Blog
For Hindus Only
The other day, while I was at one of the marvelous temples that stand around the Valley the most eye-opening thing happened. At this relatively slow temple I was accompanied by three of my friends, a foreign tourist and her guide. As we climbed the small flight of steps to get a closer look at the idol of the temple, the foreign tourist (her accent suggested she was German) was abruptly stopped by the old priest and her attention was directed to a board that read “Entrance for Hindus only”. The flabbergasted tourist looked at the equally dumbfounded guide for an explanation. And while the guide was blabbering something incomprehensible, we departed with our usual “that sucks” and “it’s not fair”. But this episode ignited in me the eternal debate between progress and maintaining the status quo, the debate between doing what is morally right and what is perceived to be sacrilegious.
The rule to allow only Hindus into the temple stems from the concept of caste in the Hindu social system. Non-Hindus are considered casteless people, and therefore there admittance into the temple is unacceptable to the old guards. But there are some loopholes in restricting people on bases of religion in such a manner.
The problem with this criterion for differentiation is that there aren't any ways to become a Hindu. Hindu is not something you can become. You cannot be baptized into being a Hindu, Hindu is more a way of life than a religion. Because of the vastness as to how a person expresses his faith under the general umbrella of Hinduism, there is no one distinctive characteristics of a Hindu. Because of these complexities in defining a Hindu, the only way to differentiate between a Hindu and a non-Hindu is based on race. A white person can be a more devote follower of Shiva while a person born in a “Hindu” family can be a atheist, and the only reason the atheist gets to enter the temple is because of the color of his skin or because he happened to be born into a particular family. This, regardless of how you sugar coat it, is clearly discrimination. The distinction of a Hindu from a non-Hindu is clearly based on the age old notion of race and caste.
Further, the temples are not only symbols of our religion but also a relic. A reminder of our glorious past. This past is a heritage of not only the Hindus that reside in this nation but also the Sikhs, Muslims, the Buddhists, the non-believer and all the other people who are its citizens. Restricting a section of the society from gaining access to our past on bases of religion is not only unjust, but also sickening.
Also the rule does nothing to preserve our culture. I am not willing to accept such a perverse definition of what my culture is. And even if some argue that the rule to allow only Hindus into the temple is a part of our culture, it still does not prove that the rule is right. Just because it has been a part of our culture does not automatically make it right. Slavery, bonded-labor, the caste system and sati (an ancient Hindu practice in which a widowed woman would either voluntarily or by use of force and coercion immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre) all were part of our culture but we moved on from it. Preserving the culture is not a license to continue with the senselessness of an age old tradition. In fact, the rule runs contrary to our culture. The sanctity of our temples should not be measured by who is allowed in but through how we treat the poor children begging right next to it. The hallow structures of our faith will forever remain hollow if we do not change the imposed bigotry of few men a century or two ago.
Some people also argue that it is ok to not allow non-Hindus into the temple because other religions institutions do the same. My take on that is, they are wrong too. What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. Discrimination is discrimination whether one person is doing it or everyone in the world is doing it.
As far as I am concerned, Hinduism has always been an inculcating religion, flexible to time and place. And if we continue to follow a senseless rule, the charm and essence of the Satanan Dharma (a Sanskrit word meaning 'eternal law') will be lost forever.
Slok Gyawali
Slok Gyawali does not want to use his name but can't think of a cool enough nom de plume. He likes reading. He has a blog - http://mastervslave.blogspot.com and wants you all to check it out.
( Nov 27th 2010, 10:26 PM ) says:
"...the only way to differentiate between a Hindu and a non-Hindu is based on RACE. A WHITE person can be a more devote follower of Shiva..."
*sigh*
( Nov 27th 2010, 10:57 PM ) says:
@ Ujjwol: Firstly, I think you missed the point of the essay. Secondly, even I if what you say about Sati and the scripture is true you haven't proved that sati wasn't part of our culture ( in this case culture refers to everything under the umbrella of Hinduism). You do understand that not everything in the culture emulates the book right? and not every thing in the book is part of the culture. For example, the concept of untouchables ( not dichotomy of classes but untouchability) is not part of our scripture, can you, similarly, put forward a case that untouchability is not and has not been part of our culture. Can we also not reason that it has its roots in the class distinction allowed by the scripture? Cultures and traditions goes beyond the the precinct allowed by the holy books.
The point of my comment being -to argue that sati is not part of the Hindu culture ( regardless of nation, region ,and who did it) is a false representation of our sometimes dark history. We as a people have changed mistakes like that and should continue to do so if we are wrong.
