree to ply with them, please do not
follow the sect.As long as fundamental rights are not being violated, I
do not see any problem with the rules of a sect.After all,we take pride
in calling ourselves a multicultural , plural society and rightly so.
An article good and bad at the same time. On one hand where the
article upholds freedom of the followers of the faith to maintain
their identity, this article also reinforces age old ritualistic noose
which we put our necks into and gave its end to the priests.
The political, social and economic authority priests got by telling
the 'importance' of high level of Tantric rituals which is shunned
even within India was huge. By telling that 'how difficult it is to
please the deity' they grew like a moss on the system. They become the
dictators of our spiritual and social life. This control they have got
is not by preaching good for us, or by running institutions which
improve human life, but just by doing hand gimmicks before deity idol.
This very political process has made Kerala's temples highly
ritualistic and less spiritual places. Hence any move which removes
their overt dependency on the tantricism should be encouraged even if
it is coming from others. Thus is my opinion.
This article has been written very well and has hit the nail on the head. I was reading through the comments and particularly liked P Rajeswaran's comment about him not preparing or serving meat to guests at home. Yes when we as guests go to somebody's house - we need to respect the norms and culture of that house. In my case - we prepare meat at home and consider it good hospitality to serve meat to our guests. We have some religious sacraments where we consecrate meat and serve it to God. Differences have to be respected. Hinduism is one religion which is full of contradictions - and that is good. One needs to respect this and accept it for what it is ..rather than bringing in a 'norm' or a 'universalization' or religion. While the temple of Lord Ranganatha in SriRangam would not have any meat or anything to do with it within the temple - or anywhere near the temple :the temple of Devi in Kamakhya Assam would necessary need to have a number of animals sacrificed daily.
I completely agree with author. TV anchors and newspaper editors push their individual opinion on people.They are journalist but they behave
as if they are experts in all fields like foreign
affairs,defence,economy and culture.
I don't totally agree with the author's views. If people refused to question temple governance, then today Hindus of certain castes would not have won the right to enter or worship inside temples. Untouchability would never have been abolished. But yes, she has very pointed out the choice and freedom that Hindu religion offers to its followers. If you don't wish to pray to a certain God/Goddess, then choose another. If you don't wish to follow a certain ritual or festival, it does not mean you are less of a Hindu or you stand to win the Gods' wrath. That, in essence, is the beauty of the Hindu religion. This does not mean that Hindus should stop questioning many of the outdated practices followed in temples.
The author had subtly but effectively communicated what was to be said to those
obsessional varity of believers and, the so called, liberal thinkers! Her humorous presentation
has an underlying quality of seriousness for the subject she had taken an issue with.
Hopefully, it will get the onetrack minded missionaries to take a look at themselves, if at all
that is possible!?
TV anchors are wrong. Agreed. Not only in this affair. But in all
cases. But that does not mean there should be no reform in Hinduism.
Adi Shankara, Madhvacharya, Sri Ramanuja were all great social and
religious reformers (revolutionaries to some extant) who changed the
way temples are built and worshiped. By just following age old
principles we are losing the only one thing which has helped Hinduism
from destruction for more than 3000 years that is adaptation and
evolution. Dalit entry to Hindu temples and their integration to
society would not have happened if such reforms did not occur. I agree
with the author that TV shows should not become kangaroo courts. But I
do not agree that we should blindly accept anything without
questioning. In the end I need tolerance to accept faith or other
people even if I may not agree.
To have strength to change what is changeable.
To have will to accept and tolerate what is not changeable.
Finally to have WISDOM to know the difference between them.
From my perspective, it is the first article that even dared to look
deep into the hypocrisy of our self-appointed modern elites who,
unfortunately, are the reason for the many problems the world is facing
because of their gullibility for manufactured "truth".
After looking many years, I have already lost hope the humans are going
to become any wiser... So I believe the author should too...
Gender discrimination in any form in a public place is not
acceptable in a progressive society. The important point is whether
the concerned place of worship is a public place in the sense it
accepts funds from the State for its maintenance. If the State
provides subsidy, by implication everyone contributes to its
maintenance by way of taxes paid, both men and women. And those
running these temples have no right to prevent any taxpayer from
entering its premises.
