Something About The Law

Recently returned from a four-day visit to several shrines in and around the AP-Karnataka border, I was struck by a facet of modern Indian life that I find hard to reconcile with my expectations of a sovereign socialistic secular democratic republic. I also find it disturbing that the millions of others who have been to these places have absolutely no problem – or at least choose not to voice it – with the current state of affairs. An agnostic myself, I also wonder how religious people who lay claim to being even remotely committed to social justice can live with how amazingly hypocritical modern religion foundations can truly be.

What is the need to have special treatment for “Very Important Persons” within religious institutions?

The particular institution that sparked this reflection is called the Sri Raghavendra Math, in Mantralayam. Within the math lies a separate section closer to the idol boldly marked “VIPs only”. There is a special prasad for this section, and priests devote personal time and attention explaining the nitty gritties of the faith if you walk into the VIP section. The Math also serves lunch to all who come to it, regardless of colour or gender – as long as they are Brahmin. Non-brahmins do not get fed.

And the Raghavendra Math is by far not the only religious institution to revel in this phenomenon. A friend recently returned from Tirupathi tells me about a specific timing when the doors to the Lord are closed off to the general public, and the MP-MLA-IAS darshan begins. Other temples, such as the Vrindavan and the Vaishno Devi, do not openly adopt such a policy but will readily let the occassional “important person” in as a favour, holding up the general queue in the process, waiting till the dignitary has finished darshan and then resuming the general queue. In fact the Ramakrishna Mission is the only spiritual institution I have visited that does not have a VIP policy.

What exactly is wrong with a VIP policy? On the one hand it is a slap on the face of anybody who is not or does not know somebody in an important position. In this way it accepts and widens the have/have-not divide, emphasizing that ultimately religious salvation also – like everything else in this country, says a cynical point of view- follows from political clout. Secondly, among the middle-classes who could stand on either side of the have/not divide, and most of who know an important person to any degree, it encourages relying on these important persons to get past the general line, till a point where many believe “you cannot do” a Tirupathi or Vaishno Devi visit unless you know somebody because otherwise it is just “maddening”. Lastly it amounts to corruption.The reason why temple administrations extend courtesies to important persons is – to the extent I can imagine – either because they expect, at some point in time, a favour to be returned to them, or they fear the consequences of “forcing” a VIP to go by in the general line. Somebody I once talked to introduced a third reason: because VIPs’ time is “more precious”. I’m not even going to bother replying to the last charge.

One of the reasons India was made a secular country was to prevent precisely the first two reasons: the backscratching and blackmailing that administrative authorities and religious institutions would do to each other if you let the two mingle. It is for this reason that most religious institutions are given a certain degree of autonomy, and state interference with these institutions is limited to the management of trusts by the Public Endowments Commissioner (who is typically an IAS officer).

So while today the government cannot show favour to any particular religious institution by bestowing any prize or grant on them, religious institutions can do exactly this: both show favour (and how) to the government, and bestow many forms of free grants to them – these include free darshans (that ordinarily cost anywhere from Rs. 25 to Rs. 2 lakh in Raghavendra Math); free entry to otherwise forbidden areas; free prasad, etc. The list is only limited by the small size of my sample survey.

Personally my respect for an establishment ends when it tells its followers – in so many words – that there is a fundamental difference between them, as far as how quickly they will recieve darshan is concerned, based on wealth and social status. A few years back a huge movement began to push for the compulsory opening of temple doors to untouchables; this had a certain success to the extent that the majority of temples in the country are today open to one and all. (Some institutions, however, retain the priviledge of entering certain parts of the temple to males or Brahmins only).

Involved in this issue are questions of autonomy. I do not wish to enter into the debate again – any textbook on the Constitution will list out cases – but I sincerely believe that denying entry is only the first and most blatant form of exclusion prevalent today. More widespread, more deeply entrenched and far more dangerous to public policy is the VIP quota. Because not only does such a policy discriminate, it also creates a culture of corruption, and it allows a secular government to veer dangerously close to losing these credentials. At any event, even if legally a temple can be granted the autonomity of adopting discriminative access, I would stay miles away from an organisation – such as the Raghevandra Math – that makes no bones about its decrepitude.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.