First Blog (1/3)

Second Blog (2/3)

As I concluded in my previous part, privatisation of the temples is definitely a plausible option. There is a movement in India to free the Hindu Temples from the influence of the Government. I am completely in favour of this option albeit for a different reason. In this blog, I want to write about the movement, the reasons and my opinion.

The movement to free Hindu Temples from Government Control

This movement is to challenge the Hindu religious and charitable endowments (also called HR & CE). These government departments control the management of the Hindu Temples under their control. It all started with the Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act in 1959. Here are the arguments against these controls.

1. Hindu Temples are the only religious institutions which are under Government Control
2. The income from the temples goes to the government, thereby depriving the temple to get richer.
3. Hindu Temples pay more income tax than other religious institutions
4. Hindus are not allowed to manage their own religious affairs
5. Hindu Temples and their assets are allowed to be destroyed by HR & CE of different states
6. These regulations take away the constitutional rights of the Hindu groups to manage their own affairs.

There are plenty more but these are the main reasons. There are some factual errors in this but I want to highlight one of them. The constitution of India does give the state government rights to pass regulations like these as deemed appropriate. So, the acts themselves are not unconstitutional.

Why is this relevant?

This movement has been gaining momentum from the beginning of this decade. This has gained prominence with the Sabarimala case as the same people like J Sai Deepak are fighting for both. Their logic is simple. If they gain enough momentum towards this case, they can make it an election issue. If these acts are removed, then the Hindu temples will cease to be public assets. Therefore, the rules of the temple are similar to the rules of a private body.

1. They will not have the money power to run education institutions to push their agenda.
2. None of their rules can be termed discriminatory. They can prevent people from entering, from women to people of the Dalit communities.
3. This will drive towards their broader agenda to make India into a Hindu nation.

Why do I feel the government should not control temples?

I am a strong proponent of the separation of church(or temples) and state. If the state starts to involve itself in the management of religion, it soon has to take sides in religious wars. It also is obliged to protect the demise of these religions. Here are my reasons why I want the state out of the business of religion.

1. The state has a responsibility to government people according to the rule of the law and not on religion.
2. The civil code should be uniform and secular. For example, child marriages, dowry and polygamy should be prohibited irrespective of a religion.
3. All institutions (religious or otherwise) should pay their taxes. Religious institutions should not get charitable status.
4. The government should not give grants or aid for people to perform religious activities, from Amarnath Yatra to Hajj trips.
5. The government in a secular country has the responsibility to be neutral. It can’t take responsibility to build or destroy places of worship.
6. The government has a responsibility to keep education secular. Religious concepts can be taught in scripture classes but not science. Evolution cannot be an optional part of biology.
7. The constitution still has laws against discrimination which has to be deep.

In conclusion, I see this as a dangerous sign. The articles in magazines like Swarajya show how nuanced the arguments have gotten. Considering the history and breadth of beliefs and practices in Hinduism, one is bound to find contradictions in the scriptures. This has paved the way to the new fundamentalists who have come up with an approach which only be called death by a million nuanced cuts. This confusion results in people falling for their trap. The only way to expose their devious behaviour is by letting them take control and expose their vicious, cruel agenda. If you are a parent of a child, you need to be worried about these people. Here are the reasons.

1. Your child might be a homosexual. Imagine the plight of a homosexual in a society run by such people.
2. Your child might be growing in an increasingly polarised society where the caste system is controlling collaboration.
3. If you have a girl child, imagine her plight as she finds a partner in her life. She might be forced to live a life of mediocracy just for being a person of the female gender.

If anyone thinks, I am exaggerating I want to attach some proofs.

This message is extremely specific. It doesn’t say that any false complaint should be punished. If one has to be fair, they should also consider any perpetrator who has denied crime to actually get punished more. Further, the girl just complained. She didn’t provide the judgement.

This was another tweet by a Hindu Right winger on the impact caused by Section 498A which is the Dowry Act that criminalises dowry.

They want to spread fake medical research too.

These people are capable of defending anything under the name of religion. If you think they are good just because what they are saying now is in line with your beliefs, then think more they might be coming for you or your family next.