If any organisation wants to run its religious place according to
their norms - temple, church ... - they can do so as long as it is
fully privately owned and funded by its devotees. If you take the
taxpayer's money, every taxpayer has a right to these premises.
Brilliant Article! Those who are proud to be liberals must understand one
small truth. With freedom comes responsibility. India achieved freedom,
but Indians never were responsible in building a nation, the result of
which is the chaos we see in this country today. When freedom of anything
exceeds limits, it is and must be rationalized and contained. Otherwise,
there is hardly any difference between humans and animals. Power and
Freedom have corrupted the media equally and sensationalism is the order
of the day. I have stopped watching any debates on television these days,
because it reflects the sheer arrogance of the anchors. The debates are
driven by them and they tend to drive the debate in a way that suits
their political agenda the best. And by the way, they aren't any epitomes
of morals. Did we forget the episode of a popular TV anchor involved in
lobbying?
The lack of respect for the various practices in our Society stems from ignorance rather than informed dissent. I would agree with the media that merely following rituals for the sake of following it is wrong. However, the media is failing in its duty to actually reswarch the reasons behind these practices that they find offensiove, the pros and cons of follwoing it and leave it to the people to decide if they agree or not. Merely imposing one's view without actually knowing the origin, meaning and reasons for these religious and social practices is wrong.
Excellent article!! I totally agree with Madhu Kishwar on this. it's a befitting reply to all the self-appointed 'western' neo-liberal reformers roaming in India.
Umm.. what is the purpose & meaning of this article? It is as abstract as religion itself. To me it just seems a vehicle to promote some Rahul Easwar as a new-age Hindu evangelist.
Seems to be more on a defensive footing. In a world of 21st century,
it is impossible that people will not question, discuss, debate each
other. For a society to progress, every one should participate in
discussing and questioning the authenticity of present rituals customs
and social mores. This is necessary, so that we can keep adapting to
the changing world. On the other hand, it would do 10,000 times good
if the believers could understand the scientific reasons behind
religion.
One simple example: Indians some times eat on a banana leaf. Some modernists would call it silly, outdated and lame. Why not rationalize and explain the reason, why the system of eating on banana leaf begin in the first place?
Simple. Source Quora- a Q& Site
1. It is one of the most eco-friendly, disposable food serving
systems. Helps Fights cancer and Parkinson.
Will debates arise? No
'The Hindu' has done well to have published this opinion from Madhu P Kishwar, encouraging input from all sides.
The young Sabarimala priest Rahul Eshwar has no authority to decide on allowing entry of women into the temple. Only the Devasthanam Board can do that, if at all they have a Divine sanction to do so!
Liberal, secular TV anchors have to create business by initiating dialogue on such controversies. Are they really concerned about such rules?
I eat meat when I go out, wherever i feel that the meat is prepared well. But I do not offer meat to anyone who visits my house - even if that person has offered it to me at his abode! That is the rule of my house and kitchen! My guest and myself have to abide by that law. It has got nothing to do with right or wrong.
The beauty of secularism is in understanding and accepting such beliefs just 'as they are'. True secularists do not ridicule; they just try to make other see 'reason'.
Owners of a premise decides who is allowed in.
I completely agree with Authors view point. I don't see how not allowing
women into a temple(modeled on the lines of celibacy)is a gender bias.
Madhuji, you gave a whole new perspective. You injected life to our
practices where gods and goddesses are living and they have a right to
live the way they want to. Ofcourse, it is decided by the priest of the
temple. May be the original sadhaka had a vision how his / her istadeva
wants to live. This is so beautiful. Thank you.
What is said in this article about the TV news channels is true. Yes, they are unidirectional in proclaiming their righteousness, not just about religious matters, they do this pretty much about everything.
But the news channels are in noway representative of the 'modern liberals' the author is talking about. The rest of the article tries to paint a picture as if the non-believers want to enforce their way down the throat of the believers. The exact opposite of which is what takes place. Ever heard/seen non-believers constructing equivalents of churches/temples and broadcasting their 'sermons' through loud speakers, illegally long after the permitted hours? Yet this is what every religion does, in every possible way, invading our space, screaming at us what we should believe. Its the religious who cant keep their ways to themselves, they wont be happy until all believe as they do. The author ignores this point.
