The Sacred Treasure Hunt

The treasure is still being counted and the last estimates of the treasure trove obtained from the vaults of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple are being pegged at around 100,000 crores – almost like a scene from Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark. There is one more unopened vault which the Supreme Court has yet not permitted to open and so the final figure is anyone’s imagination but the amount is a mind boggling figure by any stretch of imagination. Mind you, the figure is not an official estimate but is hearsay but then who cares, the media has already proclaimed the temple as the richest religious institution in the country.

The priceless items in the vaults include solid gold idols, a 10-foot long gold chain, gold pots, bags of diamonds, hundreds of kilograms of gold trinkets, Belgium diamonds and emeralds, hundreds of French, Dutch East India Company and Roman gold coins(called Aureus), Roman silver coins, Venetian ducats, drachmas, Vijayanagar period coins and so on. Other riches include, necklaces made of gold coins, gold waist bands, anklets, three crowns studded with diamonds, pearls and rubies, gold staff and plates.

The valuation is now being carried out basis a Supreme Court judgment which stayed a ruling by the high court in Kerala ordering the state government to take over the temple and its assets from the royal trust. The initial court petition was brought by a local lawyer, who filed a case in the Kerala High Court demanding the takeover of the temple, saying that the current controllers were incapable of protecting the wealth of the temple because it did not have its own security force.

According to the temple staff, the 18th century ruler of Travancore, Marthanda Varma, gifted his kingdom to the deity, Sree Padmanabhan, after which the royal family has been ruling their subjects as “a servant of Sree Padmanabhan,” or Padmanabhadasan. There is no clear historical agreement on the source of the treasure but it is largely thought to have been in the temple for hundreds of years, having been put there by traders, pilgrims and royals such as the maharajahs of Travancore, and by offerings of Travancore kings, other royals and ordinary devotees to the deity.

The impoverished state of Kerala’s governmental coffers contrasts with the massive treasures unearthed from the temple and so there is a sneaking (wishful) temptation to demand that the temple wealth be given to the Government so that the money is used for public welfare (so the pitch about the size of the funds being equivalent to x% of the GDP or equal to the NREGS or PDS funding required).

With all the various scams corroding the exchequer regularly, there is a clear deficit of faith in the Government’s ability to act as the fund manager. It’s kind of difficult to imagine the Govt as Robin hood by taking this money from the temple and putting it to public use. When the reputation of the politician is in shreds and the Government is seen as an entity that helps in hoarding black money and does nothing about corruption, can you trust this wealth in the hands of the wealth? The Govt needs to be perceived to be at least remotely honest before people can repose their faith in it to do this. Would the same devotees be comfortable in contributing to a temple if teh money were to fill in government coffers?

But then isn’t there is something like an ownership right that exists in this country? If the media discovers that someone is mega rich, there are clamours all around for the money to be used for the discerning public – always easy to be generous when the cash flows from someone else’s pocket, I presume. Some historians have suggested that a major chunk of the stored riches reached the kings in the form of tax, gifts, as well as conquered wealth of conquered states and temples stocked in the temple for safekeeping and so the money is not necessarily a legitimate source of income. By that standard, you’d to have to admit that practically every ancient monument would have to be razed – imagine confiscating the Taj Mahal because Shah Jahan taxed the people heavily to flaunt his love for his wife.   

The valuation exercise being carried out in the temple vaults has thrown up gold assets and artifacts and not hard cash. So, the actual funding can only happen if the Government auctions all the treasure trove and mops up the money. I am no fan of ancient relics but then there are enough museums in the country which can merit this kind of approach and you cannot isolate Padmanabhaswamy temple on this. Public deficit financing through the auction of ancient treasures has never been a public policy and will never be one.

The best way to treat this largess would have to hive it off into a museum on the lines of a Louvre or the British Museum. The museum can be setup under the aegis of a trust comprising the royal family and a couple of government nominees where the role of the Govt will largely be in providing security and building the infrastructure to make it a renowned tourist and cultural location.   

The Kerala government is fearful of being drawn into an issue that has the potential to be religiously divisive. The UDF which has a narrow majority of two seats in an assembly of 140 seats is seen as a minority-friendly government. Analysts believe that the Hindus largely voted for the LDF in the last state elections and so CM Oommen Chandy is wary of upsetting the religious balance especially with a large section vocal section favouring the continuance of the former royal family at the helm of affairs at the temple.

What could eventually happen is what normally happens as an everyday political strategy in India – a committee will be formed to suggest what should be done with the temple’s treasure trove. The news hype will die down and the committee will amble along and finally present a report which probably some sort of status quo (a bit like the anti-climax of the Telangana report). The treasure will be sealed and thrown back into the vaults lock, stock and barrel and the issue will come up once a while as and when the media rises out of its slumber. And the poor Trivandrum citizen will find that living next to a wealthy lord translates into being surrounded by armed security.

Far from insisting on status quo, the issue is an opportunity to revisit a debate on the role of Government in the administration of religious institutions, especially Hindu temples. Nehru’s vision of a secular India meant that in 1949, the Hindu endowments and charitable trusts act was passed which gave control of Hindu religious institutions to the government. So, you have Governments heading trusts like the TTD and the Devaswom Board even though there is no business for the state to get involved in religion and matters of faith. Even here the intervention is selective - there are scores of temples that are lying in a state of neglect but the Government is indifferent but the moment money starts pouring in, there is direct and indirect intervention in its affairs.

It does not help that while Governments think twice before applying similar solutions to Madrassas and Christian Missionaries, there is an urge to clamp down on the religious institutions of the majority community. It is also true that Hindu trusts have themselves not covered themselves in glory by their unwillingness to be transparent and accountable to millions of stakeholders. Religious institutions have to necessarily be more approachable than government offices and ensure that regular audits are carried out and the financial statements are open to scrutiny by anyone. It does not augur well for a temple to be treated as a haven for stacking black money and being opaque in its financial dealings, especially when millions look to it for guidance.

