Rite of Passage: Perverse “Secularism” at Somnath Temple?

How the Somnath Temple’s exclusion of non-Hindus can be challenged and overcome.

The gold-plated pillars of Somnath temple. (Photo: Reuters)

Ostensibly, “security concerns” have led the Somnath Temple authorities to restrict the entry of non-Hindus.. As reported, a ‘burqa-scare’ has also contributed to this decree, which many are viewing as discriminatory and contrary to the hallowed “openness” of Hinduism.

Others have likened it to the more regressive practice of barring women of a certain age span from entering and worshipping in certain temples of south India. While it is natural for many believers of inclusiveness and unity of all religions to bristle at so obvious a slight, the temple authorities also have pretty strong arguments to defend their decision.

They could cite the Constitution — Articles 25 and 26, and the essential feature of “secularism” to contend that they were only exercising their freedom of religion. Religious conservatives would cite Article 25 (2) to say that the decision to allow or deny entry to a place of worship is an essentially religious one, and hence the interference of the state would be illegal.

The Zoroastrians, whose agyaries are strictly closed to members of all other religions, could also be used as an example. Article 26(b), which grants members of a religion, religious sect or denomination the freedom to manage their own religious affairs, would also be cited in defence.

Religious Rites Versus Secular Practice

Hindu priests pour milk on the deities of Jagannath, his brother Balabhadra, left, and sister Subhadra during the holy Snan Yatra or bathing ceremony in Kolkata. (Photo: AP)

The staunch believers in religious and social tradition seem to have no qualms in demanding that the fundamental right to freedom of religion includes, even if perverse, the right to practise various forms of exclusion. When the government, determined to eradicate the scourge of untouchability, introduced legislations to demolish the barriers to temple entry, bitter litigation ensued.

For instance, in 1966, some members of the Swaminarayan sect told the Supreme Court that since they were not Hindus, they had no obligation to allow Harijans into their temples, even if a Bombay law prohibited such casteist discrimination. The court disagreed and held that the constitutional credo of social justice should prevail over the fundamental right to freedom of religious practice.

Then in 2002, the self-appointed custodians of religion resisted the claims of non-Brahmins to become priests. The temple authorities contended that the State could intervene in the “secular” aspects of religious practice—for instance, establishing Devaswom Boards —essentially, trusts- to oversee the management of  temple property.

But the appointment of priests, which was apparently governed by scriptural tenets, was an integral part of worship— a core religious activity and hence any interference by the State would be unconstitutional. Again, the court held that it would be constitutionally unacceptable to allow only members of a specific caste to perform the functions of priesthood.

Restrained Judicial Activism

The Tamil Nadu government led by M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, abolished all posts of hereditary priesthood. (Photo: Reuters)

Thankfully, this judgement continues to be a thorn in the flesh of the champions of religious tradition (and the accompanying heavy baggage of prejudices) and in 2006, encouraged the Karunanidhi-led DMK government to abolish all posts of hereditary priesthood and instead establish training institutes for anyone interested in priesthood as a vocation and spiritual calling.

The judiciary’s foray into drawing a distinction between religious and secular activities, or in determining which all practices are essential and integral to a religion’s tenets, have not been without its share of problems, and deeply troubling ones at that. Quite often, judges have seen themselves as liberators who rescue the “oppressed”— women, especially, from the fetters of clergy and religious tradition. This has deprived the “rescued” of their agency, and there are many judgements which have strong undercurrents of majoritarian impulses.

There cannot be a uniform thumb rule to determine when judges should heed the proverb “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” However, judicious caution could be an effective tool to chip away at brazen prejudice masquerading as religious practice.