All we ask is - leave us alone, religion is incapable of doing this.
I wonder sometime that what is actually gender discrimination is, you are a girl and I am a boy is a fact not gender discrimination. Some temples allows everyone to offer prayer, some allow only Men and some only women, its there rule not a discrimination. We entered the modern world started criticizing almost everything. Lets look at a example There is a cult of sahdus who shed clothes and become a naga sadhu, but it is forbidden for women not because they discriminated but because they cared. Same way it could be any possible reason ( may be the deity forbids it or some historic event that led to these rules ). and if so we can't temper the rules, cause neither we can change the deities wish nor the historic event. But "these great thinker misses these part and tell people what they want to listen".
Good Article Purnima ji
For someone (claiming to be an atheist) I would like to bring this to his notice that the tolerant Indian society of today that he is seeing is in itself the manifestation of the beliefs on the Gods and Gurus. You won't see a monotheistic religion(except for Vedic monotheism which has an entirely different outlook for the almighty) as much tolerant (not even Christianity).
I havent previously seen such a regressive article in The Hindu. Not just regressive, the author seems very confused. At one time in the article she shuns 'reform' and 'reformists' but later he admits that 'nothing is written in stone.' The author tries hard to appear objective but it seems that she has written this article in a fit of emotion. The author is forgetting that the aim of all religions in the world is also to provide knowledge and enlightenment. Progress comes through knowledge, enlightenment and change. But if we do not change with new scientific knowledge our culture would become just like a pool of still water which breeds harmful bacteria and starts emiting foul smell. Just because several people have been following some traditions for ages doesn't mean that they have to be followed for eternity. Changing our orthodox religious practices with help of scientific insight will ensure a better world for everybody.
Brilliant! At last one from the other side - the 'foolish' 'stone age'
side. Its simple live and let live. I think this is a cliched argument.
In the same state where Sri Ayappa resides, there resides Attukal Amma
who like women cooking for her and not men. Let the devotees pray as
they like. I am not going into any argument of pseudo intellectuals or
liberals etc.
As an atheist all I can ask is: despite the thousands of gods and gurus, what has it done for India?
That is an excellent article!! This is by far one of the best and hard-hitting articles I have read in 'The Hindu'! A much needed one in today's world where people have suddenly shed their multiple generations-running religious beliefs and, as the writer pointed out, the so-called should avoid going to that temple if they had different opinions. As a hindu, I have the freedom to visit any Hindu Temple but still perform poojas and rituals in a way that is prescribed there and is being done for ages. All Hindus would agree to this. But, if the non-believers who "stopped" believing in gods and goddesses themselves force others to do so, that is also a violation of a fundamental right. Ten to twenty years ago, whatever we did as a normal practice is looked down upon as being "oldfashioned, outdated, etc.". If they want, let the non-believers avoid that route just as they wouldn't want to be advised. The current generation fashionists and TV are the worst culprits today.
What nonsense! Just because this reporter chooses to live with a belief system 2000 thousand years old, does not mean we have to! or should!
Understand this; prior to the last 5o years, the majority of people in the world were illiterate, uneducated and primitive. Their fear of death, and inability to comprehend the meaning of life and purpose, forced them into creating fantasy beings (which they called gods or whatever nonsense!). In all other spears of human endeavor, technology, reform and renaissance has taken place, and ensured that mankind has been able to overcome and surpass both their own and natures ability!
That is a fact whether you choose to believe of not!
What has religion ever provided, except for so the called solace during a time of crisis (which often is linked to the fear of death). And some festivals which have no bearing or meaning in the modern world and yet people around the world
continue to follow like mindless zombies. No Thank you!!!
For the record, I am a member of the so called missionary of liberals and I am proud of it. I question the moral superiority of not questioning the very idea of changing traditional customs and belief systems under the threat of diversity. I accept the moral universe of the diverse art creators, but I want them to have a window into modern beliefs and value systems of equality and non- discrimination. The author seem to want to rob them of such opportunities by shutting down the debate.
