07-14-2006, 09:39 AM
Somebody needs to teach Mr. M.P.Bhattathiri the concept and conventions of a discussion forum.... He is being courteous all right, but there is no point making an argument out of his previous post, because from the look of his posts, there is going to be no reply.
Anyway, here goes...
-------------------------
Mr. Bhattathiri, I think you are wrong on this issue in a number of ways.
1. Why should women not be allowed into the temple?
The idea that women <b>should be treated the same as men in all respects by everyone in all circumstances</b>, is a very culture-specific idea. It is specific to the culture of <b><i>Modernism</i></b>, for want of a better word.
There is nothing inherently superior about either Modernism or this brand of equality that you are advocating. Human beings act in different ways in different circumstances, it is their right. In this case, it is the right of the temple-owners to forbid women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the temple. Actually, it is their right to impose whatever conditions they wish.
2. The government must intervene to force the temple authorities to allow women.
Government as a secular entity can only come into the picture, when there is a violation of a human right. <b>Nobody, women or men, has any inherent right to enter into a temple</b>. That is a privilege granted to people by the temple authorities. The temple authorities have the right to withdraw that privilege whenever it suits them.
3. But Sabarimala is a public temple: Article 290A of the Indian Constitution entails the State of Kerala to pay, yearly, 4.65 million rupees to Sabarimala's Temple board.
That is the problem in India. A strictly secular government, like in the US, will not interfere in the workings of a religious body. It can neither finance it, nor operate it, nor intervene in anyway in its religious activities. In fact, here is a definition of a secular government: <b>A secular government cannot, by legislative action or any other form of action, discriminate between religious and non-religious persons, organizations, speech or conduct.</b> By that definition, the government of India has <i>signally failed</i>. It is not secular. In fact, it is pretty much a <b>totalitarian democracy</b>. It uses its democratically invested authority to regulate all kinds of activities, by all kinds of persons. <b>It knows no limits in such regulation</b>.
This is not good for India, as a matter of general principle. A government must be limited. It must have limited goals, and limited means. These should be enforced by a constitution. Our constitution, unfortunately, allows the government to do practically anything it likes.
Ritual constructs in religion - either religious shrines or elaborate rituals, traditions and acts of faith - cannot be judged fairly on the basis of a modernists' view of the world. It is the believer's viewpoint that must be given overarching importance. It is the believer's faith that invests ritual and tradition with meaning, sanctity and authenticity.
For example, in the case of this temple, Ayyappa is considered a bachelor God, and for that reason, a centures-old tradition exists that prohibits women from entering the temple. From a modernists' viewpoint, none of the things involved (the religion, the tradition, the temple, the God, the worship, the bhajans, the rules on dress, the prohibition of sex and meat during the vratam, the prohibition on women, the lack of footwear) have any sanctity - all can be questioned. Why? Because, in modernism, none of these things is invested with meaning.
<b>That meaning, that sanctity is derived only from a believer's faith</b>. So, let us leave this issue where it should properly lie - in the hands of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, and the temple authorities.
Anyway, here goes...
-------------------------
Mr. Bhattathiri, I think you are wrong on this issue in a number of ways.
1. Why should women not be allowed into the temple?
The idea that women <b>should be treated the same as men in all respects by everyone in all circumstances</b>, is a very culture-specific idea. It is specific to the culture of <b><i>Modernism</i></b>, for want of a better word.
There is nothing inherently superior about either Modernism or this brand of equality that you are advocating. Human beings act in different ways in different circumstances, it is their right. In this case, it is the right of the temple-owners to forbid women between the ages of 10 and 50 from entering the temple. Actually, it is their right to impose whatever conditions they wish.
2. The government must intervene to force the temple authorities to allow women.
Government as a secular entity can only come into the picture, when there is a violation of a human right. <b>Nobody, women or men, has any inherent right to enter into a temple</b>. That is a privilege granted to people by the temple authorities. The temple authorities have the right to withdraw that privilege whenever it suits them.
3. But Sabarimala is a public temple: Article 290A of the Indian Constitution entails the State of Kerala to pay, yearly, 4.65 million rupees to Sabarimala's Temple board.
That is the problem in India. A strictly secular government, like in the US, will not interfere in the workings of a religious body. It can neither finance it, nor operate it, nor intervene in anyway in its religious activities. In fact, here is a definition of a secular government: <b>A secular government cannot, by legislative action or any other form of action, discriminate between religious and non-religious persons, organizations, speech or conduct.</b> By that definition, the government of India has <i>signally failed</i>. It is not secular. In fact, it is pretty much a <b>totalitarian democracy</b>. It uses its democratically invested authority to regulate all kinds of activities, by all kinds of persons. <b>It knows no limits in such regulation</b>.
This is not good for India, as a matter of general principle. A government must be limited. It must have limited goals, and limited means. These should be enforced by a constitution. Our constitution, unfortunately, allows the government to do practically anything it likes.
Ritual constructs in religion - either religious shrines or elaborate rituals, traditions and acts of faith - cannot be judged fairly on the basis of a modernists' view of the world. It is the believer's viewpoint that must be given overarching importance. It is the believer's faith that invests ritual and tradition with meaning, sanctity and authenticity.
For example, in the case of this temple, Ayyappa is considered a bachelor God, and for that reason, a centures-old tradition exists that prohibits women from entering the temple. From a modernists' viewpoint, none of the things involved (the religion, the tradition, the temple, the God, the worship, the bhajans, the rules on dress, the prohibition of sex and meat during the vratam, the prohibition on women, the lack of footwear) have any sanctity - all can be questioned. Why? Because, in modernism, none of these things is invested with meaning.
<b>That meaning, that sanctity is derived only from a believer's faith</b>. So, let us leave this issue where it should properly lie - in the hands of the devotees of Lord Ayyappa, and the temple authorities.