A new temple is announced. Thanks to the Supreme Court verdict in the Babri Masjid case, it looks like we – in a land short of many things, but definitely not new Hindu temples – are going to get one more temple, the grandest of them all, on the site of the demolished masjid. The judgment has attracted criticism, from those who raise the legal issue of how the same judgment, which declares the demolition of Babri Masjid by a mob in 1993 as illegal could reward the perpetrators (or their instigators) with the land, instead of trying to undo their crime; and those who criticise its historical argument that the site has always been associated with the Hindu diety Ram, for using very questionable sources.
There are also those who have welcomed the judgment in the name of peace and harmony, even though, as anyone in India should know, peace and harmony usually means not justice, but the dominance of the powerful. But surely even this is a worthy price to pay, so the argument goes, for avoiding further violence? Except that it may not work, for others who have welcomed the judgment are already talking of Mathura, Kashi, and the Taj Mahal as well.
But let us return to the imminent temple. It is noteworthy that the judgment was announced at almost the same time as news about a temple in Tamil Nadu where attempts were made to stop a marriage from being held on the premises. The reason? The couple to be married were Dalit. The marriage finally did take place, but only after the police intervened, to break the locks on the temple gates and stand guard through the wedding ceremony.
The leaders of the RSS-BJP-VHP claim that their Hinduism is casteless and thus also their temple. Others might believe them, for, after all, temples in most of India – not Goa – are public institutions, governed by government authorities. But that doesn’t make them any less casteist. The incident described above is quite the norm – those considered ‘low’ are regularly humiliated, abused, beaten, maimed, or even killed for trying to enter temples. Among those humiliated have been Presidents, Prime Minister and Chief Ministers of the nation.
Governments in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have made efforts to train and appoint non-Brahmin priests, but without much success. There have also been some new temples that tried to ignore caste, only to get boycotted by dominant and middle castes. Because that’s not what a temple is expected to be. Hindu temples are expected to be the embodiment of Brahmanism, i.e. of caste and untouchability, even today, when untouchability is legally proscribed. From my ongoing survey of pre-1961 temples in Goa, it is clear that every single job and position connected to them is based upon caste. These jobs and positions are arranged in a rigid hierarchy of maan (honour) and untouchability, with the priests (almost always Bhats) and the mahazan (almost always from various dominant castes, and usually including Saraswats) getting the maximum maan, and the drummers (from the Mahar community) treated as untouchables. Even where the priests are not Bhats by tradition, new rituals (like Satyanarayan pujas) see Bhats increasingly taking over. Not one temple has been found that allows all worshippers to worship equally. Leave aside access to the sanctum, which is permitted only to mahazan, few temples allow everyone to enter even the hall. Many – via their priests – readily admit that persons of the Mahar community are not allowed inside at all.
These rules are not displayed in public – not surprisingly, for they are against the Constitution – with the result that strangers of any caste might possibly enter freely today (though not the sanctum). But the rules are in force for the local community where everyone knows everyone else. Thus the local Mahar community is not allowed into the local temple, even today, in a vast number of shrines across Pernem, Bicholim, Sattari, Ponda, Quepem and Sanguem talukas, and probably elsewhere too, even though their drumming is vital to many temple rituals. The Maharwaddo of the village, where many still live, is considered temple land, where they need the permission of the mahazans to improve their houses, and where, if they leave, they cannot sell the property to another, despite living there for generations and beating the temple drums for free. So the relationship to the temples is one of not just untouchability, but also slavery.
How different will the BJP-VHP-RSS temple be? The RSS likes to blame everything ugly in India on Muslim rulers and British (and Portuguese) Raj; caste was supposedly thus the creation of the latter. Surely, then, it’s time to get rid of it? The Hindutva leaders did, in fact, try to demonstrate inclusiveness at the start of their Ayodhya campaign, by having members of former untouchable communities carrying out important rituals for the proposed temple. But that was then, when the campaign needed to attract everyone and win votes. Now the BJP is in power – a power that promises Hindu Rashtra to everyone from the NRIs who want India to be ‘pure’, to the lynch mobs doing the job on the ground. What would this support base – and indeed all who patronise Hindu shrines – expect but a traditional Brahmanical temple? And what else does this mean but the continued institutionalisation of caste apartheid?
This is a question before Goa too. Today’s Goa is witness to struggles to free temples from the control of Brahmins. This is great, but will it also free them from caste? Some of the non-Brahmins involved have made it a point to take over some of the ritual jobs traditionally restricted to the mahazan, like carrying the deity’s palki (palanquin) in procession. How long will it be before they offer these jobs to the drummers, and take over the drums instead?
(Amita Kanekar is an architectural historian and novelist)