Free speech, liberty and non-discrimination are the import of intellectual mentors from distant lands. They are the foundations on which great cultures and free societies are built on. Whenever such rights are exercised, the self appointed defenders of traditional beliefs conveniently raise the threat of western influence as their defense.
Finally, A group of people who control a temple, have no right to stop me from worshiping my favorite God. I reject their moral universe.
This article is truly a need of the hour. Aptly said, all the so called self-imposed reformers must look into their own business than pinpointing on age-old cultures and beliefs. If they are so passionate to reform, we shall ask them to create one new rule which would be followed by many, at least for a day.
Very good article. Indeed, this hypocrisy should stop. Moral values, and certain practices being applicable only to a particular gender exist in all religions.
India being a multi-ethnic country, we should learn to respect each other's religions and live in harmony.
The ruthless destruction of temples by Mughals (in the past), and the (current) vilification of Islam by the West should stop.
Other thatn that, the article was very well writtne, with funny examples too!
"If you don’t like the values of that sect, if the preferences of that
particular deity are offensive to you, just avoid going to that
temple." Similarly, if the author does not like the criticism of the
discrimination in Sabarimala and other temples like it, she too can look the other way. After all, the government isn't forcing Sabarimala and its trustees to comply with existing laws that prohibit tax-exempt organisations from discriminatory practices; it merely looks the other way in the interest of political gains, so that everything in Sabarimala is still the way it was before. Instead of recognising the
power of the media's criticism to start the long conversation about what kind of society we want to live in, the author relies on the mutual respect of tradition as the answer to everything. Respecting every nonsensical tradition would take us back to the dark ages where we'd rely on priests and certain self-appointed "holy men" to interpret the divine nature to us lowly beings.
Excellent article which brings out the hypocrisy of the liberals. Liberals say they are for freedom, but the freedom is only for things which suit their way of life and their viewpoints and anything which is different is bad in their opinion. The adage of agree to disagree or unity in diversity does not apply to them.
Well said! Hinduism is akin to democracy - the right to choose your God and stick with him/
her. Forcing people to change their beliefs in the name of reform is simply politics. As it is, in
this day and age the attacks from the left and the center have had a telling effect. Let Lord
ayyappa and his devotees be, and find your own.
There is the prayer of each and every women from whose family , men
leave their homes toward pilgrimage towards Sabarimala. Without that its difficult to complete the pilgrimage. The depth of prayer done by the women folks praying Lord Ayyappa further motivates the men to follow the traditions with utmost devotion and commitment.Arguments are not the way to realize our Sanatana Dharma. Those opposing the diverse things in our culture need to realize on their own, the real ultimatum . Lets hope they realize in a more appropriate and patient way.
Greetings to you :) Thanks for this wonderful article.
Article echoes the views of Swami Vivekananda on Rituals. The article can also be considered as a tribute to Swamji on his 150th birthday.
I could not agree more with the views put forward in the article.The
rigidity of the 'liberals' in India keeps them blind to the varied
realities of diverse Indianness. Not only has this been demonstrated
in this particular case but in most other cases too where our cultural
and religious traditions are perceived to be not in consonance with
the so called modern viewpoints. And the irony is that the judgements
are passed by these self proclaimed intellectual liberals even without
allowing the other side of the arguments to be put forward. Hinduism
allows every individual to have his own personalized notion of God and
Godliness and the relation with the God is very personal too. The real
freedom and equality has been provided by giving this option to choose
your own God.
The one thing that makes me respect my religion is that it allows us to choose. We are free to choose even the time and place of worship . We do have a variety of god or goddesses from which we can choose according to our character and likes. Also I agree that our temple is not a tourist place, it should be seen as a place to be one with the universe. So maintaining some basic regulations to keep its serenity. As a female devotee I have visited sabarimala when i was a kid, its a beautiful place and would like to visit there again. But I do respect the fact of not allowing young females in there. But all of us take great care and do it with maximum devotion when our family members take the vritham for visiting sabarimala. I don't thing any women who believe in any god would like to break the rule and visit there. Lord Ayyapan is not only at sabarimala there are so many places where we can pray to him. So why should we fight. Fight for justice for women not for political games.