With the Courts deciding in favour of God as a legal entity in the Babri Masjid case, is there any reason why Gods and their offices need to be kept out of the purview of RTI?

P.S. I am no temple goer or worshipper in any true sense. I am a Hindu by birth and by birth only and my relationship to temple is purely cultural and not religious. While I have visited the temple twice, personally, I believe that it is ridiculous that it does not allow non-Hindus inside; an idea that I had railed against earlier.

Seeking A Religious Identity

We just completed 63 years of Self Rule and despite the odds of managing a small conglomerate of billion odd noisy plebeians, we have survived. We have a healthy mix of people who believe India is truly on the path to achieving world leadership as well as cynics who believe ‘Shining India’ is a mere marketing gimmick popularized by the Government’s brand managers. Of course, we all know that the Truth is somewhere in between – just like everything else in life but when you are pressurized to take a stance, you are forced to take cudgels against one group or the other.

The need to identify oneself with any particular group is important to avoid being an outcaste. If I were merely Pradeep, I would not represent anything at all – it would just be a small irrelevant name lost in the thousands of Pradeeps that you get when you do a Google search. But if I were to identify myself as a forward caste, middle class Hindu Keralite Indian, I suddenly give myself rights to speak on behalf of many of “my” people. It may not matter how meaningless these identity groups may be to me but my being a part of them casts certain requirements on me.

The most prominent of these identities that I argue with myself on a regular basis is my religious faith or sometimes the lack of it. Whenever I am critical of anything that is part of Hinduism, I am accused by my family and friends of being pseudo-secular (being called secular is no longer in fashion) and not a good Hindu. When my religious identity is questioned, I asked myself- Am I a bad Hindu? What does it mean to be a good Hindu? Does being an idol worshipper or a temple goer entitle a person to a greater degree of Hinduness than someone who does not subscribe to such views?

I was born an atheist (kids have these bouts of atheism which peter out to faith for many) but have moved to a more centrist approach on religion where I have accepted that religion is a vital ingredient in our lives but its role is more of a cultural one. Cloaking spiritual practices in religion helps in their sustenance; I see many of my colleagues fasting regularly but this practice is more an identification of their culture and has very little to do with spirituality.

Studying in a college which had its foundation in Faith did not help necessarily in converting me but it did give an exposure to an alternate faith (‘alternate” from my perspective) and forced me to question my atheism. Our Director was a Swamiji (a saffron-clad IITian who we called ABC in jest) and we met many people who had given up their dreams to follow AMMA; but at the same time, there were swamis who demanded respect and seemed incapable of humility. Spiritual power is exhilarating and it can lead to a situation where men in saffron demand commitments from commoners without themselves surrendering to the requirements of leading such a life.

My attempts at understanding religion took me on many paths - Reiki during MBA days, Raja Yoga through Brahmakumaris , Transcendental Meditation taught by an enterprising firang when in ICICI and recently Vipassana but it has always been difficult to tread on one path for long. Nevertheless, these experiments have largely made me sceptical of religion - it creates a Dvaita polarised view of the world when we start associating ourselves with our religion instead of being a mere human.

It’s funny how life forces you to accept things or look at things which you want to avoid. I have always distanced myself from organized religion, especially a temple but I am now married to someone who is firmly rooted in temple worship. My wife’s family has a temple in their precincts and they are quite grounded in the idea of religious rituals; the temple is their most prized symbol of identity which they relate now in this era, when they no longer own the farmlands in the pre-EMS days.

I am now expected to be a part of important temple functions which I personally find redundant but even though my mind rebelled initially, I am learning to accept it as a compromise that I need to make after marriage.  Being a liberal would mean adjusting to situations as long as it hurts no one I guess - winning brownie points in a debate is not the only thing that matters!!! If there are people who find peace in temple rituals and idols, so be it. I have no right to impose my opinions on people who find bliss in this form of devotion. After all, if our common goal is to find happiness and even if our paths do not converge, how does it matter?

Religion has a cultural essence and one starts becoming aware of it, especially when there is a perceived threat to one's identity. With the looming threat of terrorism and minority appeasement, there is a revival in the demand to identify and unite in the name of Hinduism. How many times have we heard that we Hindus are not united and so we suffer, learn from the Muslims? We may not practice our religion the way we were taught (I don't think we are ever taught this, of course) but when it comes to debates and any form of public stances, our enlightened souls start to identify with our religion.

We are all born to a certain religion and there is no choice involved there, even though one may choose to covert later on. When we see something in our family that we believe is not right, should we not raise our voice against it? Or do we stay quiet silenced by the fact that another family has the same issue but there is no one who is complaining against them. Religion is a tool which creates some procedures and processes for us to follow so that we can go along the right path but the tool cannot replace the actual path of spirituality. The path of spirituality does not mandate religion; religion is just a beginning, after a certain growth in our spiritual levels, we can discard it. When the path becomes an obsession, the destination slowly starts moving out of the horizon.

I have been critical about Sabarimala and Guruvayoor for their policies of not allowing women and non-Hindus respectively into their shrines. People have defended it saying that these are age-old practices and should not be disturbed but thoughts change over a period of time and what was right at any time in history may not be so relevant now. There are many institutions that we accept the way they are because it has always been that way but an institution needs to change with times to continue being relevant.

At the end of the day, religion is a personal matter but the pursuit of privacy in India is a selfish one. Sometimes, you may need to exhibit a certain amount of faith to get people to believe that you believe in HIM but then even better, why bother to even show. Isn't it so much easier to leave people to exercise their own judgments without you bothering to explain?