References

• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140725073011-81657483-hindu-temples-and-use-of-their-income/
• https://medium.com/freeing-hindu-temples-from-govt-control/faq-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-freeing-hindu-temples-from-govt-control-campaign-90787d7eff50
• https://medium.com/freeing-hindu-temples-from-govt-control/reclaiming-hindu-temples-from-govt-control-c9b9cf8bac45
• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/freeing-temples-from-state-control/article5594132.ece
• https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Hindu-temples-in-India-controlled-by-the-government
• https://www.facebook.com/freehindutemples/
• https://swarajyamag.com/culture/why-we-need-to-free-hindu-temples-from-government-control
• https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/how-to-free-our-temples-from-government-control-plan-b
• http://www.freepressjournal.in/analysis/r-n-bhaskar-policy-watch-liberate-temples-from-government-control/756036
• https://swarajyamag.com/author/17880/swami-venkataraman
• https://swarajyamag.com/culture/ravana-tolerance-and-the-indian-left
• https://swarajyamag.com/culture/south-asia-scholars-the-hindu-debate-and-the-death-of-nuance-in-california

Previous Blog (1/3)

Next Blog (3/3)

As mentioned in my previous blog, S Gurumurthy recently triggered a discussion on Twitter around the Sabarimala case. He was weighing in his opinion on how the legal system cannot be above faith. This is a director at Reserve Bank of India. It is intellectually boring to break down any analysis by S Gurumurthy. His opinion and bigotry can only be matched by someone like Steve Bannon from the US.  However, the most acclaimed narrative has been produced by a Hindu apologist, J Sai Deepak.  He is the best spokesman for the Hindu right wing and I want to take down his argument in this blog. I want to do this through the below parts.

1. The Sabarimala Case
2. Analysis of J Sai Deepak’s argument
3. Analysis of other arguments
4. Ready to wait
5. Blaming judgements for natural calamities
6. My Opinion

The Sabarimala Case

The core of this case is extremely simple. A bunch of people filed a case against women being barred from entering the Sabarimala Temple. The case was filed in 2006 and taken up by the Supreme Court of India in 2017. Towards that time a bunch of girls from Kerala started a movement called ‘Ready to wait’. This movement wanted to keep the status quo. The movement got traction and attracted some prominent religious and legal experts into the case.  J Sai Deepak was one of the lawyers representing the ‘Ready to  Wait’ movement. I can go on an on about de-mystifying the Sabarimala deity, Ayyappa but that is not of any significant benefit to this argument. Wikipedia provides a decent introduction on Sabarimala and Ayyappa. However, there are a few points I want to share, which adds some value to the case.

Difference between Ayyappa and Manikandan

As the legend goes, Manikanda(n) was a prince of the Pandalam dynasty. He is believed to have lived in the 12th Century BC. He is supposed to be an incarnation of the Hindu god Ayyappa. It is one short of a trinity, probably can be referred to as duality.

The belief is Ayyappa maintains celibacy

According to the belief of the people who run these temples, the deity Ayyappa wishes to be a celibate. The temple website mentions the below.

“As Sabarimala Ayyappa is ‘Nithya Brahmachari’ (celibate)women between the 10-50 age group are not allowed to enter Sabarimala. Such women who try to enter Sabarimala will be prevented by authorities. Only pilgrims who have observed Vrutham alone are allowed entry through the holly Pathinettampadi. They have to carry Irumudikettu (Pallikettu)also.”

Sabarimala is autonomous but under the Government of Kerala

The Sabarimala Temple is run by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Though the functioning of the board is autonomous, the members of the board are nominated by the state government of Kerala. The Travancore Devaswom Board website has the details. It is not a completely private institution. Further, they cannot have a constitution which contradicts the constitution of the country.

The judgement hasn’t come through on the case

There is so much noise around this subject but the judgement hasn’t been given yet. The court has reserved the judgement to a later date.

This wasn’t the first case on the subject

This case cannot be understood in full context unless we look into in the context of the judgement given by the Kerala High Court in 1991 in a case related to letting women entering the temple. After listening to the argument, the judgement was pronounced as below.

