The news that an expert panel has been appointed in Kerala to study the contentious issue of the rules governing temple entry in the State provides a welcome respite to a controversy that was clearly in danger of getting completely out of hand. The decision of the tantri, or head priest, of the famed Guruvayur temple to order a purification ceremony in the temple because Cabinet Minister Vayalar Ravi’s son had performed his baby’s choroonu ceremony t here, brought the long-simmering controversy to a boil. Agitations on both sides of the issue inevitably began stirring and, as always in our country, the threat of political parties and their affiliated youth movements getting involved risked making matters even worse. The expert panel has been given three months to produce a report, and one can only hope that the breathing space afforded by their deliberations will be used to bring calmness and sanity into this debate.

Opposing stands

The Guruvayur tantri’s decision was based on the position that entry into temples is barred to non-Hindus, and that since the Minister had married a Roman Catholic (former State Assembly member Mercy Ravi), his son was not a Hindu and was therefore not entitled to perform his child’s choroonu (the rice-giving ceremony which marks the infant’s passage from babyhood) there. The Ravi family, in turn, argued that the young man, Ravi Krishna, had bee n brought up as a Hindu, that all his certificates duly proclaimed Hinduism as his religion, and that he was therefore as entitled as any other Hindu to enter Guruvayur. Offended by the tantri’s decision to conduct a “purification” ceremony, the family sought and received a formal apology from the Dewaswom Board.

I am pleased for the Ravi family, but I think their case actually sidesteps the main issue. By framing the problem as one of whether the Minister’s son is “really” a Hindu or not, we fail to question the policy itself. We accept the position that only Hindus may be allowed into a Hindu temple. As a believing Hindu, I would argue that this is profoundly wrong.

Of immutable identities

The Ravi incident is merely the latest example in a long series of exclusionary practices at Guruvayur, of which even the then-President of India, Giani Zail Singh, was once a victim. The repeated denials of entry to the famed singer K.J. Yesudas, whose magnificent devotional songs are regularly played in and around the Guruvayur complex, have been frequently reported: the music is welcome but the man is not, because he is Christian. Yesudas has done more than most Hindus to express reverence for Hindu deities, offering them the grace of his voice, but to the blinkered administrators of Guruvayur, his devotion is irrelevant. In other words, it doesn’t matter what Yesudas does or believes; all that matters is who he is, an issue of identity that is immutable. This is outrageous, not only because it denies Yesudas’ humanity and his rights as a human being, but because it is a betrayal of the very essence of the faith that the temple supposedly exists to exalt.

Two distinct strands

What do I mean by that? Ever since the days of antiquity, there have been two distinct attitudes within Hinduism about the nature of the faith. One was steeped in ritual, superstition and exclusion, with a tightly-knit priestly class who preserved for themselves the prerogatives of control over the tenets and the institutions of the faith. The other was questioning, exploring, reformist, acknowledging the wonders of Creation and welcoming all attempts to stretch out one’s hands and minds to the Divine. The former led to the construction of a religious tradition so steeped in iniquity and obscurantism that it directly prompted the challenges of Mahavira Jaina and Gautama Buddha, both of whom essentially started as Hindu reformers. The latter school learned from these challenges, absorbed their beliefs within the Hindu fold, and elaborated the doctrine of sarva dharma sambhavaha. This was the Hinduism of Vivekananda, who argued that the essence of both Hindu doctrine and practice was the acknowledgement that all ways of worship were equally valid — indeed that all religions were true. This is why there is no compulsory Hindu dogma, no single Hindu holy book, no Hindu Pope. Hinduism is unique among the world’s faiths in proscribing no heresy.

This is the religion’s greatest strength. Hinduism has survived for millennia precisely because it proved eclectic, agglomerative, all-embracing. Had the restric

Source: