I was born in a Hindu family, have followed Hindu
traditions, still celebrate festivals even though am a non-believer now. Above
all, I consider myself as someone who respects a person’s resolve to hang on to
faith. It is between him/her and his/her god. So, when I came across the
article ‘Don’t Like This Temple? Choose Another’ by Madhu Purnima Kishwar in
The Hindu, I had my hopes up, thinking that this was about that choice. But turns
out that only the headline was appetizing. What followed was a half baked meal
which has caused me serious intellectual indigestion.
Madhu ji, I am one of your ‘self-proclaimed modern liberals’.
I like art. All sorts of art. I like music, with an eclectic mix. There are
tens of thousands like me who love everything Indian without feeling the need
to subscribe to any religion. So forgive us when we do become annoyed at your
case study. The first course which contributed to my indigestion was the object
of the report. Rahul Easwar. Yes, we all have come across this face on TV. The young
Neo-Hindu who has completely rewritten soft Hindutva and become a master at
packaging the pills of passion for the Hindu youth of today to consume. I am
sorry, but everything you wrote after you presented him as the central figure
seems a bit fuzzy to me. Here you are, with an interesting topic. But you
prefer to lead with someone whose views margin on extremism, who has no regard
for personal liberty, who stands for everything fascistic that this nation is
striving to get rid of, whose sense of humanitarianism is religion based. So forgive
me when I say that you could have made the article appealing to lot more people
had you left that reference out of it.
But, as a writer, it is your discretion. So, be as it may,
let us move on to the rest of the courses of this wonderful meal. My next
problem is with your contention that us, the ‘modern day missionaries’ aren’t
talking about oppression of women in other religions than Hinduism. One has to
pause and wonder exactly in which world this article was written. Us ‘MDMs’ cut
across all religions, castes and classes. We talk about every sort of injustice
with regard to each and every parameter. The issue here is visibility. India being
a Hindu majority nation has media which will bring Hinduism related oppression
to the limelight more. If you happen to read and watch news and discussions
from states like Kerala where the representation of Christians are more and
participation in social progress is cross-sectional, you will find diverse
topics.
I do have to digress here and say that, yes; I view Hindu
rituals as extremely oppressive and misogynistic. I can say that because I have
Brahmin friends who are not allowed to touch food when they are on their
period, because each and every ritual, including Karwa Chaudh, Thingal Vrtham,
etc programmed so as to prevent women from escaping the patriarchal set up. Yes,
there are women exclusive temples, but very few. In the majority and major
temples, menstruation is considered unholy. In this age when stem cells can be
harvested from menstrual blood, our ‘culture’ cannot move past viewing women as
anything more than their wombs. In the case of Sabarimala, though I do agree
that everyone has the right to worship their gods in all the diversity,
criticizing that worship falls within the freedom of expression. What if I say
that the entire premise of Sabarimala makes permissible one popular notion of
our rape culture? That women are responsible for men and their sexuality, that
the presence of fertile women can be tempting and tantalizing to men. What use
is a god who can’t even be held accountable for his choice to remain celibate? Even
in the case of THE Delhi gang-rape case, a version of this argument is being
propagated. So however might the likes of R Easwar try to club the exclusion of
women from Sabarimala as ‘diversity’ or anything else, one cannot deny the
inherent misogyny present in the system.
One does have to take exception to the reference of ‘Following
in the footsteps of our British rulers, who despite their disdain for our gods
and goddesses… But their disdain for those who treat them as objects of worship
remains as ferocious as that of our colonial rulers. ‘When did Indian culture
stop with religion? And when did religion stop with rituals? Hasn’t art always
been a part of it? Are we supposed to infer that one has to adhere to Hindu
religion to properly appreciate and understand art with Hindu themes? Can one
not be a connoisseur of art and simultaneously have a disdain for organized
religion? The references to ‘colonial rulers’ and ‘westernized elites’ are
purposeful attempts at portraying the non-believing sections, those who
criticize antiquated religious rituals as somehow not in touch with reality or
the people. Somehow the undertone seems to suggest a deliberate malice at
someone espousing the same diversity and tolerance of views which the writer
wishes to see. Irony.
As to the writer’s dig at sugar free diet - why not? When this
country is going through a phase of high morbidity and Central and State Govts
giving emphasis to prevention of cardiovascular and lifestyle diseases, why
not? Do you mean to say that religion should be static or that gods shouldn’t change
their persona according to the need of times? How exactly is religion going to
survive if it can’t socially adapt?
The tourist centre allusion was extremely amusing. On one
hand, the writer tends to forget that the architecture, art and history
associated with temples do make compelling rewards to visit them. India has
always banked on them to bring in more tourists. It has nothing to do with
religion. Nor is it marketed as something religious. Again, the writer makes
the mistake of suggesting that culture, faith and religion are synonymous. One does
wonder though, nowhere in this article are tribals mentioned. They have their
own rituals, many tribes don’t consider themselves Hindu. But there are likes
of Rahul Easwar who try and bring them into the fold of Hinduism. Isn’t that
impinging up on the diversity and freedom of worship and views? Yes, I know, it
is very easy to forget them since they don’t form part of our ‘culture’.
So, you can see why this article has caused me a minor
irritation. It tries to speak about something profound. But in the end, it
turns out to be extremely biased and bigoted. Hence, I stop this note of
disagreement with a slightly curved smirk of an arrogant westernized elite
non-believer.