It is not easy for Governments to disassociate themselves from religion but it is precisely their role that has complicated what is essentially a matter of faith. The Government panders to symbols of militant groups from various religions and neglects areas where reform is essential. So, the Uniform Civil Code becomes a symbol of minority persecution instead of women empowerment and banning books becomes a law and order issue instead of a question of freedom of expression. Big Brother is adept at using religion to play vote politics and many of us play along with it, ignoring the implications that this means.

While it is easy to be critical of the rest of the populace and act like the perfect liberal, it is so easy to gloss over one’s own prejudices.Nisha Susan in a nice little article in Tehelka tries to look at her and her family’s jaundiced approach towards religion – an article which has inspired me to question my own prejudices and understand whether my actions have any disconnect with the philosophy I believe in and keep harping about.

I realize that while being a liberal is fine, I have my own faith systems like everyone else sometimes making it difficult to see my own inner assumptions about life. It is a bit like Paul Haggis’ Crash where the people who believe in being fair and honest in their assessment of others suddenly make a slip and their prejudices surface leading to a problem.

Image Courtesy - http://www.last.fm/user/mitrado/journal/2008/02/23/trs_atheism_vs_religion_cartoons

Nine Lives: In Search of the Sacred in Modern India

After a couple of fascinating historicals, William Dalrymple, returns to his roots through a travelogue as his wanderlust takes him across rural India in search of stories that look at how religion and traditions survive in modern India. This isn’t a conventional travelogue – it is more of a biography of its various subjects rather than Dalrymple’s experiences during his travel. The concept of Unity in Diversity has been beaten to the pulp by the media, keen to showcase many superficial symbols of our culture, but he digs deep allowing people to demonstrate this fiversity rather than sticking labels to them. This anthology of nine lives is an interesting mix of the lives of people who represent the various facets of the sub-continent culture, without any glorification.

The anthology begins with The Nun’s Tale in Sravanabelagola which focuses on the life of Prasannamati Mataji, a Jain monk, who renounces a life of wealth to become a nun in search of spiritual enlightenment. The process is a painful and prolonged one but she is determined to go through even if means giving up her youth, material and emotional comforts. But total detachment is not so easy and she suffers from the pangs of suffering from her close friend –another nun who embraces Sallekhana (ritual fasting to death which begs the question whether this is a ritual suicide or not). The austere nature of Jainism with focus on abstinence of practically everything without any tangible rewards which makes it an unlikely choice of a religion to withstand the passage of time but it has survived and is doing just as well.

The Dancer of Kannur takes us to Thalassery where Hari Das, a prison warder becomes a Theyyam dancer during the December to February months and is worshipped as an incarnate deity. Theyyam is a popular Hindu dance form in North Kerala, which takes place in small shrines and is performed by members of the lower caste. Once he dons the grease paint and enters into a trance, he feels an unknown shakti entering him and has miraculous healing powers and people come to him, across all castes, seeking his blessings. For Hari, Theyyam is a tool of social empowerment which has improved the conditions of the lower castes but the reality is that the upper class Namboodris who pay their respect to the theyyam artist during the performance remains casteist outside it. Theyyam can give him the self-respect that he needs but his regular income comes from his other not-so-divine jobs and he is uncertain whether this art will survive modern education.

The Daughters of Yellamma (based in Belgaum) looks at the world of Devadasis – upper caste “temple women” who at one point of time were regarded as honourable professionals, entering the service of God. Sadly, the services that they render (primarily Dalits) have now reduced them to the level of prostitutes with no locus standi in the society. The protagonist Rani from the Yellama cult, herself dying of AIDS and with both daughters dead, however takes pride in her profession and refuses to be compared to a sex worker but candidly admits that for all her bravado, her auspicious status makes no difference to her clients in bed (“There is no devotional feeling in bed. F***ing is f***ing. There I am just another woman. Just another whore"). Due to the various reform movements and the changing social structure, the status of devadasis fell drastically and the system was finally abolished in the 1920s. However, for the quarter or so of a million devadasis in these parts, the system is possibly the only way out of poverty and so it thrives, not in the way it was intended to be. Nevertheless, with more and more devadasis suffering from AIDS and other STDs , this tradition is dying.

Dalrymple then moves to Pabusar, a small village in Rajasthan, exploring the tradition of oral rendition of epics sung by a community of bhopas in The Singer of Epics. He tracks Mohan Bhopa and his wife, Batasi, who are the last hereditary singers of a great Rajasthani mediaeval poem, Pabuji Ki Phad. The epic is performed in front of a Phad, a long sheet on which scenes depicting the life and adventures of Pabuji, a 14th century hero, are painted (Interestingly, there is a reference to Ramayana here as Pabuji is supposed to have gone to Lanka and stolen camels from Ravana!!!). The Phad is considered a divine manifestation – similar to the image of Gods – and the bhopa is assumed to have healing powers. The tradition of oral story telling is all but forgotten in the world and this remains one of the last few remnants of this art, primarily because these poems had been turned into religious rituals unlike the Iliad and other Western epics, where it remained in an art form only. Dalrymple makes an interesting point noting that oral tradition flourishes in minds which are illiterate. The literate do not have the capacity to remember what the illiterate do making it difficult to sustain this fragile art which may totally disappear in a few years from now.

In The Red Fairy, Dalrymple moves out of India and lands in Sindh where the secular Sufi culture is fighting to keep itself alive, despite constant attacks by the likes of the orthodox Wahhabis, Deobandis and Tablighis. There he meets Lal Peri, a Sufi saint who moves from Bihar to Bangladesh and then Sindh to escape minority persecution. The Sufis believe that the search for God lies within and reject the restrictions of religion, narrowly interpreted by the mullahs. Their usage of music and poetry in their rituals and access to women have angered the fundamentalists funded by Saudis and supported by authoritarian regimes, leading to regular clashes, which Dalrymple likens to the Reformation Movement struggle in Northern Europe in the 16th Century. The essence of the Sufi-Islam conflict is best captured in these lines by Sain Fakir, an 80-year-old pir, who says: “The Sufis are a threat to the mullahs because we command the love, loyalty and faith of the ordinary people. No one is excluded. You can be an outcaste, a fallen woman, and you can come and pray in the shrine and the Sufi will forgive and embrace you.” This conflict also reflects the brewing tensions that are also slowly being a part of the Indian landscape and the victor would dictate the way this sub-continent will move.