“The restriction imposed on women aged above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy hills of Sabarimala and offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine is in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial.”

“In the light of the aforesaid conclusions we direct the first respondent, the Travancore Devaswom Board, not to permit women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala in connection with the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple and from offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine during any period of the year. We also direct the 3rd respondent, Government of Kerala, to render all necessary assistance inclusive of police and to see that the direction which we have issued to the Devaswom Board is implemented and complied with.”

Ref: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1915943/

The Haji Ali Dargah case

There was a similar protest to allow women to enter the Haji Ali Dargah. The women who fought for their rights won their case. The judgement was pronounced on 26 August 2016 when the Bombay High Court ruled that women could enter the Dargah. Though the Sabarimala case was filed a long time before, the Haji Ali Dargah case definitely has opened the floodgates.

Ref: https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/editorials/another-door-opens/623134.html

Analysis of J Sai Deepak’s argument

J Sai Deepak’s argument can be divided into the below parts. There is so much mentioned about the veracity of this argument but I feel it only convinces people who are already convinced. I don’t think defending anything reprehensible should be praised as an act of bravery and skill. Anyway, I will deconstruct his arguments to see what makes sense.

1. Lord Ayyappa is a juristic person and has the liberty to do what he wants
2. This is a question of religious freedom
3. It is not a women’s issue
4. The court should not be imposing their views on religious practices
5. There are similar examples across other religions or other temples

I have given references to the argument presented by J Sai Deepak in the section below.

Lord Ayyappa is a juristic person and has the liberty to do what he wants

“Lord Ayyappa of the Sabarimala is a “juristic person” for the purposes of property ownership and taxes and hence, he equally has rights under Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty), 25 (freedom to practice religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affair) of the Constitution.

The deity has the right to remain a ‘Naishtika Brahmachari’ (eternal celibate) and this was also part of the right to privacy of the deity, the will of the deity needed to be respected.”

It is true that Lord Ayyappa is considered a juristic person under the Indian Penal Code. According to law, the juristic person includes not only natural person (living) but also corporations, idols and even the dead people. However, Article 21 has an exception. When carrying out a procedure established by law, one’s personal liberty shall be deprived. So, Ayyappa has the right to remain an eternal celibate, as long as he stays lawful. The same is the case with Article 25, Ayyappa has the complete freedom to practice his religion.

However, the argument is completely mute. Sabarimala is not owned by Lord Ayyappa. The place is owned and operated by Travancore Devaswom Board for the person named Lord Ayyappa. Lord Ayyappa can walk out and sit inside his private property. At that point, he will have all the personal liberty he wants. As long as he is sitting inside a building owned and maintained by Travancore Devaswom Board it has to operate under Article 5 of the constitution. Travancore Devaswom Board is partially maintained by the State Government of Kerala and has constitution provisions.

Article 15 – 2 (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

The proof that the board is funded by the state is in Article 290A of the Indian Constitution.

290A. A sum of forty-six lakhs and fifty thousand rupees shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of the State of Kerala every year to the Travancore Devaswom Fund; and a sum of thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand rupees shall be charged on, and paid out of, the Consolidated Fund of the State of 1 [Tamil Nadu] every year to the Devaswom Fund established in that State for the maintenance of Hindu temples and shrines in the territories transferred to that State on the 1st day of November, 1956, from the State of Travancore Cochin.

So, this argument is a non-sequitur.

This is a question of religious freedom

Now, let’s look at Article 26 of the Indian Constitution which outlines religious freedom.

26. Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

This is a plain conflation of concepts. Every religious denomination has the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. However, matters of religion come under the law. Supreme Court is not ruling against rules of Hinduism. However, the rules of Hinduism have to come under the legal code. For example, if my religion asks me to perform a cruel operation on a newborn resulting in the death of the baby, it will still be classified as murder. Right to manage your religious matters doesn’t mean a right to discriminate. Either way, the usage of this clause is meaningless in the context of an individual called Lord Ayyappa.

