Commentary/Amberish K Diwanji

Will the VHP allow tribals and dalits as the chief priests at the Ram temple in Ayodhya?

One of my columns in December received two rejoinders, one a letter by Vishwa Hindu Parishad president, Bombay unit, Ashok Chowgule, and the other by columnist Rajeev Srinivasan. I was unable to reply earlier being away on my honeymoon.

In the first place, both Chowgule and Srinivasan talk of reforming Hinduism, but miss the key point: Where is it happening? Who is belling the cat of reforms? And for how long must one wait? Surely not anther century? In typical VHP style, Chowgule talks of British rule and the inner line permit in the days of the Raj, but that is 50 years ago. Where are the reformers and the people committed to improving Hinduism today? Just a handful of committed reformers is hardly sufficient. Tragically, the VHP and other right-wing Hindu organisations's record in this respect is dismal.

For instance, the Jagannath temple in Puri, Orissa, still bars dalits from entering it; the Nathdwar temple in Udaipur, Rajasthan, is the same. In fact, when in the last decade there was an attempt to enter the latter temple by some reformers, the Rajasthan government imposed a curfew to prevent bloodshed but did little to stop those Hindus who were hellbent on preventing the dalits from entering it! Where were the Hindu groups then?

Second, both Chowgule and Srinivasan speak of the shortcomings of Christianity (and of Semitic religions). I couldn't agree more. The very fact that today, in India, Christians are demanding reservations for the dalits within their community shows how hollow and fraudulent is their claim of redeeming the converts. It is very clear that casteism is stronger than Christianity, and that the so-called upper caste Christians simply do not care for their religious brethren. With all their schools and missions, and, no doubt, money, they have failed to destroy casteism within the church. So why do the tribals still want to convert? Are we going to believe the simplistic nonsense that it was all for a few rupees?

It is naive to assume that tribal people are ignorant and simple persons misled by others (on that count, one can even say Hinduism is misleading them). It is not just the lure of money, otherwise why would missionaries spend years and years in the jungles working with the tribals and the poorest of the poor? The missionaries often give the tribals a chance to control their own destiny.

The missionary network, to be found in forest areas, are extremely active in a variety of fields such as education, health, agriculture, and conversions, if at all, occur after years of togetherness, after creating a certain bond, and after the missionaries and tribals identify themselves with each other. There are missionaries who have spent a lifetime working with tribals, and they are not doing it simply because of money.

One may question the outdated and nonsensical Christian belief that seeks to covert 'pagans' (including Hindus), but one cannot question the commitment with which the missionaries serve. It is for this reason that the missionaries are so popular with the tribals and despised by power-seeking Hindus who only rue the loss of tribal votes (especially the BJP).

The VHP has collected millions of rupees for building a Ram temple, but how much have they spent on tribals and dalits? The VHP led a movement to build a temple and destroy the Babri mosque, so why can't they lead a movement to ensure that dalit and tribals enter the Jagannath and Nathdwar temples? Why can they not undertake a movement to ensure that dalits and tribals are invested with the janau (sacred thread), which divides the Hindus into lower and upper castes? But here lies the crunch: Hindus turned out in large numbers to build a temple, one wonders how many will come forward to ensure the entry of dalits and tribals into temples.

I shall go a step forward: Why just entry into temples for dalits and tribals, that is now old hat; the time has now come to make dalits and tribals temple priests. Will the VHP allow tribals and dalits as the chief priests at the Ram temple in Ayodhya which they have promised to build? Will they ensure their presence as the priests of the major temples in India (and abroad)? Will they allow dalits and tribals who know the rites to conduct marriage ceremonies and other rituals?

Srinivasan has suggested that conversions, if at all, must occur in the same family of religions, that is, Hindus should convert to either Sikhism, Buddhism, or Jainism. First, one wonders if we have any right to suggest what religion others should convert to; it suggests that we know what is better for the tribals.

But more important, Indic religions do have casteism. Sikhism is divided like Hinduism; Jainism is identified exclusively with the Vaishya caste (and its rigid rules make it impossible for others to gain entry); and Buddhism is now being identified with the dalits and tribals. Moreover, Buddhist activity has not been sustained since the heady days when Dr Ambedkar converted.

Srinivasan is absolutely right about the human tendency to exploit and of the religious imperialism of the Arabs and the West (Islam and Christianity respectively); but if tribals today convert, it is because they perceive upper-caste Hindus as their primary exploiters. Christianity, as we have seen above, has its flaws and has been racist (South Africa), but for the tribal struggling on the margin of society, it offers a panacea, however ill-founded it may be.

Chowgule mentions how Christians are against the conversion of their followers, how ISKCON followers in the West are harassed. Memories of the troubles Bhagwan Rajneesh encountered in Oregon all are too recent. But the West has not sought a bill to ban conversion.

Every religion has some people unhappy with the given structure. In today's world of communication and free ideas, people dissatisfied will leave and to stop them is not the solution. The stress has to be on reforming the religion and making it acceptable to all, especially those who are supposed to be a part of it.

For instance, there are so many Hindus working in the West, spreading their gospel and winning white-skinned followers (like ISKCON and numerous other sects). But how many Hindus are working among the dark-skinned tribals and dalits, and fostering their Hindu identity. Many upper-caste middle-class Hindus are more happy to see white-skinned foreigners say Hare Ram, Hare Krishna rather than some poor, dark-skinned dalit/tribal.

As the new century approaches, dalits and tribals will not wait forever for their salvation, they will want it now. If Hinduism cannot provide the same, then they will switch, just as many Westerners now seek solace outside the Church, regardless of the Pope's pontification. Chowgule has mentioned how the Pope is displeased when Roman Catholics convert to other religions, or even become Protestants. That is just the point. The Pope (and his ilk) only sees numbers; not spirituality. He has done little to reform the Catholic church and for this reason may lose many adherents as the new century approaches. Ditto for Hinduism.

Chowgule has quoted Mahatma Gandhi often, and I would not like to take up issue on those counts. But I would like to add another of the Mahatma's sayings: If Hinduism is to survive, casteism must die; if casteism stays, Hinduism will die.

Tell us what you think of this column