At long last I find one sane article that defines Hindu religious
diversity, as defined in Sanatana Dharma, as the correct definition.
When will so called 'educated' Hindus understand that they are toeing
the line of colonial masters still? The diversity that we have is in
built in our philosophy, and it is a treasure that Christians and Muslims are trying hard to acquire and explain as their own thought to the world. I live in San Francisco, and find this example all around >me. Abrahamic religions have perforce to rely on one book, one son of God and a coterie which explains what the prophet said. None else is allowed to question what this coterie deciphers as the intent of the
'book'. The elegance of Hinduism, the oldest and most democratic of all religions is that we allow independent thinking, evaluation and paths to eternal truth or Brahman. If a section of people want to pray in a particular way, so be it! It is an enlightened piece; all should agree.
Thank you, Madhu Purnimaji!
This is my first comment on any Hindu article, however i have been
reading Hindu since many years. I endorse the writer for his extra
ordinary article about this subject which has been ignored by media.
Thanks you.
The writer is right in pointing out that followers of any faith are
well within their rights to worship any deity of their choice; people
who disagree are free to choose otherwise. As an atheist, I would
surely like to see this world free of all religions and the beliefs
religions make people follow blindly, but would ultimately leave it to
the wisdom of an individual to make that choice.
Interestingly, in pointing to the increasing menace of TV news shows
turning into kangaroo courts, where the anchor acts as the prosecution
as well as dispenses instant justice, the writer has unwittingly
highlighted a very dangerous and disturbing trend, which if not curbed
and contained soon, will turn into a uncontrollable monster.
I am a little surprised that The Hindu has devoted so much space to
this article, which is high on emotion, but low on content.
A very fine article...well thought out and very well articulated.
That Hinduism means 'local' customs and traditions belonging to
'local' people often escapes the liberal lot who want to straight
jacket every belief system in their own godless image.
It is my firm belief that, as long as the practice of religion doesn't
infringe secular laws or discriminate against anyone or inflict harm
on any individual or community, it is best left to its own devices.
I write this as a non-practicing Hindu who very firmly believes in
evolution and in the fallibility of belief systems including the one I
was born into.
An excellent response to the so called "intellects" whose only agenda is to reform India according to their whims and fancies and am happy to see "The Hindu" (which has been our "family newspaper" for decades) publish it.
We who want women to be treated at par with men in this country will accept the argument that it is the will of the deity when that proclamation comes from the deity, not a group of regressive fanatics who seek to impose their outmoded, patriarchal view of society in the name of god.
Ms. Kishwar may believe that democracy, egalitarianism, liberalism and secularism are Western imports, but then she would be ignoring the rich history of these traditions in India and ceding to the West an unearned credit. It seems that her best argument against adopting them is a Not Invented Here syndrome, which hints at a value system that prizes origin over utility.
The lord of Sabarimala if he really exists certainly does not approve
of gender based entry restrictions being enforced by the likes of Rahul Easwar and supported by likes of Madhu kishwar just because it is criticized by westerners and liberals. Is it her case that protesting against untouchability and the abominable practice of lower caste people rolling over left over food is also wrong as it has sanction from Manu and it is also criticized by westerners and liberals? I remember Madhu kishwar finding fault with those protesting the burning of Roop kanwar in Rajasthan during 80s by advancing similar arguments in the pages of The Hindu. Practice of gender discrimination is introduced by misogynist minded priests at some point of time in the history. As such it deserves to be condemned.
Awesome article. points well made!
An excellent riposte to all the self-proclaimed "intellectuals" and "reformists". A liberal dousing of "live and let live" and "each to their own" is required for all these leftist so called "intellectuals" who have a misnomer called "liberals". If any cultural or religious reforms are required, which by the way Hinduism is already familiary with, it will come from within the believers, not these moronic usurpers who do not have any right to represent any sect or group.
Finally a sensible article in the cacophony of liberalism - which is selectively directed only towards Hinduism..
None of these liberals have the courage to touch Islam or Christianity with a pole. They should read more of Devdutta Patnaik - his books shed light on the significance, utility and place of rituals in worship, something which are always criticised as mundane & obsolete.
