With just a week to go for the inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya -- which is being built up by the ruling party and Hindutva activists as one of the biggest showpiece events of our times (and one in which the Prime Minister will personally play a starring role) - the decision of the three Congress Party invitees not to attend, and the condemnation by the four Shankaracharyas of the PM inaugurating an incomplete temple in his political interests rather than in keeping with religious tradition, have become the talk of the nation.
Is it fitting for a temple that is not yet completely built to be inaugurated at all, to suit the political convenience of the Prime Minister? For that matter, is it appropriate for the PM, who is by no means a religious leader, to perform the prana prathishtha of the temple? Does India's secular Constitution even permit the leader of its government to preside over a religious ritual? These are among the key questions rightly agitating our concerned citizenry.
The debate over the seven non-attendees has, meanwhile, obscured another controversy that broke out involving Hindu temples: the visit of the Chief Justice of India, Shri DY Chandrachud, to some Hindu temples in Gujarat, including the celebrated shrines in Dwarka and Somnath. The scholar Ramachandra Guha reacted adversely to media photographs of the chief justice, clad in a saffron kurta, and his wife reverentially praying in the Dwarkadwish temple, and to some of the CJI's comments on the occasion. Chandrachud was quoted by media as saying, 'I was inspired this morning by the dhwaja [sacred saffron flag] at Dwarkadhish ji, very similar to the dhwaja which I saw at Jagannath Puri. But look at this universality of the tradition in our nation, which binds all of us together. This dhwaja has a special meaning for us. And that meaning which the dhwaja gives us is - there is some unifying force above all of us, as lawyers, as judges, as citizens. And that unifying force is our humanity, which is governed by the rule of law and by the Constitution of India.'
Dr Guha, who made no secret of his disapproval of a constitutional functionary making such a visit, reacted to this statement with some asperity: 'It is emphatically not the case that the dhwaja which has traditionally flown above Hindu temples has served to bind 'all of us together' in a common humanity. In fact, for the bulk of their existence these shrines have not even bound all Hindus together. For, as the chief justice surely knows, for much of recorded history Hindu temples grievously discriminated against Dalits. The head priests of the most famous temples did not allow them to worship inside its premises. The Hindu religious tradition also discriminated against women, forbidding them from praying when menstruating.' He repeated his criticisms, at greater length, in an interview with Karan Thapar, questioning the CJI's judgement in going to these temples, allowing himself to be photographed there, and speaking as he did.
While I share many of Ramachandra Guha's views (including his passion for cricket), this objection puts me in a bit of a dilemma. It is difficult to disagree with Dr Guha when he points out that, contrary to what the chief justice implied, 'there is a vast gap between the ideals of the orthodox Hindu tradition and the ideals that undergird our Constitution'. But it is difficult to agree with him that the CJI is wrong to express his personal faith by praying at a temple, or indeed to choose to find positive meanings in the symbols of his faith.
Hinduism in India has evolved since the days when the orthodoxy that Dr Guha laments held unfettered sway. Untouchability has long since disappeared from our temples, and no temple places prohibitions on menstruating women any longer, though it's true that many women in that condition may choose to forego a temple visit out of respect for tradition. Many temples, especially in the south, now even have priests of various 'lower' caste backgrounds who at one time would not have admitted into the shrines, let alone allowed to officiate in the sanctum sanctorum. For a Hindu to affirm respect for his faith as it is practised today is hardly to endorse the regressive elements of the past. To hail the dhwaja as a symbol of Hinduism and of our common humanity does not imply endorsement of everything that was done to exclude people in places where the dhwaja flew a century or more ago.
Indeed, one could go a step farther and credit the CJI for cleverly incorporating the idea that all Hindus are united not only by their faith, as symbolized by the dhwaja, but also by the fact that they are governed under that dhwaja by the rule of law and by the Constitution of India. The Constitution, after all, was authored principally by Dr Ambedkar, who emphatically rejected the tenets of Hindu orthodoxy that Dr Guha also objects to, and the CJI seems to me to be implying that Hinduism today is a faith that is very much subject to the ideals of equality and fraternity embedded in the Constitution.
