09-02-2009, 12:53 PM
<b>Maoists eye temple fund
</b>
Pashupatinath is a treasure trove
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After suffering a reverse via the Nepal Governmentâs decision to reinstate Indian priests at Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu some months ago, the Maoists are again trying to gain control of the shrine. Opponents of the tradition of Bhatts, who perform rites at the shrine and are recruited from south India, recently rushed into the premises and locked up the office of the managing committee, Pashupati Area Development Trust. The aggression was reported to be triggered by the move to appoint two priests from Karnataka. Last month, the trust formed a three-member committee, including the chief priest, for the purpose. The shortfall in staff officiating at the temple was affecting ritual performances.
This situation surfaced after the Supreme Court stayed the appointment of two Nepalese priests in January this year. Though the court directed that the old practice of appointing Indians should continue, the case awaits a final resolution.
The Maoistsâ attempt to gain control over Pashupatinath temple, Nepalâs most-renowned pilgrimage and a world heritage site, is viewed cynically by locals as less of an assertion of national identity and more as a bid to get access to the templeâs huge corpus of funds. For, the Shiv shrine, whose origins are lost in the mists of antiquity, is among the most sacred for Hindus around the world. It ranks in importance with ancient Shiv shrines in India.
The huge rush of pilgrims to Pashupatinath throughout the year and in all seasons ensures handsome offerings. The surmise that the tussle over control of the shrine management is driven by motives other than ideology may be correct. There are precedents for such a struggle.
To cite a pertinent example at home, long before the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya became politicised, the town had witnessed bitter feuds between claimants to the site, viewed by devout Hindus as the birthplace of Ram. Alongside Muslims who pressed their claims were the Nirmohi Akhara and Digambar Akhara. Ayodhya has a history of disputes between various religious factions over property and wealth.
Bairagis, a Vaishnav sect that popularised Tulsidasâs Ramcharitmanas through dramatic renderings, and Shaivs fought for control of shrines as these meant rich pickings. The former believed that the legendary King Vikramaditya of Ujjain had made a splendid temple at Ramâs birthplace, and they had ownership rights to the site. Struggles over control of shrines often ended in killings of mahants and their ashrams or shrines being taken over by adversaries.
In more recent times, Maithili Sharan of Janaki Ghat and Bajrangdas of Hanumangarhi were said to have met this fate. And, the chief mahant of Mumuksh Bhavan at Vibhishan Kund was apparently killed by a disciple, impatient to grab his ashram. Such instances abound in pilgrimages, where piety and sin co-exist. Rather than a political feud, many people living in Kathmandu valley choose to view the ongoing tussle at Pashupatinath as a struggle between two factions for access to temple property and funds.
Traditionally, priests at Pashupatinath temple have been recruited from South India since the time of King Yaksha Malla, who reigned in the 15th century. Another account holds that Adi Shankaracharya, the 8th century AD monk who restored the primacy of theism over agnostic faiths, initiated the custom of South Indian priests officiating at Himalayan Hindu shrines such as Badrinath, Kedarnath and Pashupatinath. It reflected his vision of unity. A third view holds that Indian priests were brought to ensure uninterrupted worship at the fabled shrine. This is because custom enjoined the Nepalese people to undertake a year-long mourning, even suspending religious service, when the monarch died. Indian priests could be expected to perform ritual worship while the whole of Nepal lamented the kingâs demise.
The forced attempt to break with tradition has been criticised both in Nepal and India. Those backing Nepali priests argue that they are as skilled as their Indian counterparts in performing rites. But, the matter being subjudice, they need to bide their time till a final verdict on the matter is given by the court. Abolishing the monarchy and trying to undo religious convention are not the same. For, despite its conversion into a secular state, the country clearly harbours a Hindu soul, rooted in millennia of uninterrupted worship at Himalayan shrines that have withstood the march of centuries, as much as ideological assaults.
