|
The Union Rural development
Minister’s remark that “toilets are more important than temples”
(October 2012) was met with diverse responses. Ramesh was speaking
at a launch of campaign to sensitize people about the ill effects
of open defecation, a practice very common in rural areas and city
slums, where sanitation facilities are poor or non-existent.
Ramesh said that open defecation was the main reason for the
hygiene related problems and that there are more temples than
toilets in the country.
The BJP and friends immediately pounced on the minister saying
that he is insulting their faith. While BJP’s associates VHP and
Bajrang dal took to strong condemnation of Ramesh, demanded an
apology from him and launched protests. One case has also been
registered against the minister for insulting the faith. Congress
spokesman, in order to play safe said that Congress respects all
religions. The only support the minister could get was from the
NGO Sulabh International, the NGO which has initiated a chain of
public toilets in places where they are most needed.
What a shame that the basic point Ramesh is making is undermined
by most and is being taken as an insult to Hindu religion. Surely
he is talking of the holy places which have been the center of
attention for spending money for their construction and upkeep
while the core social issue is being undermined. Temple here is a
metaphor for the holy places, where people go for worship and
associate it with their identity. Being in India the dominant
number of temples is very obvious. The UN data shows the gross
inadequacy of our sanitation facilities. While our sanitation
system suffers from gross neglect, during last few decades many
grander temples have come up along with the other small ones also.
Even the affluent NRIs have also donated heavily for these
temples. One should also notice here that even when Pundit Nehru,
when he underlined the importance of dams, industries and modern
education, he also used the word temple, saying that these are the
temples of Modern India.
One should register that when the holy Hindu practices are done in
the state functions, breaking of coconut, lighting the lamp, the
BJP and company and many others take it as a routine. Now but when
the word temple is generalized to draw the attention of deeper
social issue, their protest and hysterical reaction, their defense
of ‘faith’ is deafening! One concedes that as such also during
last few decades many a Muslims making living in the gulf
countries have been remitting money home for Mosques. During the
relief work of Gujarat carnage victims, when the Modi Government
stopped the rehabilitation work for the victims, the Muslims’
conservative organizations continued the relief work. In the
colonies which they got constructed for the violence victims, the
Mosques are big and grand while the houses are small.
The core issue is related to social concerns of poor versus the
identity based concerns in general. In independent India, thanks
to the uncompromising values of Nehru, he could ward off the
pressures of conservative sections to get Somnath temple repaired
from state coffers. He also advised the President of India not to
inaugurate the Somnath temple. His focus was on the basic issues
of bread-butter, shelter, employment. Even at that time the
previous avatar of BJP, Jan Sangh was talking of identity based
issues related to protection of Mother Cow. This dichotomy, as to
which type of issue is more important has been an age old one.
Lord Gautama Buddha while opposing the caste system, focused that
the central concerns are related to life in this world, ‘the
other’ world around which identity is constructed, Brahma etc. are
not his concern. Dr. Ambedkar pointed out that Buddha’s teachings
were the major revolution in India, whereby the low caste could
come out from the grip of Brahminical exploitation and identity
issues. This revolution of Lord Buddha was met with the counter
revolution led by Shankaracharya, as per whom this world is Mythya
(illusion) and one should focus on the real truth in the form of
Brahma.
In medieval times the saints of bhakti tradition in particular,
like Kabir Tukaram, Dadu, Paltu, Pipa all drew our attention to
the plight of people of the world, while clergy called for
importance of rituals, holy places and the wrath of God, if people
don’t follow their dictates about the identity related concerns.
Sufis and Liberation theologians also talked about people’s issues
and showed the path of love. Kabir at one point compares the
grinding stone (chakki) and the idol of God. For him the grinding
stone is more important than the idol of the Lord as grinding
stone helps people to grind the grains and satisfy their hunger.
During most of the social transformations when average people,
poor come up to rebel, their issues are related to bread, while
those opposed to social change harp on the identity related
temples and mosque. During freedom movement, while National
movement was talking about the values of Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity so that people’s problems can be solved the communal
organizations, standing for status quo, Muslim League and Hindu
Mahasabha-RSS were taking the cover of their respective religions
and keeping aloof from freedom movement for preserving their
privileges under the garb of their religion.
Post Independence we see that the ideologies of status quo, have
been taking up defense of Holy cow, and later India politics got
transformed with the identity related issue of Babri Mosque,
opposition to Shah Bano getting maintenance. Later other such
issues have been waiting in the wings to oppose the social issues;
the ones’ like Amarnath yatra, Ram Setu and a list of temples,
which need to be built. The politics around temple, identity,
issues related to ‘other world’ are stalking the world. Most
fundamentalist politics is revolving around Temple (Mosque and
Church), while the hunger pangs, basic necessities and violation
of human rights of weaker section are being bypassed. On the side
of temple are the practitioners of politics in the name of
religion. On the side of Toilet, provisions for social living are
the ones’ who are denied this basic survival thing in daily life
or those who give primacy to these. There is bit of mix up also.
Pure agenda may be difficult to come by so there are different
degrees of emphasis. While the most radical one’s like Bhagat
Singh, Ambedkar and their followers will talk of this world and
rights, the middle of the road parties will give less emphasis to
identity, temple, while the electoral wings of fundamentalist will
give primacy to temple and lip service to grinding stone or
toilets. In a way the temple-toilet debate is reminiscent of
Kabir’s grinding mill versus stone-idol debate. Who dare to stand
for toilet and who stands for temple, mosque church will tell us
their social commitment. Commitment to social change versus
aggressive desires to maintain status quo is the issue!
|
Comments
|
Quick links