The Monk’s Tale, set in Dharamsala, chronicles the life of Tashi Passang, a hermit in Tibet, who is forced to give up his monastic vows and take up arms to kill Chinese soldiers trying to destroy Buddhism in the 1950s. He escapes to India, joins the Indo-Tibetan force and even fights in the 1971 Bangladesh War before he finally quits the Indian Army in 1986 and returns to Dharamsala, to spend his last years atoning for the violence he had committed. Here he makes wooden blocks and prints prayer flags and finally takes up monastic vows and robes 30 years after renouncing them. Passang’s belief in karma is intact ("Tibetan suffering is possibly due to the actions of Tibetans when they invaded and tortured Chinese in the 7th century") and he hopes that the Chinese would eventually embrace Dharma and they would all return to their homeland. It is difficult for us to understand the emotional turmoil that a monk undergoes when he takes up arms and later on even fight as a soldier in an alien war. Passanga's faith in the path of dharma and Ahimsa even after so many years of struggle is remarkable and is an ode to the power of spirituality and religion.

South India, especially Tamil Nadu, is a hub for temples and all kinds of local deities and spirits thrive here, in the midst of all the IT hoopla. The Maker of Idols focuses on Srikanda Stpathy, who lives in Swamimalai, near Thanjavur, and is a 35th generation member of the premier idol-making Brahmin family of India. The family makes the idols with the same style and process as has been followed for all these centuries since the days of the great Cholas. Idol worship may have been riled as a blind form of devotion by many intellectuals but it has withstood all attempts to condemn it and modernization has only helped in getting markets even outside India. Ironically, for all the reverence that Gods are held in the country, many of the images ooze with sensuality and eroticism and unabashedly celebrate the union of Gods, especially Shiva and Parvati - a reminder that shringara rasa is an important form of worship in India. Stpathy, however notes with a twinge of sadness, that his son and nephew are not interested in idol making and wonders what the future of this family tradition is going to be.

The Lady Twilight is based in Tarapith, a popular centre of Tantric Hinduism in West Bengal, where we meet Manisha Ma Bhairavi, a tantric Sadhu who worships the ferocious Goddess Tara and drinks blood from skulls. Tantra is widely associated with superstitious practices and sexuality which is abhorred in most parts of India but for Manisha Ma, it is devotional. She looks at Tara Ma as a benevolent goddess who protects her and fellow tantrics and says that the violent blood thirsty image is just one side of the Ma, who can be both kind and violent, as the situation demands. Tantrics oppose all forms of society conventions, break all taboos (using ganja, alcohol and ritual sex) and encourage people to get in touch with their inner self by controlling the power of kama. One may or may not agree with this perception of religion but it is true that such a philosophy exists amidst closed doors in many parts of India and people flock in large numbers to get their problems resolved through tantrics.

The last story The Song of the Blind Minstrel is again set in Bengal on the banks of Ajoy River. Dalrymple travels to Kenduli near Shantiniketan to see a gathering of Bauls (saffron clad minstrels) who meet every year in January, descending into a cloud of singing and dancing throughout the night. The story unfolds primarily through the eyes of a blind minstrel, Kannai Das Baul, who along with this group, keep walking along in search of inner peace. The Bauls live a wild and abandoned life and believe that God lives in the present moment in the seeker of the truth and each man must find his own way. Rather than lecturing and sermonizing, they woo audiences through poetry and music and ask them to look inwards. They also follow a Tantric tradition and embrace breathing and orgasm in elaborately ritualised sexual rites. It is interesting to note that atheistic and agnostic philosophy is not totally new to Hinduism and the Chavarka school of thought in 6th Century B.C. rejected the idea of God.

It is easy to fall prey to the clichés of “Mystic India” and let one’s prose lose in the wilderness of this country but Dalrymple avoids this trap and gives a non-judgmental account of these lives which seem at odds with the rapid pace that the country is supposed to be taking. The writer, the journalist and the traveller all work in tandem as each subject spells out his/her story and Dalrymple fills in the background facts, the history and provides insights on the various events that mark the landscape of the story, giving it a documentary like feel.

The accounts are engrossing and with the wide variety of facts that Dalrymple puts in at frequent intervals, one can visualize the stories as they unfold. Whether it is the tantric cremation ground, the arid sands of Rajasthan or the crowded temple towns of the South, we are present there and moving along with him as he tries to understand a religion, which is totally different in form and structure from Christianity. He finds it interesting that many of these traditions would probably have been shunned in the West but in India, they are looked at with reverence and the practitioners of these various religious forms co-exist in the society peacefully.

Many of the stories have an exotic Oriental flavour to them but Dalrymple largely succeeds in humanizing these characters and bringing life to these various gateways of life which aim at reaching God. There is Bhakti, Tantra, Sufism, Buddhism and many other schools of thought but he does not preach or act like a modern Indian liberal sitting on judgment - he just observes and looks admiringly at the plurality and heterodoxy of a culture that sustains all these sets of beliefs, without infringing upon each other.

Are we not Individuals?

Remember the final of the 1st World T-20 championship in 2007– a match that would I have remembered for Misbah Ul Haq’s brilliant performance but remember it sadly for the stupid comments by Shoaib Malik during the closing ceremony - I want to thank everyone back home in Pakistan and Muslims all over the world. Thank you very much and I’m sorry that we didn’t win, but we did give our 100 per cent. To this day, I find it difficult to believe that Shoaib actually believed that his victory would bring joy to Muslims across – an assumption that brands individuals merely as clusters of people who think alike, purely based on their religion.