Which brings me back, inevitably, to the Ram temple itself. I do not know if Mr Chandrachud - who was widely assumed to be the principal author of the Supreme Court judgement that made the construction of the temple possible -- plans to be in Ayodhya on January 22, and whether his visits to Dwarka and Somnath were by way of a curtain-raiser for such a venture. Personally, I believe religious faith is a personal matter and should not be seen politically, or misused for political ends. The organisers of the inaugural ceremony have invited a number of individuals from an assortment of political affiliations to attend. They have also made it clear that the invitations are personal and non-transferable; that is, that should a specific invitee not wish to go, he or she cannot simply pass the invitation on to another party member to attend in their place. Of course, each of the invitees knew that their choice would be portrayed politically; they risked being described as 'anti-Hindu' if they decided not to go or 'playing into the BJP's hands' if they did attend.
That was the cleft stick in which some of the invitees were placed, and no doubt many in the Hindutva camp were chortling while awaiting their final responses to the invitations. In the event, the stand taken by the Shankaracharyas made it far more difficult for the ruling party to portray non-attendance as 'anti-Hindu'. One could hardly describe the four best-known custodians of the faith as 'anti-Hindu', and the three invited Congress leaders also declining the invitation, precisely because of the political character of the event, seems (to most fair-minded Indians) far more defensible.
Speaking for myself as a Hindu who has not been invited, I see a temple as place to connect with the divine rather than a stage for political theatre. As a Hindu I would love to visit the Ram temple one day, once it is fully complete. But not during a grand political extravaganza like the inauguration -- and not before the elections, so that no political statement is read into my going. I would also like to visit Kashi Vishwanath as well, not only because it is a temple replete with meaning for most Hindus, but also because of the recent renovation of its precincts - and not because of the more recent political and judicial controversy surrounding it. To my mind, a temple is not a political stage, but a place for prayer, for people to contemplate the Absolute, perform their worship, and conduct rituals with meaning for their personal lives.
To visit a temple should be, above all, a personal choice, whatever position - constitutional or otherwise - the person occupies. Let us, in this era of over-heated political religiosity, strive to keep it that way.
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Nov 14, 2023
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Sep 19, 2023
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Aug 15, 2023
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
May 1, 2023
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Apr 16, 2023
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Nov 14, 2023
5 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Oct 15, 2023
6 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Jun 16, 2023
4 min
Columns
I Mean What I Say
Jan 17, 2022
Politicising Ram Temple
12
4
16.01.2024
With just a week to go for the inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya -- which is being built up by the ruling party and Hindutva activists as one of the biggest showpiece events of our times (and one in which the Prime Minister will personally play a starring role) - the decision of the three Congress Party invitees not to attend, and the condemnation by the four Shankaracharyas of the PM inaugurating an incomplete temple in his political interests rather than in keeping with religious tradition, have become the talk of the nation.
Is it fitting for a temple that is not yet completely built to be inaugurated at all, to suit the political convenience of the Prime Minister? For that matter, is it appropriate for the PM, who is by no means a religious leader, to perform the prana prathishtha of the temple? Does India's secular Constitution even permit the leader of its government to preside over a religious ritual? These are among the key questions rightly agitating our concerned citizenry.
The debate over the seven non-attendees has, meanwhile, obscured another controversy that broke out involving Hindu temples: the visit of the Chief Justice of India, Shri DY Chandrachud, to some Hindu temples in Gujarat, including the celebrated shrines in Dwarka and Somnath. The scholar Ramachandra Guha reacted adversely to media photographs of the chief justice, clad in a saffron kurta, and his wife reverentially praying in the Dwarkadwish temple, and to some of the CJI's comments on the occasion. Chandrachud was quoted by media as saying, 'I was inspired this morning by the dhwaja [sacred saffron flag] at Dwarkadhish ji, very similar to the dhwaja which I saw at Jagannath Puri. But look at this universality of the tradition in our nation, which binds all of us together. This dhwaja has a special meaning for us. And that meaning which the dhwaja gives us is - there is some unifying force above all of us, as lawyers, as judges, as citizens. And that unifying force is our humanity, which is governed by the rule of law and by the Constitution of India.'
Dr Guha, who made no secret of his disapproval of a constitutional........
© Mathrubhumi English
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