Now, coming to the definition of Naishtika Brahmachari. Naishtika Brahmachari means celibacy till death. How do women entering the temple take away the celibacy of the Lord Ayyappa? According to Hindu scriptures (Smritis), a naishtika brahmachari is supposed to live under the supervision of his guru. This means he owns nothing and lives by begging. Can you think of someone begging and a male offering them food in the olden days? Also, this rules of Lord Ayyappa owning the place. Now there is another famous naishtika brahmachari in Hindu mythology, Lord Hanuman. I don’t think he avoids seeing women. The Supreme Court of India is not changing the definition of the word by any means.

It is not an issue of discrimination against women. 

This is laughable. I am not sure how you can say that women who are capable of having a child cannot enter the temple and still say it is not an issue of discrimination against women.

Further, the point mentioned was “The women have been respecting the tradition for a long time now and this is not a case of temple versus women or men versus women”. Now women have also been respecting Sati for centuries. That doesn’t make the sati an acceptable practice.

The other point made is, “The issue of exclusion of women was not based on the notion of purity and rather dependent on facts like celibate nature of the deity which has been preserved for years”. This is completely false. How do I know? Prayar Gopalakrishnan, the president of the  Travancore Devaswom Board has done the job. His quote says everything that needs to be said in this regard.

“These days there are machines that can scan bodies and check for weapons. There will be a day when a machine is invented to scan if it is the ‘right time’ (not menstruating) for a woman to enter the temple. When that machine is invented, we will talk about letting women inside.”

The court should not be imposing their views on religious practices

The next point by J Sai Deepak is that the court and others should not be “superimposing” their social views on the temple which has stated its position “loud and clear”. He followed that with the below point.

“Tomorrow somebody can say that he would like to offer chicken as ‘prasadam’, can such an offer be entertained and the rules of religion and the God cannot be changed.”

This is an argument from emotion than logic. Let us look at the first point here. The court should not be superimposing their social views on the temple. This is completely incorrect. The temples come under the jurisdiction of the Indian Constitution and any views that they have which are against the constitution will be challenged. A temple, for example, cannot preach discrimination or violence. It is against the law. Temple is within a jurisdiction of a legal entity. It is cyclic fallacy if you use the same law to argue that the temple is above law.

On the second point of offering chicken as ‘prasadam’, there are laws protecting such actions. For example, one cannot say that by allowing women to enter mosques, pigs can also enter the mosques next. This is a hasty generalisation fallacy.  It also commits an argument from analogy.

There are similar examples across other religions or other temples

The last of his argument was that there are other such practices which continue. The example used is throwing of babies outside the Baba Umer Dargah, Solapur Maharashtra. It is worth noting that the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has already banned the practice. It still continues to happen illegally because such people are idiots. Further, the fact that A is wrong and still happens. Therefore, B is wrong should also be allowed to happen is not a logical argument. If he is trying to trigger a divide between Hindus and Muslims in this case, then it is worth noting that there are Shiva temples in the same area which do the same ‘Throwing Baby’ act.

Overall, his complete narrative is an argument from incredulity. There is no logic to it apart from trying to strike an emotional chord with his co-fundamentalists.

Analysis of other arguments

I also want to list other arguments presented in this case.

Argument by K. Radhakrisnan

A Senior advocate K Radhhakrishnan, appearing for the Pandalam royal family, referred to the concept of morality and said that the constitutional morality cannot override the private morality in cases of religious practices. This is completely wrong. Morality is the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. As seen in Wikipedia, morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Constitution fundamentally does that. Most religious moralities allow you to own and trade people as slaves. The constitution gives you the right to think and speak freely. It is your right to not want to exercise it.  Morality, however, is how you behave with the society in that context. Private morality is a meaningless construct in that case. It is a deliberate conflation of the definition of the word morality. I am assuming he meant liberty. Even with that, I have already shown that the argument is flawed.

Argument by Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Abhishek Manu Singhvi is a lawyer and a Member of the Parliament in India. It is outrageous to see him defend unconstitutional practices.

