Open Forum

New Delhi, 29 January 2016

Sacred Vs Secular Laws

TEMPLES DODGED BY DOGMAS

By Dr.S.Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

Controversy dodges various temples as their administrators grapple with tradition and custom and the legal issue regarding allowing women entry in a shrine’s sanctum sanctorum. In defiance of this ritual around 1500 women activists gathered at Pune’s Shani Shingnapur Temple on Republic Day, the latest in many such incidents.

This follows three Court verdicts vis-à-vis some Southern temples which have attracted nationwide attention. Underscoring, signs of a new awakening in sacred-secular relationship in the modern era. 

Two of these judgments relate to “archakas” (priests) appointment and the compulsory dress code for worshippers in Tamil Nadu’s temples. The third, prohibiting entry to women worshippers in Kerala’s famous Sabarimalai Temple.

Chronologically, the Supreme Court’s ruled in favour of priests appointment  according to “Agama  Shastras”, the treatise which prescribes the structure and functioning of  Hindu temples, in  petitions filed by priests’ association  challenging a 2006 Tamil Nadu Government order allowing Hindus with necessary qualification regardless of their caste to become priests in temples in the State.

The Court held that deviation from the age-old custom and usage would be an infringement of religious freedom.  Even as it did not annul the order.

Recall, this debate started in 1972 when the DMK Government amended the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to put an end to the hereditary and common system of appointment of temple priests.

This was challenged in the Supreme Court which partially supported the order by abolishing the hereditary system but upheld the authority of Agamas in selection. Plainly, continuance of the prevailing practice and consideration of the “denominations”   factor followed in temples.

The issue was laid to rest by another Government order, followed by an ordinance and a law declaring people with requisite qualification to be eligible for appointment as priests.   Towards that end the State set up Archaka Training Institutes.

Pertinently, this order was challenged in the Supreme Court in 2006 which opined in December 2015 again the primacy of Agamas in appointing priests.   It held that “denominations” laid out by Agamas such as descendants of particular sages were not based on caste and therefore did not violate Article 17 of the Constitution on abolition of  unsociability  on which the petitioners based their arguments.

Predictably, the verdict caused disappointment to several Parties and groups in the State despite the fact that the Court did not strike down the Government’s order. The polity’s discontent stems from the practical difficulty of non-priest communities to compete with priest families even with necessary qualifications. 

Politically, it is a setback to radical reformist posture adopted by many leaders and Parties in Tamil Nadu over several decades.  Needless to say, denominations are difficult to prove as rituals form an essential part of Hindu religion and worship pattern which depend excessively on customary practices and behaviour.

The second litigation, relating to dress code for worshippers arose out of a directive issued by Tamil Nadu’s Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department following a directive issued by a single Bench of the Madurai branch of the Madras High Court. 

The code it held was in accordance with the rules pertaining to the attire of devotees and visitors according to the Agamas traditions and customs of the concerned temples and in conformity with the provisions in the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947. 

This clarified that men should wear dhoti or pyjama with upper cloth or formal pants and shirts and women must wear a sari or half-sari or churidar with upper cloth and children could wear a fully covered dress.  The practice of men not wearing any upper cloth could be continued wherever it is the custom.

Temples started adhering to the dress code from the New Year. Some temples have opened counters to lend proper clothes to visitors.  Indeed, a dress code is not a novel idea but in practice in many worship places worldwide. But in our country there is a growing tendency to detect a clash between democratic rights and traditional culture in every issue.  

The Tamil Nadu Government then filed a writ appeal against the Madurai Branch’s   directive of the ground that the dress code differs from temple to temple according to the local custom and no common code could be prescribed.    This case is now pending before a larger bench. Meanwhile, a stay is in force on implementing the Court order.

The third litigation began when a group of lawyers in 2006 sought a directive to allow women entry to Kerala’s Saaremaa Yavapai Temple without age restriction. Presently, girls and women between 10-50 years are barred entry into this temple under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 which the Kerala High Court had upheld in 1991.

The Supreme Court has now asked the Kerala Government to file a fresh affidavit and stated it would re-consider the case in the light of the Fundamental Rights and gender equality.

Notably, while the first and third case invoke Constitutional rights and principles of caste-sex equality and non-discrimination, the second litigation raises the issue of tradition and cultural practices against modernism in dress and individuals’ freedom.  

Undoubtedly, the judicial reach is expanding due to an increase in controversies knocking the Court’s doors frequently. More laws mean more disputes, more rights provoke more violations and more reforms result in more intrusion into customs and traditions. What to speak of more awareness resulting in more litigation. 

True, temples are religious institutions and places of worship but they are human creations and as such, secular institutions serving a sacred purpose.   They are organizations and have to be administered as such. 

At the same time, they have to retain a certain atmosphere conducive to promoting religious faith.  Religion-related activities are primarily faith-based and it is difficult to dissociate them from traditions, customs, and usage.  But who determines traditions as practiced today is open to question in the matter of worship.

Clearly, many social reforms like abolition of the “Devdasi” system and minimum age for marriage have taken place by eradicating pernicious customs.  Simultaneously, traditions and customs also cannot remain static.  They have to yield place to reforms to eradicate inequalities and discriminations in worship at public places.

To achieve this in a society where religion itself is a way of life, requires a strong will and a capacity to push reforms gently. The hurdles have to be crossed and will be crossed as democracy has taken strong roots in India. ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)