Sub-consciously, in lot of our thoughts, we identify people not just as individuals with their own ideologies and thoughts but as groups who work collectively and are driven by certain sets of beliefs – religion possibly being the most important one. We indulge in major stereotyping about each other – in every Hindu-Muslim discussion, it comes down to Muslims are fundamentalists, they cheer for Pakistan at cricket matches, they marry four wives, they do not go in for family planning and will soon overwhelm Hindus in India. It is debatable how much of this can stand scrutiny, in fact; the TOI carried an article recently of how polygamy is more rampant in Hindus than in Muslims.

Hindus believe that because of the wide splinter groups in terms of castes and communities, they are divided while Muslims are united and so they thrive. Ask the Muslim and he thinks that it is a free fall with Shias Vs Sunnis Vs Ahmediyas, Arabs Vs Africans Vs Asians and he looks at Hindus as one block. Hindus believe that minorities have been pandered to in this country and they are doled out favours by everyone – however, look at the statistics and see how under represented the Muslim community is in the judicial, civil and public service in the country.

Stereotyping is not a brush that only Hindus use to paint others with; Muslims equally believe that Hindus are the dominant community out to wipe out the minority community – their reference points being Mumbai, Gujarat, Delhi etc. But both communities need to understand each other and not get absorbed by these kinds of limiting beliefs. When the Government pandered to the minorities by sucking upto the likes of Syed Shahabuddin and Imam Bukhari, they created a fear mindset in the minds of the Hindus, who start believing that that no one cares for them because they are not united as Hindus and so they need to group themselves.

In 1986, when Supreme Court ruled that Shah Bano, an old Muslim woman, was entitled to alimony after talaq by her husband, the Rajiv Government with a brutal majority, fearing the Muslim reaction, passed an act, which in effect nullified the Supreme Court's judgment and upheld the Muslim Personal Law, thus denying even utterly destitute Muslim divorcees the right to alimony from their former husbands.

In 1988, the Indian government banned all imports of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses under the Customs Act, after two MPs went to Rajiv Gandhi and said that the ‘Verses’ would create a law-and-order situation (the book is still banned in India). Banning the book has set a precedent which cannot be revoked – so MF Hussain is booted out of India, Anand Patwardhan’s movies cannot be released and every artist has to think twice to ensure that their works do not hurt the sentiments of people, who seem to be waiting in queue to be offended.

Bending State Laws on a mere alimony case, banning a book, providing financial assistance to minority institutions are mere examples of the Government’s high handedness which have made Hindus apprehensive. Muslim leaders claimed victory for these actions by the Government but at what price? They isolated the majority community who begun to believe that all the Government cares for is the minority sentiment. And who benefits from such clumsy actions?

A few Muslim leaders who claim that they represent the community but the average Muslim has no stake in this and he remains a pawn who is used by the Government and their so-called leaders for vote bank politics. But when he sees that the Government only listens to the Shahi Imam and his ilk, he thinks that the only way to assert his rights is to side with them. So, Shah Bano and Salman Rushdie become symbols of this assertion; India’s relationship with Israel becomes an anti-Muslim conspiracy, any talk of a Uniform Civil Code becomes an assault on his religious beliefs.

Now, it is easy for the Muslim community to blame the majority for their lack of progress and so demand reservations in various spheres of life. But Muslim intellectuals need to ask themselves as to what is the cause of their ghettoisation and poor social and economic situation – discrimination or lack of education? Reservation benefits only the creamy layer and merely drives the wedge between majority and minority communities more. It breeds mistrust and actually inculcates a higher degree of groupism, rather than undermining it – inner reform is more important.

In debates, the situation in Kashmir and North East are bandied about to illustrate the way the Government treats the minorities. But look deeper, the issue is not of discrimination – the issue of non-performance and repeated governmental failures. The way innocents are treated by policemen in Kerala are just as callous as in Kashmir but when we look at the event through religious eyes, it appears a case of Muslim harassment.

Yes, there are instances of discrimination – if Gujarat happened, there were riots in many other places in India too where the majority community suffered. Statistically, one cannot compare deaths and look at how one pogrom is bigger than the other – the administration is just as blind in its compensation, the useless Government officer does not care if it is a Muslim or a Hindu, until his palms are greased.

Governments run away from taking tough decisions and wait for the situation to boil over but still remain passive – Indira Gandhi created a Bhindranwale to get Sikh votes, isolated Assam by turning a blind eye to infiltration and finally fell a victim to her own machinations. Rajiv Gandhi played the Shah Bano card and V P Singh countered with the Mandal and BJP used the Kamandal with the Ram Mandir issue – all various political tricks which have brought us to where we are now. The Uniform Civil Code is an important piece of legislation because it strives to bring all communities under one tree – how can a so-called secular nation have different Personal Laws, when it I supposed to treat all religions alike? Can a certain religious text, which supposedly, has a divine sanction, be more important than the law of the land?

It is important that communities sit together and understand each other, doing away with all kind of middlemen who are only out there to exploit issues. The State, the middlemen like the priest and religious institutions like the Church and the All India Muslim Personal Board have absolutely no locus standi in our day to day lives and are in no way representatives of our communities.

We are individuals, human beings who need to be treated just as that – not vote banks that are herded across by social and political groups that claim to represent us. Secularism has lost its way in the country and become a mere eyewash – as a philosophy, it is important but the direction that it has taken, has ensured that is just another –ism to divide people.

Reflections on Firaaq

Yesterday, a friend and I watched Nandita Das’s directorial debut Firaaq, at PVR, Goregaon. I had my apprehensions before watching the movie, mainly fuelled by my impression of intellectual artists. But my fears were clearly unfounded – the movie is a compelling peek into the lives of ordinary people, primarily Muslims, in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots. Firaaq which means ‘separation’ as well as 'quest' is at once understated and hard-hitting in a way that it seriously makes one think how difficult it could potentially be for a Muslim to live in ‘secular’ India.