Defending the Sabarimala tradition in the Supreme Court, advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Tuesday told the bench that there are temples in the country where even men are not allowed. He added that a court cannot be invited to give a finding that a tradition or belief is not of antiquity without the evidence being examined in a trial. Arguing for the Travancore Devasom Board which administer the sabarimala temple, Singhvi also argued that there are hundreds of traditions practised buy dozens of faiths in India and it is not possible to bring them all under definition of Constitutional morality. “Even in Mosques across the country, women are not allowed,” said Sighvi. He added that the test under articles 25 and 26 was not whether a particular practice was right or wrong but whether it was a bonafide belief practiced for centuries by a community.

His first point of men not being allowed is fundamentally allowed under the constitution of India. This is the same reason why you have women-only compartments in trains but don’t have it for me. Article 15-3 of Indian Constitution says, “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.”   So, women can have such special privileges.  There are 8 such temples in India.  His second point should comfortably be the worst of the lot. Since there are too many traditions, we should not bring them under the constitution. I wonder what is the purpose of a constitution or legal system in such a situation. I wonder if he is calling for anarchy in a court of law. And finally, I have already discussed the articles 25 and 26 above. So, I am not going back to it.

Ready to Wait argument

There is something about this campaign which invites mockery.  The premise of the ‘ready to wait’ campaign is utterly stupid.  While it is a cool hashtag, it is meaningless. No one is forcing these women to not wait. Even if the judgement allows women to enter the temple, it doesn’t force these women to enter. It is not a mandate. They can wait. I am surprised, people can’t see the stupidity in these arguments. It is also pretty ironic that the parent organisation is called ‘People for Dharma’. I wonder the context in which they are using the word ‘Dharma’. It could mean righteousness, rule, law or cosmic order.  Do they mean, the rest of them are for ‘Adharma’? This is the callousness seen in some movements like ‘Pro-life’, like anyone who opposes it is ‘Anti-life’. You don’t need a right to wait in a democracy, just like you don’t need a right to stay hungry or right to shave your head.

I was subsequently proven right by the nature of the arguments posed by the people propping up this campaign. Here are a few.

“If you don’t wish to believe in Hindu deities and their stories/legends, then don’t. But this sudden interest in destroying millenia old traditions in the name of “rights” is becoming absurd. Would you, for instance, support my right to eat pork inside a mosque? Religious places are not public places.”

“Sati, triple talaq, child marriage are social customs. #Sabarimala temple’s tradition is based on Shastras. Not a ‘SOCIAL’ issue. Devotees coming out with #ReadyToWait declaration. Women don’t intend to allow atheism win over Bhakti.”

“I respect my traditions, therefore will never visit Sabarimala before the right time for me. Feminists should leave us alone.”

I sometimes wonder how far and deep the termite of misogyny has spread. Now women want to become their torchbearers. I want to just highlight a few points.

1. Destroying traditions under the name of rights is not absurd. Traditions have to be questioned in any civilised society. The Hindu Sastra (Manusmriti) highlights the role of a woman to be subservient to her male guardian.
2. You do not have a right to eat anywhere. It doesn’t say that in the constitution. You don’t have the right to kill a lion as well.
3. Shastras are social issues. Hindu Sastras call for discrimination of people based on various factors. I wish she reads a bit more before making a fool of herself in public.
4. Feminists are not forcing anyone, especially these people to go to the temple. No one is forcing anyone to enter. People are fighting for the right to enter a temple here.

It is not surprising to see this line of argument. In 1934 there was a report submitted to the Maharaja of Travancore on allowing lower caste Hindus to enter the Sabarimala Temple. I have given an excerpt from the report (as I read it from another source) below. This was called the ‘Temple Entry Committee Report’. I have provided more links in the references section.

“Exclusion from temples, not always the result of the excluded class being considered inferior to others. It is based on a belief that the approach of certain people is likely to derogate from the spiritual atmosphere surrounding the pratishtha, the deity installed in the temple. A large body of (high-caste folk) believe, on the basis of the (scriptures), that the entry of the (low) into (their) temples would cause defilement of the temples…and there will be no efficacy in the worship or rites performed in them.” 