Thank you Madhu Purnima Kishwar! The blatant willingness of the Indian "politically aware" middle class to be hijacked by fashionable causes is nothing short of treachery. It reeks of intellectual and spiritual refusal of growth. Thank you for exposing this!
Very well written article and the author is clearly very explicit about her views on so called 'neo liberals'. As much as one would like to appreciate the freedom to be able to choose and live with the belief/faith that we would want to, a lot of concern expressed by so called 'neo liberals' as mentioned by the author regarding their frustration with ritualistic practices is not really an imposition of thier views on the faithful. It is a serious attempt to protest against social injustices eroding sense of equality amongst all humans that arise due to such practices as much as the author is attempting to do the same with 'neo-liberals'. I also do not think that such 'neo liberals' borrow thier ideas from the so called 'western elite' as these 'liberal thoughts' has always co existed for centuries in india, rise of budhism and jainism being classic and well known examples.
The contempt that monotheistic organised religions,’ want to be politically correct' Leftists and 'Western' Liberals towards Indian (indigenous) belief systems is very well known. Kudos to the author for putting it succinctly in the context of Liberals despite the dangers of being BRANDED.
It is high time that we differentiate between what takes it to be MORDERN and what to be WESTERN. We are seriously confusing between the two are ending up as a 'half-baked' western society.
Today we need to set our own standards when looking at our social systems rather than taking up WEST or even more dangerous and intolerant OCCIDENTAL CULTURAL STANDARDS.
Wow! You have indeed opened my eyes. I shall never look at these customs
as arcane and exclusive again! I hope some of the obnoxiously persuasive
news anchors read this!
A very refreshing and re-assuring article and flow of thought! My hearty
words of appreciation to both the author and the newspaper!
Awesome article!!! To all those who treat this restriction of women to enter the temple as misogyny are utterly foolish. When you are worshiping the deity who is known for celibacy why should women be allowed( actually premenarchal and post menopausal women are allowed). As there are festivals celebrating the fertility of women this is the opposite where celibacy is celeberated. To look at with modern views of equality displays only an utter lack of understanding of the faith. Time the modern liberal arm chair critics who speak of this as gender discrimination to be taken to task. Diversity of thought is the basis of hindu religion and anyone who cannot understand is to be pitied as they do not experience the spirtual beauty of this religion.
I agree with ms.kishwar.I am a practising Hindu , and have a label of feminist on my forehead.When I myself can have so much of contradiction what are we talking of practices that we hardly get a grip of.?
I think the media would shut their mouth if they are aware of folk lore,that says lord ayyappan is actually a deity worshipped by the adivasis people.I guess these ,'intellectual 'exercises happen thinking everything relating to Hinduism is "aryan" influence...
Very good column. Brings some balance to the whole debate at a time when
the main stream media is trying hard to impose its own world view on the
rest of the country.
The approach of the so called reformists is wrong. They need to learn a lesson from Sree Narayanan Guru. He created a new temple of Shiva and answered the critics, who said that he is not entitled to do so as he is not a brahmin, by saying that his is an izhava shiva (he was from izhava community). Probably they should create a new Ayyappa temple where the priest is a woman and any one can enter - a woman's Ayyappa
nicely argued madam the point is that modern so called liberals are
taught or have opted for some unwanted unreasonble grounds not to be
balanced/unbaised.Modern liberals are inclined to not accepting
negating/squashing whatever broadened Hindu perspective encompassing
the world together for upliftment of human mind endorses Let us
request all of them to read more of Swami Vivekanandji during his 150
birth anniversary jan2013 to jan-2014 Let them sowing seeds of
goodness in them with the help of Swamiji.Westeners had loudly
confessed that it is foolish to teach christanity to indians. Awaiting
a tomorrow that lights sensible transformation in modern liberals
The statement 'But they can’t be ordered around by those who only have contempt for them.' is very true. I cannot be ordered by anyone to go to one temple and not to another. Hinduism does not require an intermediary to relate with the Almighty. But what will deter me from going to the famous places of worship like Varnasi, Allahabad, Puri, Gaya to name a few is the money-hungry pandas who will drive one away from Hinduism in short notice. We don't require other relegions to challenge the exitence of Hinduism, the priests and minor functionaries at these place are lending a helping hand to drive Hindus away from their chosen method of prayer.