The movie puts in a few characters into the communal cauldron and stirrs it slowly, very slowly and makes us feel the heat of the situation. The hatred simmers on the surface and threatens occasionally to spill over but Nandita never allows it to burst open. The movie worked for me primarily for a couple of reasons.

It does not resort to finger wagging the way over zealous media persons do as they scream allegations at the possible perpetrators of the crime, but at the same time, it is very clear where Nandita’s sympathies lie. The Rajdeeps and Arnabs always go for an over-kill, repulsing sympathizing members of the majority community. There is, thankfully, no violence shown but the threat always looms largely over the characters. She deftly keeps violence at minimum and uses the fear, frustration and anger of the characters to drive home the point.

Secondly, in many ways, it is mainstream cinema’s (I like to believe that this is actually mainstream) probably first candid admission of the role of the majority community in the riots. It does not flinch in pointing the blame at the recklessness and partisan role played by the government machinery in perpetuating the riots. It does not attempt to sound politically right (unlike Mani Ratnam’s syrupy Bombay), delivers no sermons or half-baked solutions but simply observes the people involved in it.

When Sanjay, a Hindu character, played by Paresh Rawal, feels outraged that had a similar pogrom been unleashed against the Hindu majority, no one would speak up for them, he probably echoes the feelings of many in the country who, either through their actions/words or silence have contributed to the communal cleansing carried out in many parts of the country.

Every time, somebody tries to speak for the minority community, he is branded a pseudo-secularist and reminded of the thousands of Kashmiri Hindus driven out of their homes and living as refugees in parts of the country. There is an underlying assumption that the Hindu community is peace loving and inherently secular and is only reacting to the minorities who are threatening the tranquility of this place.

How many times have we been told that India remains secular largely due to the Hindu majority’s attitude and that Muslims should be happy that they are safer here and not in any of our neighbouring nations? Maybe there is an implicit suggestion that you need to be grateful to the majority community for still tolerating and even nurturing you when the rest of the world considers you as agents of terror.

Every time a Gujarat like pogrom is carried out, it is supposedly due to a set of misguided people and miscreants who have nothing to do with our religion but anytime a bomb explodes anywhere in the world, the Indian Muslim has to hang his head in shame, as if he is responsible in some way for the incident.

We need to distinguish an individual from a community and not indulge in stereotyping but this distinction has been blurred not only by the apathy of the State and the politics involved in playing to the vote bank but also by the role played by the minority leadership, which thrives on playing the oppressed – it is easy to cry foul every time there is an issue but difficult to actually play any constructive role in development.

There is a need for the majority community to constantly reassure the minority community on their well-being. Do not look at this as a vehicle for appeasement but a responsibility to ensure that all is well in the family. In times of communal disharmony (which is quite frequent nowadays), it is this bonding that helps in maintaining sanity among human beings. Everytime a big tree falls, we do not need the ground to shake...

When Raghuvir Yadav, who plays the caretaker to an ailing musician Naseeruddin Shah says “Aapko dukh nahin hota shaher main kitne saare Musalmaanon ki hathya ho rahi hai”, Shah replies – “Dukh is baat ka hai ki ek insaan dossre ko maar raha hai”. This in many ways is the essence of the movie – the thread sustaining humanity is so slender that it merely requires someone to pull ever so slightly at the strings of religion/caste/class and the entire thing collapses, leaving behind a trail of destruction and no true victor.

In The Name of Ram

Religion’s a funny business, alright. My site meter tells me that my posts on Religion have traditionally done a better job than my other poorly performing posts. So, just to liven up things here and boost the sagging fortunes of this blog, I am posting one on religion.

Watch any news channel now and you know who are the attention grabbers currently - Ram Sethu, DMK and the BJP and their stallions, the VHP and other rag tags. Wonder how come Shiv Sena has not entered the fray- after all; it is the Madrasi Dravidian Karunanidhi who has been making these anti-Hindu comments.

It all started with the ASI making an ass of itself with its uncalled remarks, in a petition to the courts hearing the Ram Sethu issue. The affidavit claims that there was no historical evidence that Rama and Ramayana ever existed.

There is a lot of literary work that talks about the Ram Sethu and its origins. Should we conveniently ignore all that because the ASI thinks it is unscientific to consider literature as a source for historical veracity?

I am not questioning the ability of the ASI to judge these issues but surely, they could have stuck to plain engineering and economics for their stand, instead of bringing Rama into the picture.

Judging the evidence of the Sethusamudram bridge is fine but questioning the very existence of Rama is not their prerogative. Why would the ASI make such a claim and create a controversy when none existed, atleast from a historical angle? Beats me.

Whether we like it or not, religion is an integral part of all our lives and plays an important role in moulding us. It is a sensitive issue and the government could have shown greater tact. Sonia or Ambika may think that Rama is a figment of our dreams and there is nothing wrong if they think that way.

After all, this is a matter of faith and everyone has his or her set of beliefs which needs to be respected by others. But to put that in a government affidavit and make a fool of oneself is a simple case of committing political hara kiri.

Karunanidhi’s arguments do not even merit a discussion but they do make for decent juvenile reading.

Does Rama have an engineering degree and where did he graduate from???

Did the Tamil Nadu CM actually make such a remark? Imagine asking what Kamban’s authority on Ramayana is; after all, has he done his BA in Tamil from any college?

This is no atheist blogger venting out his spleen against religion and God but the Chief Minister of a State. Is it acceptable for a public figure and that too the head of a state to make such comments? Surely, there are better things to argue about rather than the veracity of Rama’s existence? Matters of faith anyway cannot be decided by logic and are best left to the people who care about it.

