OH MY GOD!

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.