As it can be seen, this line of argument is not uncommon with the people running the temples and the people practising these beliefs.

Blaming judgements for natural calamities

Religious fundamentalists have always been guilt tripping judiciary when it has promoted equal rights against the will of their religions. The evangelicals in the past have blamed Hurricanes in the US, the attack on WTC, the earthquake in Haiti and even the 2011 tsunami in Japan to gay rights. Now the Hindu right in India has taken over the same approach. They are pressurising the judiciary into think there is somehow a connection between the judgement and the floods in Kerala. However, they are using a multi-pronged approach for this. There are volunteers on the ground who are helping the flood victim. This builds the goodwill. Then, there are people who drive local movements drawing the connection. They evoke the causation versus correlation conundrum in people. Finally, there are people who attack the judiciary. It is a good strategy only if everyone else is an idiot.

My Opinion

I am not a fan of religious reforms. When people talk about reforming a religion, all they do is add another flavour of the religion essentially twisting some elements of the religion to make it more palatable to the society. If the religions adapt to the social changes, then they do not perish. So, we leave the next generation to fight this evil construct. Morality has always come at the expense of religion and not because of religion. Religion has successfully collected the social morals of a time and encompassed them in their system. However, morals evolve as people learn more. If religions are allowed to move their goalpost we can never get rid of this evil.

At the same time, I am not sure about the need for any self-respecting woman to enter the temple premises after knowing how they are being discriminated against by the system. Unless they do it to annoy the establishment, I can’t think of a valid reason to enter. For that reason, I can’t think why any woman would want to be religious. No religion ever gives a woman equal right.

I want the Supreme Court of India to give the Travancore Devasom Board two options. The fundamentalists fighting for the right of the Lord Ayyappa like J Sai Deepak want the first option while the people who are contesting them want the second. I feel the court should provide both the options to the board and ask them to take a call.

Option #1: Become a completely private entity by leasing the area from the Government. This means

1. Lost their charity status
2. Pay taxes like a private institution
3. Lose government protection
4. Still under Indian Constitution and Legal system

They would run like a theme park. They set their rules. However, this requires a constitutional amendment.

Option #2: If they want to operate in its current fashion then

1. Allow women of all ages to enter the institution
2. No discrimination against any community, gender or sex

On a different note, I wish tax rebates for all religious institutions should be removed. When a cab driver or a car mechanic has to pay one’s full due of taxes why should religious institutions get a free pass?

References

Constitution of India

• https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_contents.pdf
• https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_part_full.pdf

Sabarimala case details

• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-temple-row-there-are-temples-where-men-are-not-allowed-defense-tells-supreme-court-5273617/
• http://www.freepressjournal.in/india/supreme-court-reserves-order-on-judgement-against-ban-on-womens-entry-in-sabarimala-temple/1326248
• https://swarajyamag.com/culture/sacred-sabarimala-right-to-pray-versus-right-to-destroy-a-tradition
• https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/ready-to-wait-campaign-sabarimala-temple-kerala-women-haji-ali-shani-mandir/360869/
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/Sabarimala-debate-HappyToBleed-Vs-ReadyToWait/articleshowprint/53945601.cms
• http://indiafacts.org/readytowait-campaign-reclaim-hindu-temples-traditions/
• https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/womens-group-moves-sc-over-sabarimala-entry-says-we-are-readytowait-52004
• https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/ban-on-women-in-sabarimala-temple-not-protected-by-constitution-kerala-tells-sc-118080101412_1.html
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/celibate-nature-of-lord-ayyappa-of-sabarimala-temple-protected-by-constitution-sc-told/articleshow/65137065.cms
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/keralas-bid-to-get-devaswom-funds-caught-in-legal-tangle/article5743891.ece
• https://www.firstpost.com/india/a-lawyer-for-lord-ayyappa-advocate-sai-deepak-turns-heads-in-supreme-court-arguing-for-sabarimala-deitys-right-to-celibacy-4859291.html
• https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/sunday-read/small-talk-the-deitys-advocate/articleshow/65275883.cms

Travancore Temple Entry Report

• http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/133982/12/12_chapter%204.pdf

J Sai Deepak Argument

Nothing obliterates a civil society more than its despicable treatment of women. The traditional conservative societies have moved from enslaving women to whining about their freedom to now claiming to have been an embodiment of women’s liberties. Not only have they not done anything to liberate women but also are intentionally obtuse to distract everyone from their devious intentions. The theocratic societies across the middle east and south Asia exemplify this behaviour.