"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." This article.
Hundreds of Gods and Goddesses and their worships have kept India deeply conservative religious land. All the attendant superstitions and the discrimination of caste keep India barely SURVIVING in the early 21st century. How are we going to SUCCEED in this new millennia? That's what the modern liberal thinking is asking, if the author can understand it right! Most of the Christian world has moved away from celebrating the birth of Jesus into talk about Santa Claus on the Christmas Day! Tangible positive changes are happening all around us, except in India!
Appalling piece.
The demand for reform within Hinduism comes internally, from Hindus and not just "left-liberal" whatnots. For example, the ban on women entering the Kumaraswamy temple was lifted as part of a sustained campaign by and among Hindus. The ban is basically because women menstruate and are therefore "unclean" for holy purposes. Likewise Dalits were banned from temples because they were considered "unclean". How can one justify one ban without automatically approving of the other?
But this is not a piece about Hinduism but an excuse for Madhu Kishwar to pour bile on the rudeness of "left-liberals". It reeks of double
standards and every kind of hypocrisy imaginable.
What you have said, makes sense. Very good article
excellent, well-reasoned, cogently-argued article.
i feel, for the first time in a long time, appreciating the hindu for publishing an article that does not toe its political/philosophical line.
thanks ms.kishwar for giving voice to voiceless.
I had admired Ms.Kishwar's writings from way back in the 1990's - in fact, been
inspired! It is fitting that a modern icon for Indian feminists should come out and
speak strongly in favor of leaving the temple in Sabarimala to follow the rules it set
for itself ages ago! This is what identity politics was about - we can be who we want
to be! The best defense! Kudos to Ms. Kishwar.
A very beautifully written article. To the point. Particularly on sabarimala, I have always
wondered why there should be so much hue and cry. India is a land of temples. In most of
these millions of temples, women can offer their worship without any hitch and in no less
measure than men.
Respecting the sanctity of our temples is important. It would be nice if people just let
themselves enjoy the beauty of every temple, soak in their individual uniqueness instead of being critical.
I concur. As it is said, "Don't like it?? Don't take it."
RMR, 16 Jan 2013
Excellent article. Every word is a gem in this article and the essence of this article is what these imperious media need to understand at the moment. Hats off to the writer.
Excellent article. We are sick of self righteous anchors on our tv channels pouring imported western values in our ears every day and night. They must realize that viewers could get these 'lessons' in liberalism directly from BBC or CNN instead.
Two points: a) I do not know the legal status of temples in India, but if (as I suspect) they benefit from tax exempt status, the government and civil society has every right to demand that temples follow contemporary norms regarding discrimination and fairness. b) I'd like to know how the author would feel if the same argument (respect for traditions) were used to, say, bar people of certain castes from entering certain temples: a practice which I think was abolished during the reformation era of the late 1800s
Fantastic article reflecting the views of hundreds of millions of peace loving Hindus around the world !!! I am also a reader of "The Hindu" for the past 18 years and very glad to see such a rare article published by "The Hindu". India is a country of Billion SYMBIOTIC SECULAR PEOPLE unfortunately bashed and mostly controlled by a minority PARASITIC PSEDU-SECULARS in some sections of Government, Media and Education . This is certainly going to infuriate Macaulay's Children and some of the so called "elite English speaking media anchors" ! Kudos to the writer to bring out the facts !! And don't be surprised when Macaulay's Children brand you as a extreme right wing Hindu terrorist for writing such an outrageous article and begin to continue their 200 year old efforts to civilise us! Again Kudos to "The Hindu" for showing some courage !
"They cannot be bullied into surrendering their unique Being and become
colourless and soulless robotic creatures that yield to every new wave
of political fashion we import from our intellectual mentors in distant
lands." Well said and summed up.
A well-written and timely article. It is high time that people put these self-appointed "liberals" in their place. So much froth and no substance. The poor man on the street has a better sense of tolerance and acceptance than these television stuntmen who are paid to spread hatred and confusion in the minds of people.
Please Email the Editor