A strange feature of the >Supreme Court verdict on who can be appointed priests in temples run by >Agama rules is that two sides with contrasting views — the orthodox, who oppose any government interference in the appointment of priests, and some reformist groups that want the posts to be thrown open to all castes — have both welcomed it.
In the context of this case, Agamas are the rules that govern temple construction and worship and dictate the eligibility of those to be appointed to important religious positions in the temple, including the priests. (In general Agamas are expansive, with some elaborating complex philosophies in Saivism, Vaishnavism and Shakthism.)
A 2006 government order issued by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) regime allowed “any Hindu” with “requisite qualification and training” to become an > archaka (priest) in Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu. This was challenged before the Supreme Court.
After hearing extensive arguments over nine years, the court held that priests can be appointed only in consonance with the Agamas wherever applicable, but said constitutional parameters and non-discrimination should also be respected. What it ignored was the question whether there is any scope for women to become priests under Agamic rules. The court has ruled that usage as prescribed by the Agamas determine the eligibility of a priest. In particular, “denomination” of the aspirant is crucial.
In Tamil Nadu, the discourse around this sensitive issue had been framed as a Brahmin versus non-Brahmin battle, with the legislative attempts to push the reforms often being dubbed as measures to put the non-Brahmin on par with the Brahmin in the sphere of temple worship, which is seen as the last bastion of the upper castes. In the course of framing such arguments, what had been completely neglected is the position of women vis-a-vis priestly functions. The >Supreme Court judgment too seems to have ignored gender discrimination in temple worship, in general, and in Agama temples, in particular.
Right to equality In the present case, the Supreme Court had two important aspects to adjudicate on. On the one hand, it had to ascertain if the government order violated the freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution by being invasive in essential practices vital for the survival of the particular religion. Second, it had to ascertain if the Agamas, which the petitioners insisted had to be devotedly followed in the appointment of priests, violated Articles 14 and 15 (right to equality) and 17 (abolition of untouchability). Article 17 came into play as Agamas invoke the concept of defilement and pollution of the idols in case its rules are violated.
Writing the judgment, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, relying on a number of past pronouncements of the apex court and the arguments presented before it in the current case, takes the view that “denominations” are not caste- or class-based. “Surely, if the Agamas in question do not proscribe any group of citizens from being appointed as archakas on the basis of caste or class, the sanctity of Article 17 or any other provision of Part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution or even Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 will not be violated,” the order says.
The court extracts the opinion of Sri Parthasarathy Bhattacharya, expressed during Seshammal & Ors. (1972) , which the current order reiterates. Agama rules for archaka appointments are not caste-based since even some sections of Brahmins are not allowed to enter the sanctum sanctorum for the performance of pujas. A “denomination”, the eligibility for priesthood, is more sharply defined, such as membership in a particular gothra.
But is the purported non-existence of caste-based discrimination alone enough to pass the tests of Article 14, 15 and 17?
In the entire 54-page judgment, the word “women” finds mention only once, that too in a citation.
M.P. Sathiya Vel Murugan, an expert in Saiva Agamas and philosophy, and one of the members of the A.K. Rajan committee that analysed the appointment of people from all castes to the position of priests, says the Agamas do not address the question of women donning the role of priests at all. It is only in other texts, such as the Periyapuranam, that one finds stories of women assuming the role of priests, albeit temporarily.
In the Vaishnavite tradition, women have at times been equated to the position of those who are last in the caste hierarchy. In her essay in the book Jewels of Authority: Women and Textual Tradition in Hindu India , McGill University Religious Studies Professor Katherine K. Young states how Vedanta Desika, the Vaishnava philosopher, explicitly stated in his works that women and the those belonging to the fourth varna may not pronounce the Vedic mantras. One of the reasons cited for Desika’s rigid position is “the integration of late and conservative Agamic materials in his works”, including the Naradiya Kalpa .
In the judgment, the court cites how certain Agamas clearly specify from where members of different communities could worship the deity. The lowest in the caste structure, it says, should be content with seeing the gopura (temple tower).
In non-Agama temples In practice, women have been systematically kept out of priestly roles with menstruation often cited as the reason. In none of the major Agama temples in Tamil Nadu would one find a woman archaka . In fact, it is only in the absence of the Agamas that women have achieved entering the “holy of holies”, as the sanctum sanctorum is claimed to be.
In a 2008 judgment upholding the right of a woman to become a priest in a small non-Agama Amman temple, Justice K. Chandru of the Madras High Court said: “Fortunately, the present temple is not trapped under any Agama sastras. The sub-cultural deities established in the southern parts of India are freed from the norms of Manu Smriti and hence women being subordinated to home making alone was not warranted.”
It is important here to revisit the language of Article 14, 15 and 17. The first two bar discrimination on the basis religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The third is also clear in its dictate: “Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form [emphasis added] is forbidden”. Thus, it should be essential for any custom, denomination or usage to pass the test of gender to be declared as being in consonance with the Constitution.
Startlingly, none of the parties to the case, including the State government, raised the issue of gender vocally before the Supreme Court. In fact, when the DMK government established training centres for non-Brahmin priests in 2006 after issuing the government order, it exclusively recruited men, indicating how truncated the reform attempt was.
While the Supreme Court judgment asserts that “the exclusion of some and inclusion of a particular segment or denomination for appointment of archakas would not violate Article 14 so long as such inclusion/exclusion is not based on criteria of caste, birth or any other constitutionally unacceptable parameter”, the fact that the judgment, while upholding the Agamas, fails to deal in detail the aspect of gender leaves a major lacuna.
Perhaps, with the clamour for a petition for revision from the State gaining ground, this could be set right.
sruthisagar.y@thehindu.co.in