However, I must thank you for reading and your comment, and I hope we can debate further.
thanks
Slok
( Nov 28th 2010, 09:35 AM ) says:
Nice article Slok! I am sure I can pull out such instances fro my travelogue as well. It is good to hear a voice of reason amongst a whole lot of denial. Kudos!
( Nov 28th 2010, 09:47 AM ) says:
@Slok My comment has nothing to do with the point of your essay. I only thing I am trying to say is that the "sati" system is not part of our culture. Yes! Culture, sati doesn't falls under the umbrella of Hinduism. Many centuries our lifestyle has been closely governed by our scriptures(I prefer not to use the term holy books). Till when we education system was changed to foreign so-called modern education. Culture we are now talking about deviates largely from the book.
I don't intended to bring the untouchability debate here, clearly because it was created out of the classification based on the work not birth or blood. So, when people without any knowledge of scriptures start doing something crazy, how can that have roots on our scriptures. ?
My one and only point here is that - culture is not what some crazy people judge and bring out of themselves. Culture is defined by the scriptures.
Thanks for the comment. Yes! we can debate further.
Regards,
Ujjwol
( Nov 28th 2010, 10:43 AM ) says:
Hinduism in a holistic point of view and rather in the context of Nepal and India separately can be highly debatable. It is evident that Hinduism as a practiced religion has been manipulated for centuries by those who could manipulate it. The form of Hinduism and the cultural manuscript that we defend now is nothing but neo- Indian imperialism and We all know it.
I agree with Slok when he says that a system that may not be a "written" part of Hinduism has been very well practiced for a long time in action due to many reasons. They cannot be ignored.
Hinduism is much more than temples and scriptures and myths. You are not born as Hindu. It is high time we get this.
I met this wonderful Muslim preacher few years back. He was wonderful with 65 years of life shining on his face. He has served thousands of people, poor and old and those devoid of material provocations. He was strong and kind and believed in t he sympathy of human nature.
However, he was not allowed to enter Pashupati cause he was wearing this Muslim "topi". I was ashamed. I do not believe in one single religion but love and sympathy and generosity and kindness should be everyone's religion, like they are mine.
Everything should be for everyone and not only for Hindus.
Well written article Slok.
( Nov 28th 2010, 01:10 PM ) says:
Mr. Gyawali,
While I believe we should do away with rituals and practices that don't make sense, we can observe, time and again, that Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma (or culture) has corrected itself for instance, the Sati system was done away with and even bonded form of slavery to a large extent (some still exist in Nepal and the sub-continent) or say, even the caste-system (still practiced despite it being a crime).
So it is a matter of time and how the majority of the people who are in the hegemony decide to take the progressive route. I am sure you are aware of the fact that now, "Dalits" or other "low-caste" groups can now visit Pashupatinath. This is a recent phenomena, mind you so let's be hopeful that people who dominate different tiers of hegemony start thinking broadly.
However, what I really wanted to say in the first place is that this 'hindus-only' phenomena doesn't just exist in Nepal and can be found in abundance elsewhere around the world for instance, there are churches (in US that i know of) and mosques (even in Nepal and Dhaka that i know of) that also bar non-Christians or non-Muslims from entering. This is actually very tribal in nature. Extinctial verdict maybe!
And although, they do not have "Christians only" or "Muslims only" sign-post or something like that, churches and mosques have become exclusive despite their religious texts prescribing against it. Personally, I think that's more offensive then a sign-post because that's a socially created isolation.
The church visited by the blacks, LGBT and the mosques (with or without shrines) are just some of the examples that I would like to mention here.
( Nov 30th 2010, 10:42 PM ) says:
@Ujjwal- Well if you define culture to encompasses only those things that spring from the "scriptures", than yes sati is not part of the culture.
But culture cannot be defined in such narrow terms, culture although influenced albeit heavily from the scriptures also takes a form of its own, and this is what has happened with Sati and untouchability.
Yes, culture is also what some crazy people tell us to do and we do them. Although the original notion of caste differentiation is "based on the work not birth or blood" it has become about the birth and blood...is that not in our culture.
I guess where we disagree is the definition and the flexibility of what culture is. I am defining culture liberally to include religious as well as social culture whereas you define culture as strictly religious.
