On the eve of Maha Shivratri a great victory was won. Devotees, backed by the state and other institutions, ensured that the right to pray the way you want to, in the language that you understand, in the manner that you choose , was upheld.
In the face of a growing demand for their dismissal as the priests of Lord Nataraj temple in Chidambaram, who assaulted non-Brahmin devotees for wanting to sing Tamil hymns inside the temple, the Brahmin priests ~ Dikshits ~ today agreed to allow worship in Tamil.
The Dikshits, who control the administration of the temple, relented after political parties, Leftist and Tamil nationalist groups threatened to agitate and make demands for a government takeover of the temple administration.
The Dikshits, who assaulted some devotees led by non-Brahmin priest Arumugasamy Odhuvar heading a Saivaite Mutt when they had come to sing Tamil hymns composed by revered saints of Hindu renaissance on Sunday, seemed much mellow today and welcomed volunteers of a few Leftist organisations who entered the temple for the same purpose.
And, this is 2008. Devotees still face the kind of threat that Tulsidas faced when he rewrote the Ramayan in Brij Bhasa and Jyaneshwar translated the Bhagwad Gita into Marathi … thereby making them accessible to all. People of all types arent' allowed to enter places of worship. some prevent women. others prevent 'other' castes – whatever they maybe. Which is why last night's reading was so much more poignant.
This is Dr.Ambedkar on the role of social status in our society.
That economic power is the only kind of power no student of human society can accept. That the social status of an individual by itself often becomes a source of power and authority is made clear by the sway which the Mahatmos have held over the common man. Why do millionaires in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs ? Why do millions of paupers in India sell their trifling trinkets which constitute their only wealth and go to Benares and Mecca ? That, religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of India where the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater than the magistrate and where everything, even such things as strikes and elections, so easily take a religious turn and can so easily be given a religious twist.
Take the case of the Plebians of Rome as a further illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light on this point. The Plebs had fought for a share in the supreme executive under the Roman Republic and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul elected by a separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which was an assembly of Piebians. They wanted a Consul of their own because they felt that the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the Plebians in carrying on the administration. They had apparently obtained a great gain because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul had the power of vetoing an act of the other Consul.
But did they in fact gain anything ? The answer to this question must be in the negative. The Plebians never could get a Plebian Consul who could be said to be a strong man and who could act independently of the Patrician Consul. In the ordinary course of things the Plebians should have got a strong Plebian Consul in view of the fact that his election was to be by a separate electorate of Plebians. The question is why did they fail in getting a strong Plebian to officiate as their Consul?
The answer to this question reveals the dominion which religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the whole Roman populus that no official could enter upon the duties of his office unless the Oracle of Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess. The priests who were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were all Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected a Consul who was known to be a strong party man opposed to the Patricians or " communal " to use the term that is current in India, the Oracle invariably declared that he was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is how the Plebians were cheated out of their rights.
But what is worthy of note is that the Plebians permitted themselves to be thus cheated because they too like the Patricians, held firmly the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a condition precedent to the taking charge by an official of his duties and that election by the people was not enough. If the Plebians had contended that election was enough and that the approval by the Goddess was not necessary they would have derived the fullest benefit from the political right which they had obtained. But they did not. They agreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves but more suitable to the Goddess which in fact meant more amenable to the Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up material gain for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can be a source of power as great as money if not greater ?
The fallacy of the Socialists lies in supposing that because in the present stage of European Society property as a source of power is predominant, that the same is true of India or that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social status and property are all sources of power and authority, which one man has, to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage; the other is predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If liberty is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man holds over another then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that economic reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of power and dominion is at any given time or in any given society social and religious then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the necessary sort of reform.
When the religious right in circa 2008 stands up and says 'this reform is against our religious traditions, ' what they are doing is following an age old tradition of dogma. They have opposed every major social reform movement – whether it was ending caste discrimination, or rights for women, or rights for various types of minorities not sanctioned by their dogma (religious, sexual, left handers, race … what ever) . It is no different now, than it was 80 years ago… except that it is citizens pushing for our rights … where are the leaders ?
Technorati Tags: Maha Shivratri, Tamil hymns, Brahmin priests, Tulsidas, Ramayan, Bhagwad Gita, Ambedkar
Sphere: Related ContentClap
Clap
Two months ago – on Sepetmber 29th – she was murdered. Now, she wasn't just murdered – she was gang raped by a drunken mob before that. As 
A girl called Priyanka is dead. She was murdered by men who demanded the right to rape her and then kill her. The permission was granted. And we want to be polite about it? A woman called Surekha is dead. She is also gang raped and murdered. Two young men called Sudhir & Roshan and beaten to death. And we use flowery terms like 'dignity in death'. What dignity? The dead are dead, and what we are trying to do is protect the dignity of the living. Our dignity. We don't want to see a raped and murdered woman's photograph because it offends us. Not the act but the picture. I have been following the Indian blogospheres' reactions on the incident. And, almost like in a black farce, beyond a lipservice to outrage at the act – it has focused mainly on whether a blogger should have published the picture or not. As someone pointed out on 
You Said