DMK cannot raise the bogey of freedom of speech here. After all, you could scarcely imagine them questioning the existence of Jesus and the marine engineering skills of Moses in splitting the sea or probing through the Koran for any non-scientific material?

There are many Hindus who are not too particular about religion but even they are bothered when their religion is selectively mocked at by the highest leadership but in the same breath, nothing is mentioned against the other religions because of the fear of being branded “communal”.

Shouldn’t the political class think that their comments may alienate a certain set of people, simply because of religious bias while taking potshots at religion? Of course, my point is not that they should rant against all religions and thus prove their secular credentials.

India is a religious cauldron and there are people waiting for an excuse to go berserk with their beliefs. What is the need to vitiate such an atmosphere by coming up sensitive remarks that would offend any community?

I do not have any issue if such a feeling were expressed by someone in his personal capacity but public figures must be sensitive to other’s feelings and not just scream over roof tops to claim a point.

What happened after all this mud-slinging is ofcourse highly deplorable. A bus of the Tamil Nadu State Transport was torched (killing 2 persons) and Selvi, Karunanidhi’s daughter, was attacked – all in the name of Ram. There are thousands who are willing to die and kill for religion but no one it seems who wants to live for religion.

Such acts of vandalism have no place in any civilized setup and it is extremely painful to see such acts of democratic hijacks. There are so many of us asking this question repeatedly Is our faith so narrow that one person’s statements can make us behave like barbarians?

To me, the entire issue is a debate of ecology and economics. There will be always be conflict in this area but we need to sit across a table, discuss this out and close it. There is always a solution but it can happen only when there is a give and take and tolerance and acceptance of different sets of values.

As a democracy, we are making rapid strides but where we seem to be caught in a time wrap is our level of intolerance. Forget it, it is not even a time wrap; I’m sure we have been more liberal in the past but as we progress we just don’t care what someone else wants to say.

Considering the complexities of running this nation where the only uniting point is nationalism, we must tread very carefully. A small scratch and the entire fabric holding this idea will tear apart.

I strongly believe that religion divides people but it can also be a great unifier. It teaches us to forgive and forget; the true value of our religions has been conveniently forgotten in the din of intolerance that we have come to practice.

Right to Reincarnate????

Reincarnation was always considered to be something left to the faith of people and a religious issue. But now, the overzealous Chinese Government has pitched in to stop and regulate reincarnations.

We always knew that the Chinese government was scared of the Tibetan monks but isn't this stretching it a bit too far? In a new rule, Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission from China’s atheist leaders.

Beats me how the Government is going to identify reincarnations. Can you imagine a set of monks sitting for a reincarnation test and then an interview? Maybe the monks would have to submit an application claiming their reincarnation with required proof, duly attested by a gazetted officer (scope for easy money).

When matters of faith start being regulated and framed by governments, you know where this is all headed. Now you’d appreciate the complex responsibilities that bureaucrats have to deal with across the world, especially in such regulated democracies...

For further reading, check this space - China tells living Buddhas to obtain permission before they reincarnate...

Open Up Guruvayur

The Guruvayur Devaswom Board is sitting this week to decide on whether or not to allow the entry of the legendary singer, K J Yesudas, into the precincts of Guruvayur temple or not. This was prompted due to the renewed efforts by Devaswom Minister G. Sudhakaran who has written to Guruvayur Devaswom Board chairman Thottathil Ravindran, seeking entry for Yesudas to the temple. The Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple, located in the Guruvayur town of Thrissur district in Kerala is one of the most sacred and important pilgrimage centres in Kerala, dwarfed in terms of popularity only perhaps by the Sabarimala temple. Unfortunately despite all its holiness, its image has been somewhat sullied by its refusal to allow non-Hindus entry into the shrine.

Yesudas, who has sung several songs in praise of Lord Krishna, has not been allowed entry into the temple because he is a Christian – Kattassery Joseph Yesudas, a Catholic Christian hailing from Kochi. A few decades ago, the Guruvayur temple authorities stopped him at the gate but let in the rest of a concert troupe, led by his Guru, the late Carnatic maestro Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar. The Guru walked out and his heart melted at the sight of Yesudas, standing outside in the dark, in tears. The Guru then led the disciple to an impromptu venue outside the temple and held a nightlong concert in praise of Lord Krishna.

Scores of Keralites have grown up listening to bhajans sung by Yesudas, but never have we thought of him as a Christian singing Hindu hymns. The purity of his voice has enthralled all of us and for years we have been listening to hymns in praise of Lord Krishna flowing melodiously from the vocal chords of this great singer. When asked about the Board’s decision to discuss the issue regarding his entry into the temple precincts, Yesudas says:

I and my family are thankful to the Minister. But a situation should evolve on its own when temple doors will open for all those who have boundless devotion for the Lord. My entry to the temple should not be at the expense of thousands of devotees who reach out to the Lord suffering a lot of hardships. By any measure, the extent of my devotion might count for much less than those who are often made to wait their turn merely to accommodate VIPs.

Poet Yusufali Kecherry, who has penned some of the best Malayalam songs on Lord Krishna, has similarly not been allowed to enter the Guruvayur temple because he is a Muslim. A few years ago, when Congress General Secretary Vayalar Ravi's only son was married at Guruvayur, a punyaham - ritual cleansing- was performed to cleanse the temple premises because Ravi’s wife, Mercy, is not a Hindu, but a Christian.

But the temple has its share of people it is willing to accommodate, despite its avowed policy. Recently, the temple authorities allowed Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse offer a gold crown to the Guruvayoor temple and to pray for peace in his country, along with his wife. The temple put an explanation saying Jain and Buddhists are within the larger definition of Hindus. Smart thinking!!! Jainism negates the existence of God and Buddhism has been silent on this, but they can still be allowed while a devout Christian cannot!!! Even atheists and agnostics can be allowed but not non-Hindus???

