In the previous section, we very briefly traced the ideological strands that run through Indian political and economic setup. Ideologies also drive many debates on current controversies. These debates are held on TV; articles also appear in press in support of rival positions. We have no desire to wade into these controversies. It may seem like rushing into areas where angels fear to tread.
Still, a few reasons led us to briefly touch upon these controversies. Questions on these controversies may be asked in UPSC examinations. Students need to acquire balanced perspectives on questions like entry of women into Sabarimala temple. We suggest a procedure for a balanced understanding of such matters.
Before doing so, we indicate, by giving a few examples, how the controversies are ideologically driven. Western liberalism is now the dominant orthodoxy in universities and in media. As we saw, the western liberal ideologies favour among others sexual freedom, dilution of traditional marriage ties, alternative living styles, and abortion without restrictions. They oppose censorship or any restrictions on uninhibited depiction of sexuality in art, literature, and cinema. Many Indian commentators of this ilk reflect these views.
Both electronic and print media present tendentious and ideologically coloured accounts of such issues. By critically reflecting on media versions, students can easily see that many writings mechanically and mindlessly mimic western liberal attitudes with little concern to national perspectives and social ethos. We look at three examples in order to show how the ideological mind-sets play out in such matters.
Debates on TV often revolve around censorship of some vulgar movies. The director will paint the movie as delicate, sensitive and artistic portrayal of love or joy of life or diversity in human sexuality. Lurid sexual depictions in movies may be defended in the name of artistic creativity and freedom. Some sexual radicals attack the Film Censor Board and the moderate elements. The debates ridicule anyone who speaks for refined treatment of sexual themes. Hysterical statements are made that the lights of freedom are being put out or that the barbarians are at the gate.
Censorship involves inter alia definition of art and obscenity. Literature is hard to define. It is an authentic, refined depiction of life. Literature is idealistic and attempts ‘a criticism of life and manners’. Literature operates on a high aesthetic plane. For example, many novels and movies depictadultery. Buttheydonotscaleartisticheights likeTolstoy’sAnnaftarenina or GustaveFlaubert’s Madam Bovary. A.C. Bradley, in Oxford Lectures on Poetry says that true works of art should help readers to get rid of crude emotions like “cheap pathos, rancid sentiment, vulgar humour, bare lust, ravenous vanity”. This sets thebar too high for common readers. But we just want to convey what art stands for.
Invoking art and literature is common in disputes with censors. Often movies in whose defence artistic freedom is invoked are not even remotely artistic by the criteria we mentioned. But there is no bar on producing and showing trashy films. The point is different. Censor Board has to follow some norms so that movies for public exhibition do not flout common decencies or injure sentiments of
any section of the population. The standards of what constitutes obscenity have been considerably diluted over time. But even so, a line has to be drawn about depictions and language in movies. These are reasonable restrictions over which there should be no hue and cry. In this matter, western liberal ideologies are unsuited to our still conservative Indian society.
When an impressionable girl elopes with her boy friend, her parents areplaced in a terrible quandary. But often on TV shows, these episodes become occasions for celebration. These misguided girls are eulogised (for a day or two) as exemplars or role models bravely exercising personal freedom and rebelling against oppressive social conventions. Any participant in the debate who advises that girls should be circumspect is accused of gender bias, hidebound thinking and patriarchal mind-set.
Many such girls are imprudent and end up ruining their lives. They need parental counselling for constructively resolving the problem. Ideological celebration or disapproval of their silly actions just does not help. If a bonded labourer is released, he becomes free, and this is commendable from any ideological angle. But the girl acting foolishly in the first flush of love is not exercising her liberty, but being imprudent in all probability.
Similar debates take place when a ‘live-in’ relationship goes go sour. But this practice is strongly defended by liberal ideologues Often ‘live-in’ relations create problems for girls. When things sour, they end up holding the dirty end of the stick. They gain nothing in that predicament by denouncing the gender bias of the society. Notwithstanding some judicial pronouncements, their status in no way equals that of a legally wedded woman. If girls are so enamoured of their boyfriends, all they have to do is to go to the nearest marriage registrar’s office. If nothing else, they will have rights and protections under law.
Again in debates on this issue, anyone pointing out the risks to girls from these alternative living styles is pilloried as antediluvian and as a throwback to medieval ages. At times, some girls accuse their partners, after long periods of cohabitation, with rape. These unfortunate modern girls, pitiable though their plight might be, hardly stand a chance of any legal redress. Laws are administered coldly according to strict rules of evidence in courts. Despite such obvious disadvantages to girls, liberals continue to support such ‘live-in’ practices in the name of freedom.