@Virodhi Kta- "this 'hindus-only' phenomena doesn't just exist in Nepal and can be found in abundance elsewhere "- not true. There are sign posts that say so in Pashupati, and Krishna Mandir in Patan to name just two. Plus it would be pretty pointless to write an article if the issue didn't exist, don't you think ;-)
and regarding all the other religions that do a similar thing they are wrong as well.
( Dec 1st 2010, 05:52 PM ) says:
@Slok - Yes, there are sign posts that say so in Pashupati and many other power-shrines in Nepal and in the sub-continent but what I am trying to say is this practice can be found all over the world - whether they have the sign post or not?
I hope you understand the point I am trying to raise by commenting on your blog. Take fresh instances - There are two mosques near Ghantaghar. Go find if they aren't exclusive? It is one thing that they don't have the sign-post stating Muslims only but the names of these two mosques already work as a sign post.
And there are churches according to their communion spread all over the world that are also exclusive. It is just another thing that they don't have a sign post.
I haven't said anything about whether it is pointless or not to write on this issue. Why are you being so defensive?
( Dec 2nd 2010, 12:23 AM ) says:
@ Vidrohi Kta - I agree with your point. I think that a place of worship should never be exclusive cause then it defeats the point of universality.
I actually read your sentence as "this 'hindus-only' phenomena doesn't exist in Nepal and can be found in abundance elsewhere " rather than "this 'hindus-only' phenomena doesn't JUST exist in Nepal and can be found in abundance elsewhere " which completely changed the meaning...Honest mistake and I apologize.
( Dec 3rd 2010, 09:00 PM ) says:
Before we question the practices of any religion, first we must ask why we even need it. As every religion has it mythical fair-tales and fantasies (in case of Hindu's - flying monkeys and higher population of gods then hindu) so does it has have its rules. I think people who follow religion whole-heartedly are idiots anyways so fairness is not expected.
You must ask yourself, why do you practice religion?
( Dec 5th 2010, 11:15 AM ) says:
Hey Slok,
Nice op-ed. I just want to say that last time this happened to me (in Bhaktapur) there were some Nepali teenage girls just coming out of the temple. They saw the guy not let me in and were laughing as they watched. Then they told him and me, "Well we are not Hindu either...we're Buddhist." They looked like they (or their families) were from Nepal's northern regions.
I really didn't care about going to that temple at all (find it super boring) but just thought it was funny that their system is actually really flawed....like whoever looks Nepali automatically must be Hindu according to them. What about Nepal's Muslims, Buddhist, and now growing Christian populations? What about people from other parts of Asia or South America or wherever who have a face that passes for Nepali?
Their system is outdated and kind of irrelevant nowadays, don't you think?
( Dec 7th 2010, 05:49 PM ) says:
My work has taken me to different countries in 3 continents around the world for the past 20 years. Coming from a hindu predominant country with devout hindu family background and now living in a catholic country, I have come to realize that the only religion that makes sense to me is buddhism.
( Dec 8th 2010, 05:27 AM ) says:
@ Anya- The system is a relic of the past. A reminder of a time when policies and rules where made at whim (not that the same doesn't happen today..but thats a different issue). In those days we wanted to keep our temples "pure" by only allowing Hindus to enter. The problem is not that such a rule existed, problem is that it still does and there is hardly any conversation. Plus- I am sorry that they didn't allow you to enter, I know you said that you don't care for it but still its a disgrace.
@ peacemind- you maybe. But not if you are a Bhutanese refugee, a Tamil refugee in Sri lanka or a Hindu in Burma.
( Jul 17th 2011, 06:07 PM ) says:
I, being a buddhist, do not go to the temples that say "FOR HINDUS ONLY", its disrespecting of the other religions that are present in this country...
The sati system you are speaking was never part of the Hindu Culture. Please read our scriptures before claiming anything. The only closest thing that you might want to consider sati system is:
The widowed woman is asked to lie down with her husband's dead body and the a mantra from Atharvaveda is chanted as they were the man was her dharma pati. And the women is now free. No any scriptures mentions the forceful burning of the women. I can clearly cite you the scriptures if you want. The Sanskrit word
sati itself means a woman who is fully dedicated to her husband, but as to kill herself.Considering something you read as social problems in social studies which you have never seen or confirm can't be the Hindu practice. This has been the influences of Mughals that came to Nepal via India and British also contributed to it's growth. So, don't go calling everything social issues a culture of hinduism. RigVeda, Atharvaveda clearly allows the widowed women to remarry so how can they forcefully burn a women.
Read before you claim anything. Copying the definition from wikipedia is not the way to blog.
Regards,
Ujjwol