The case in the Supreme Court of India to allow women to enter the Sabarimala Temple and the reactions aftermath stands a testimony to the new wave of religiosity. S Gurumurthy, the journalist and one of the directors of RBI tweeted about the possibility of the connection between the Kerala Floods and allowing women to enter the Sabarimala Temple. The sad story of the Indian culture is that this is a mainstream opinion. I want to address this in three parts.

1. Stigma around menstruation
2. The Sabarimala Case
3. Where I see this going: the free temple movement

I want to wrap this up with my opinion on how to take on the theocratic bullying we are witnessing.

The stigma and trepidation around menstruation

The deep-rooted misogyny in the Indian Culture was always covered up by traditions. I have already written about the culture of rape in the country. The discrimination against menstruating women is the ugly domestic secret of the Indian society. For a seemingly developing society with a high percentage of college graduates, it is rather ironic to see their belief in superstitions.  The culture is obsessed with the women’s vagina and what comes out it. Anyone who thinks the previous statement is gross or a massive exaggeration is either an ignoramus or a charlatan.  I am sure that everyone from an Indian Hindu family has seen treatment of women during their mensuration. I will call out some of the most common practices.

Menstruating girls and women are

1. not allowed in most religious functions and temples.
2. not allowed inside the kitchen
3. not allowed to touch anyone in the house
4. not allowed to go near the place of worship inside the home
5. not allowed to use the same dishes as the rest of the members

As a young girl child, one is made to feel scared, ashamed and even disgusted with what is happening to their body. I have personally witnessed this in well educated upper middle class families growing up in a city. The situation is worse in villages and other remote areas. While every culture across the globe had these superstitions, not all cultures have equally come out it. Education has especially done a lot to get most societies out of it. But the Indian society seems to have a unique status where a very educated family finds it acceptable to follow these prejudices.  What is worse, they have upgraded to new reasons for why these practices are valid. I have heard a few Hindu religious scholars say some of the below reasons.

1. The radiation from the body is so intense that people should not come near menstruating women.
   • This sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
2. God cannot withstand the energy from women during those times.
   • I am assuming they have some weak god.
3. To prevent men from getting attracted to women during those times.
   • This assumes men have no control. If they mean religious men like themselves, then I suggest we cage men when their wives go through this. I will be more than happy if men actually took care of their wives during those times.
4. Women get extremely angry during those times.
   • I want to see the reaction in a man bleeding for three days.

The most ridiculous reason I heard was that people married their daughters at a very young age those days only to avoid these questions. As you might see, none of these actually have any moral value. There is no way a humanist or a secularist will every present such an argument. This irrational bullying is the superpower of the theocratic community.  Most women who have grown up being subjugated with these practices have a trepidation at the possibility of questioning these practices.

There is also a line of argument that Hinduism or what the fundamentalists like to call Sanatana Dharma worships menstruation. The examples quoted are the Kamakhya Temple in Assam and the Bhagavathy Temple in Chengannur in Kerala. It is counterproductive for people to bring this up as neither of these temples actually allow menstruating women to enter.

As I have mentioned before in my earlier blog, the systemic misogyny in India is too deep and too well spread. The problem is that defendants of the misogynic practices now are becoming more mainstream and taking a more nuanced stand. The main case which is highlighting this is the case of allowing women to enter the Sabarimala Temple.

Influence of the religions

What do the stats say?

Priests involved in rape

Conclusion

My previous article had the on the “resurgence of brahminim” deliberately left a few questions unanswered. I want to take those questions, and also elaborate on why brahminism cannot be eradicated without contesting brahmins.