Restrictions on Entry of Women to Some Temples
Students are advised to study this question on their own. We confine ourselves to a few observations. The Supreme Court on February 21, 2017 said that it would pass an order on whether a case challenging the ban on entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala should be referred to a constitution bench. It was indicated that the constitution bench may decide on the scope and extent of the fundamental right to profess religion. On 11 January 2016, the court had questioned the ban, saying that it cannot be done under the Constitution. Some High Courts have allowed entry of women into religious places on same footing as men. We subscribe to this view.
Religions at times need reform. Religions have harboured harmful beliefs and practices like Sati or human sacrifices or dangerous ceremonies. These violate human rights. Religions have promoted undesirablepractices likechild marriageand obscurantist/superstitious beliefs. These need to be discouraged. Religious laws which deny equal share to women in family property need to be changed. Much of Indian awakening in later nineteenth century owes to religious reformers. But religious beliefs with no direct bearing on individual welfare(like ftavadiyas walking from Allahabad to Varanasi carrying water) should be left alone.
Liberal activist groups are behind the women’s temple entry agitation. There is an obvious anomaly and irony in their enterprise. But they seem to be blissfully unaware of it. It does not fit into the framework of their ideology. Unlike conservatives, liberals set no great store on religion. Most liberals and activists are rationalists and atheists. To use a court room expression, it does not lie in their mouth to raise the issue. What does the liberal position on religion imply?
Faith in God was once a main plank of philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas gave many logical arguments to prove the existence of God. However, Immanuel Kant (A Critique of Pure Reason) demolished all philosophical arguments for theism once and for all. Modern science makes no mention of God. Many earlier beliefs in God arose from the problems men faced in their speculations about universe. They felt that existence of universe, natural phenomena like motions of planets and origin of men including biota can be explained only by postulating an actor or divine agency. As science began to explain such phenomena through natural laws, the need for God as the creator and regulator of universe and natural phenomena disappeared. This led to loss of religious faith in the west. Few scientists now are theists. Even in 18th century, one astronomer told an emperor that God is a gratuitous or superfluous hypothesis for astronomy.
On a strictly a rationalist view, therefore, all religions are false belief systems. Their internal practices and procedures lie outside rationalist spheres of action. If there is no God (as most liberals think), how does it matter where a woman offers her prayers from? In any case, she being no less than her male counterparts, is only harbouring illusions. Logicalconsistency demands that rationalists should focus not on conferring illusory rights of equal worship on women but rather on removing the illogical clutter from their mind.
There is even a stranger aspect. Suppose that one is an atheist. Then it would be very strange if he were to advise the priests in Badrinath or Tirupati on how to conduct religious services. Stranger still is the touching concern of Indian liberals for the moksha of the Hindu women. They are applying secular concepts of rights and equality rooted in political sphere to ceremonial religious practices.
Religious practices are traceable to myths, legends and stories. They never fit into frameworks of logical thought. One can trace their historical origins. Religious practices have traditional but not logical rationale. Trying to decide them by modern views or standards by disassociating them from the traditions in which they arose is a unhistorical procedure. It is to judge past by present standards and values. Either we are willing to tolerate the tradition or discard it. Conservatives would continue with it. Liberals oppose it in the name of equality. But unless the traditions are sources of intolerable injustice, the state should leave them alone.
One such totally unacceptable injustice (linked to untouchability) is objection to entry of scheduled castes into temples. These two practices (now on wane) are a blemish on Hindu society and culture.
Religious leaders were always a little wary of female influence on men. They feared women as temptresses who could wean men away from spiritual pursuits. Ramakrishna Krishna Paramhamsa used to tell his devotees to be wary of kamini (woman) and kanchana (wealth). This may raise hackles among feminists who would argue that it is men who drag women into sin. Be that as it may, we note that historians identify mixed hostels for monks and nuns as one of the reasons for the decline of Buddhism.
One last point is that issues of this type should be left to legislators. They represent people. If they want to change the tradition, they will pressurize politicians. Judicial intervention on this tradition could be an example of judicial overreach. Judiciary sometimes allows itself to be dragged into pseudo-issues. There is a risk of their getting embroiled in questions like religious ceremonials and the content of bhajans. Laissez faire could be at times a virtue in judiciary no less than in government.
Our brief observations aim to bring out the anomalies involved in the temple entry debate. This practice is confined to a few temples and is connected to certain legends. Women are generally allowed to go freely to temples. Female devotees usually outnumber men. The few remaining restrictions are quaint survivals and can be done away with. Let us hope that the debate will create further enthusiasm in young Hindu women to visit temples in colourful traditional or ethnic costumes sporting bindi on their foreheads.