In a state where there is such a substantial non-Hindu population and where religion has not been too much of an issue (at least when compared to the rest of the country), isn’t it retrograde to follow such religious practices? There have been arguments that if Yesudas so badly wants to enter Guruvayur temple, why doesn’t he convert to Hinduism? But why should he? Are we so short-sighted that our culture cannot look beyond a man’s religion? Religion is a way of leading one’s life and is not a life in itself.

There has been justified criticism in certain quarters of Christianity and Islam not allowing Hindus into their fold (except for proselytization purposes). If non-Muslims wanted to go to Mecca/Medina, would they be allowed? Since they also practice such restrictions, we are also within our rights not to allow non-Hindus into temples. Fair enough to win an argument but do we need to compare ourselves with other religions and try to do a tit-for-tat policy.

I had written about the Jayamala-Sabarimala controversy earlier and expressed my view that women must be allowed entry inside the shrine. There are different views on this with many women themselves asserting that this is not a gender issue and should not be treated from that angle. That may or may not be accurate but the Sabarimala controversy needs further debate, keeping in mind the larger cultural perspective. However, in this case, what is the justification that can be provided here other than historical precedents and cultural issues?

Certain things that have been happening in a particular way should continue in the same way, they say. But then, aren’t we moving ahead in life? Do we still need to carry such historical baggage? Popular culture is a by-product of several social and political conditions prevailing at a particular point if time. As time progresses, we need to shed many of the layers that we have been sub-consciously bearing and give way to progressive changes. Resistance to change is a basic human condition but if we need to liberate ourselves, we need to start changing with times and not cling to age old traditions which may have had relevance at some point of time in the past but no longer now.

Though not a regular temple goer, I have often felt a certain sense of peace in Kerala temples which I find missing in other temples like ISKCON (Bangalore), Birla Mandir (Hyderabad) and Siddhi Vinayak (Mumbai). This is purely a personal view and people may feel otherwise. Many people opine that this temple ethos is largely due to the efforts of the temples in Kerala to maintain their traditions and stick to many of the old rules, established in temples. Strict adherence to dress code and many of the temple rituals and traditions have managed to keep that sense of halo intact in the temple there. But as time goes, certain norms become redundant and need to be cast away, keeping in mind, the larger purpose served by temples. Can they match that fine balance between tradition and modernity, without falling victims to the whims and fancies of the people involved??

Only time will tell but till that time, we can only hope to see Yesudas singing one day within the walls of the Guruvayur temple….

Jayamala Vs Sabarimala

Background: The renowned Ayyappa temple in Sabarimala was going through a lot of trials and tribulations. A deva prashnam(astrological inquiry) was done to find out the problem. The astrologers declared that a woman had entered the temple precincts, which was a violation of the temple rules that had resulted in this current state of affairs. Kannada actress, Jayamala, then admitted that she had entered the temple in the late 1980s, praying for her ailing husband.

Poor bachelor Lord Ayyappa is now in the midst of a controversy as to whether a woman visited him or not. The world is aghast as to how could a fertile woman go to Sabarimala and touch the feet of the Lord - a place where one requires undergoing about 40 days of purity before travelling. There are 2 angles to this issue - One, as to how a woman could have gone to the place and touched the idol when women in the age group of 10-50 are not allowed there and two, the larger issue of whether there should be any such discrimination/tradition (depending on which side you represent) in terms of the entry of women into religious places.

Clearly, there are mischief mongers in the background willing to pounce on an opportunity to defame the temple, otherwise why would Karnataka State Assembly get involved in an issue which is of no concern to them. There’s a clearly known rule in Sabarimala that women before menopause are not to be allowed inside the shrine and if Kannada actress, Jayamala had entered it, as she claims, it probably needs to be probed. How could a woman enter the temple and return unnoticed when there would have been so many devotees who would have witnessed this? The head priest claims that even he does not touch the idol during the daily worship and so it is impossible for Jayamala to have done so. The first observations suggest that Jayamala is probably lying but then one wonders what could be the motive to make any such claim, that too after about 15 odd years. This would need to be investigated further to check the veracity of the matter.

However, the larger question that begs discussion is should women be stopped from entering the shrine. I have been arguing with people on this and one explanation given to me is that a woman in menstruation is impure and should not be allowed to desecrate the place. Some others have suggested that people come to pray in temples and that the presence of women could be a major distraction while others have used the familiar excuse of sticking to temple traditions and that the Lord was a bachelor and so women must not be allowed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does this not affect other places of worship? Is it that only Sabarimala needs to protect itself from the vice called "women”? How can we refer to women as "impure" or "unclean" when we meet the same women in offices, in educational places and other religious places? Men cannot push the blame of lusting at women on women themselves; they need to take responsibility for their actions and not blame them for everything. One wonders why India's most socially forward state is trying to hide male chauvinism in the garb of religious traditions and rituals and shying away from making a potentially significant statement on gender equality.

A religious institution should not be run on the grounds of any discrimination like religion, sex, caste etc. After all, God has no form or features that we discriminate this way. Traditions come into existence due to certain existing social norms and these need to change as times change. Obviously, these cannot change overnight but we need to create an atmosphere where they must be debated. I am thankful that this incident, whatever the merits or demerits, has resulted in focussing the spotlight on the larger picture - Role of Women in Religion.

We may disagree with each other when it comes to this but it’s, nevertheless, important to deliberate on it. But it's important not to mix a genuine gender issue with a religious issue. Attempts have been made to paint this as a Hindu religious problem (like how it happened in the Shah Bano case) but that would communalize the issue and deviate from the true focus required.

P.S. As I write this article, I hear that one of the tantris (priests) in Sabarimala has been suspended for sexual misdemeanours with a prostitute. So much for women desecrating temple sanctity!!!!!