Maoist haste to take over Pashupatinath only raises questions about the motive for such a course of action. Since it cannot be political, the reason is not far to seek.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
</b>
Pashupatinath is a treasure trove
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After suffering a reverse via the Nepal Governmentâs decision to reinstate Indian priests at Pashupatinath temple in Kathmandu some months ago, the Maoists are again trying to gain control of the shrine. Opponents of the tradition of Bhatts, who perform rites at the shrine and are recruited from south India, recently rushed into the premises and locked up the office of the managing committee, Pashupati Area Development Trust. The aggression was reported to be triggered by the move to appoint two priests from Karnataka. Last month, the trust formed a three-member committee, including the chief priest, for the purpose. The shortfall in staff officiating at the temple was affecting ritual performances.
This situation surfaced after the Supreme Court stayed the appointment of two Nepalese priests in January this year. Though the court directed that the old practice of appointing Indians should continue, the case awaits a final resolution.
The Maoistsâ attempt to gain control over Pashupatinath temple, Nepalâs most-renowned pilgrimage and a world heritage site, is viewed cynically by locals as less of an assertion of national identity and more as a bid to get access to the templeâs huge corpus of funds. For, the Shiv shrine, whose origins are lost in the mists of antiquity, is among the most sacred for Hindus around the world. It ranks in importance with ancient Shiv shrines in India.
The huge rush of pilgrims to Pashupatinath throughout the year and in all seasons ensures handsome offerings. The surmise that the tussle over control of the shrine management is driven by motives other than ideology may be correct. There are precedents for such a struggle.
To cite a pertinent example at home, long before the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya became politicised, the town had witnessed bitter feuds between claimants to the site, viewed by devout Hindus as the birthplace of Ram. Alongside Muslims who pressed their claims were the Nirmohi Akhara and Digambar Akhara. Ayodhya has a history of disputes between various religious factions over property and wealth.
Bairagis, a Vaishnav sect that popularised Tulsidasâs Ramcharitmanas through dramatic renderings, and Shaivs fought for control of shrines as these meant rich pickings. The former believed that the legendary King Vikramaditya of Ujjain had made a splendid temple at Ramâs birthplace, and they had ownership rights to the site. Struggles over control of shrines often ended in killings of mahants and their ashrams or shrines being taken over by adversaries.
In more recent times, Maithili Sharan of Janaki Ghat and Bajrangdas of Hanumangarhi were said to have met this fate. And, the chief mahant of Mumuksh Bhavan at Vibhishan Kund was apparently killed by a disciple, impatient to grab his ashram. Such instances abound in pilgrimages, where piety and sin co-exist. Rather than a political feud, many people living in Kathmandu valley choose to view the ongoing tussle at Pashupatinath as a struggle between two factions for access to temple property and funds.
Traditionally, priests at Pashupatinath temple have been recruited from South India since the time of King Yaksha Malla, who reigned in the 15th century. Another account holds that Adi Shankaracharya, the 8th century AD monk who restored the primacy of theism over agnostic faiths, initiated the custom of South Indian priests officiating at Himalayan Hindu shrines such as Badrinath, Kedarnath and Pashupatinath. It reflected his vision of unity. A third view holds that Indian priests were brought to ensure uninterrupted worship at the fabled shrine. This is because custom enjoined the Nepalese people to undertake a year-long mourning, even suspending religious service, when the monarch died. Indian priests could be expected to perform ritual worship while the whole of Nepal lamented the kingâs demise.
The forced attempt to break with tradition has been criticised both in Nepal and India. Those backing Nepali priests argue that they are as skilled as their Indian counterparts in performing rites. But, the matter being subjudice, they need to bide their time till a final verdict on the matter is given by the court. Abolishing the monarchy and trying to undo religious convention are not the same. For, despite its conversion into a secular state, the country clearly harbours a Hindu soul, rooted in millennia of uninterrupted worship at Himalayan shrines that have withstood the march of centuries, as much as ideological assaults.
Maoist haste to take over Pashupatinath only raises questions about the motive for such a course of action. Since it cannot be political, the reason is not far to seek.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->