The remark made by Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Minister P.K. Sekar Babu in, June 2021, that women could be appointed priests in the 35,000-odd temples in the state has started a discussion on this transformative idea as to whether or not it should be adopted in temples all over the country. At the outset, it should be made clear that religion does not forbid this, whatever obstacles are there are due to the dead hand of convention, the power of patriarchy, and politics.
According P.K. Sekar Babu, women who wish to become temple priests will be provided with the training they need and appointed in temples managed by the HR & CE department. Even non-Brahmin priests who have undergone ‘Aagama’ training will be given employment as Hindus priests. Earlier, he had also told the media that people from all castes will be able to become priests in HR & CE temples in Tamil Nadu under the state government’s ‘all-caste archaka’ scheme. In doing this, the government of Tamil Nadu is following the 75 recommendations made by the Madras High Court.
The term ‘priest’ denotes a vast range of social, ritual, and redemptory functions, ranging from purohits to pandas to being a medium of divine power. Women have performed many of these. These functions are also embedded differently in different Hindu traditions: Sakta, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and Smarta, etc. There are several examples in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra where women perform all rituals.
Status of Women Participation in Temples
Priesthood is an inherited office. In Raj Kali Kuer vs Ram Rattan Pandey 1955, the Supreme Court held that women have the right to succeed to religious office. The apex court lamentedthatstandard codifications like Digest of Hindu Law on Contracts and Successions disqualified women from performing certain ritual functions. But at the same time the court held that this disqualification was not sufficient ground to deny women priestly office. This judgement notes that many priestly offices in Indian temples were hereditary, and ‘’hereditary is not a principle of competence’’. In many temples, priestly office-holders sub-contracted particular ritual functions when needed, which implies that even if women could not participate in particular rituals, that could not be grounds for denying them priestly authority.
However, in practice participation of women in temple authority structures or ritual processes is shockingly rare. This is on account of two obstacles: the fear of women coming in contact with men and notions of purity and pollution, especially associated with menstruation. But this principle also operates in a different manner in Agamic or Shastric temples and non-Agamic temples. Then, in Tantric temples, both Kashmiri and South Indian, women can perform forms of worship prohibited elsewhere, even though there are some restrictions. For, e.g., certain rituals like the Shaligram Shila Puja was strictly restricted as women were not allowed to touch the Shila under any circumstances. Overcoming such obstacles is quite a difficult task.
Reasons for Advocating Women as Priests
The purpose of opening up ritual functions to women should not be seen as just a process of social reform, there are underlying religious grounds as well. There is always an element of ambiguity in textual tradition; such vagueness gives rise to debates—whether there were prohibitions in Vedic texts. In this regard, inferences can be drawn from some foreground Bhakti inflected verses such as Srimad Bhagvad, where Brahma tells Bhrigu that worshipping in deity form is the most beneficial of all spiritual practices for women and Sudras. It is argued that this sentiment inherent in the scriptures should override other prohibitions. But the basic point is that the authority of men, or of Brahmins, is not literally vested in their bodies to conduct rituals. This authority is rather created through a ceremonial practice of signs and symbolic substitutions. They are not intrinsic to the religion, their legitimacy is sanctioned through ritual. So, anyone can be made worthy in this sense.
The achievement of the Bhakti movement was that it marginalised the significance associated with ritual conformism, and exalted the dignity of the emotion of the bhakt. The question that arises is–why should dignity be marginalised by the constraints of the body or the conformism of the ritual? If all modes of worship are opened up, such as the inner sanctum ritual to all people, the essence of Bhakti movement is realised.
Issue of Politics and Monopolisation
The issue pertaining to large-scale transformation of temple authorities has the potential to disrupt the existing franchises over ritual power that have been monopolised. It also raises another question whether the state should interfere with temple rituals. In this context, it should be ensured that any reform process is not allowed to held hostage to communal politics. Such questions are bound to arise that why should Hindu practices be interfered with if there are no such obligations being put on other religions—like there is no obligation on Catholicism for ordaining women priests. Why should the authority of the state be applied in a biased way?
But the fact is that this is not about a secular state interfering in religious practices, rather it is about Hindus reforming their own practice, through their own institutions which, in southern states, happen to be things like endowments departments. It is hoped that all other religions will also follow suit and liberate their religion from patriarchy through their own institutions. However, if a community chooses to reform itself, thatreform does not need to wait for every community to rouse itself.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.