1. Brahmins aren’t the only people who are obsessed with their caste? Why are you taking them on and not everyone else? Do you think they are a soft target or are you scared of taking any other caste on?
2. Why use the word brahminism instead of casteism?
3. There are plenty of rich people in the society and not just brahmins. Brahmins are a minority. Further, there are plenty of poor brahmins. How can brahmins be responsible?

I am sure there are plenty of others but they either variants of the above question or too stupid to answer.

As I mentioned in my article, I do not consider the modern brahmins as just the traditional brahmins, while they do form a part of it. Brahminism according to me is a social construct which has a community at the top dictating or at least having control over the progress of the society. There are few key social constructs which drive any heterogeneous progressive society, which eventually aims be a land of opportunity. The first one is access to quality education for all, the second construct is to remove any barriers of discrimination and the third construct is to provide health care. These three key constructs which will drive progress have been controlled and dragged by the modern brahmins.

Let me start with education. My parents like pretty much most people of their generation studied in a government school. Furthermore, they were from rural India. They ended up as professor and school teacher in government-aided institutions. Every baby boomer in India who is from an upper middle class to a lower class background would have studied in a government school. All their children went to private schools. I studied in a truly secular, affordable private school but even there the behaviours were extremely discriminatory. The government schools over the years lost their funding and the quality has been let down deliberately. The private schools where teachers are paid less than a living wage are supposed to be of better quality. When I got admission to study engineering, there was twice the number of private engineering institutions as the state-run ones. Today the percentage has quadrupled. Further, the path to get into better institutions have been curtailed a lot through co-curricular addendums which cannot be afforded by everyone. Education has been bought over by the rich.

Secondly, the emancipation of the discriminated classes in India has not gone well with the modern brahmins. There is an abject condemnation of the miserable state of the discriminated classes. One needs to understand that the slavery was abolished in the US before the caste-based discrimination got legally abolished in India.  A vast majority of these people have parents who were not allowed to enter some streets in their village. I prefer the word brahminism instead of the caste system. Caste system refers to the system of having different communities. Brahminism, on the other hand, are the rules enabling the discrimination of these communities and the laws governing their social status. There are people in my own extended family circle and acquaintances who believe they are superior to the other communities.

The most common argument is that not all brahmins are rich and their biggest regret is the reservation system in India. While I do agree that the reservation system in India has its flaws and can definitely be improved, poor brahmin fetches just as much sympathy from me as a wounded terrorist. The moment a person is referring to oneself as a brahmin, then she/he doesn’t deserve the pity. The acknowledgement to belong to a class which has ordained itself the right to discriminate after knowing everything they have done in the past will only get my ire, not sympathy.  I always see these brahmins complain about reservation depriving of their opportunities but never about wealthy individuals doing the same, even though the latter takes a larger share of the pie.

So, why has this problem become relevant now? If we scratch the surface the deeper cunning brahminism exists even today. The classic example is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi was born to a trader community in India and was a staunch Hindu. When he realised that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has started to mobilise all the classes of the discriminated people with him, Gandhi played one of the cheapest possible tricks. He plagiarised the word Harijan, meaning people of Vishnu. He used that to describe the discriminated classes indicating that they were the people of the Hindu God. That diluted their movement to federate and self-determinate. The situation on the ground hasn’t changed a lot since. The modern brahmins are just waiting for the right opportunity.  It is not possible to eradicate brahminsm without tackling them. The key attribute of the resurgence now is a sense of pride in belonging to the community that has come to the present generation. It has been portrayed as a benign, moderate, scientific culture which is no different from any other groups. Society can only ignore it at the peril of civilisation. The roots of these people come from a dangerous book  Manusmriti (Laws of Manu).  It is a dangerous cult which is no different from fascism, national socialism (of which they are sympathisers), wahabism or the KKK. Brahminism is a dangerous ideology and should be eliminated and eradicated. It should be learnt in the history book as the rest of the horrific ideologies of the past but not practiced. Brahmins are the custodians of Brahminism. I finally came to the conclusion which EV Ramasamy did, “Brahminism cannot be eradicated without fighting Brahmins”.