Purification atrocities of the Tantris of Kerala.
August 2000.
Mr. Vayalar Ravi , a Hindu, was once the home minister of Kerala. He was in August 2000 an MP of the Congress party. His wife was a Christian. He wanted to get his son married in a Hindu temple. That very intention of Mr. Vayalar Ravi showed that his son is a Hindu as he had been brought up in the environs of his community in the Hindu religion as mentioned in Explanation (b) to Section 2 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which attempts to define the term ‘Hindu’.
Yet, the tantri, the head priest of the temple, would have none of it. He simply performed the purification ceremony. In his opinion, the marriage has defiled the temple. And within the temple premises, it is only the tantri who is supreme and the Constitution and the laws enacted in accordance with it do not have any significance, the tantri presumed. The tantri has, therefore, seen to it that his opinion prevailed.
If, for the sake of argument, Mr. Ravi converts himself, now, to Christianity to escape from the tyranny of these tantris, the fundamentalist Hindu bigots would cry from the rooftops that the missionaries convert the Hindus through allurement or force. Because, Mr. Ravi had been born a Shudra only in order to stomach such insults and remain a Hindu still. And, that was the fatwa of the tantris.
“Kala Pahar, the Bengali Prince, turned Muslim when Brahmins refused him permission to marry the Muslim princess who was prepared to renounce Islam to be able to marry him. The revenge he took on his ancestral society is well known. The Muslim majority in East Bengal is mainly due to him”… {-Balraj Madhok- Indianisation- Page 52- 1970-Orient Paperpacks.}.But, these tantris would never learn.
In Mohandas Vs Devaswom Board, 1975 KLT 55, Jesudas, famous playback singer, was a catholic Christian by birth. He used to render devotional music in a Hindu temple and used to worship the presiding deity. He also filed a declaration stating that he was the follower of Hindu faith. It had been held such a bona fide declaration amounts to his acceptance of Hindu faith and becomes a Hindu by conversion. Mr.Ravi’s case is comparable to it. But these Guruvayur tantris would not listen to such court verdicts.
In Perumal Vs Ponnuswamy, the Supreme Court has held that the acceptance of Ms. AnnaPazham, a Christian lady, to the marriage in Hindu form itself was the proof of conversion. She continued to live as a Hindu even after. It has been held that if a person expresses his/her intention to become a Hindu followed by the conduct of community or caste taking into the fold of which he/she is ushered accepts him/her as a member, then he/she is considered Hindu. No formal ceremonies to effectuate conversion are required, said the Supreme Court. But the tantri exercises veto. If a Christian woman can thus become a Hindu through marriage, would not the son born of that marriage be a Hindu?
Now, the questions are
1. Whether the tantri was superior even to the courts of law in laying down law whether a person is a Hindu or not
2. Whether the tantri had not insulted the former minister and present Member of Parliament (i.e., an official representative of the people) who still continues to remain a Hindu
3. Whether the Constitution does not have role to play within the precincts of a Hindu temple where the tantris commit various social and racial crimes and do anything as they please to provoke others and thereby cause communal tension and other undesirable consequences and
4. Whether the upper caste Tantri's action in offending the religious feelings of the lower caste Hindu does not attract Section 295 A of the IPC
Mahatma Gandhi had said it very clearly. On 08.10.1927, Mahatma Gandhi, disenchanted with the obstinacy of the Brahmins of Travancore, wrote from Nagercoil, “Let me, if my voice will reach them, carry my voice to the Brahmin priests who are opposing this belated reform. It is a painful fact, but it is historical truth, that priests who should have been the real custodians of religion have been instrumental in destroying the religion of which they have been custodians”, (Page 94 – The Epic of Travancore - Mahadev Desai). On 09.10.1927, he wrote from Trivandrum, “The priests who today arrogate to themselves the function of the Brahman and distort religion, are no custodians of Hinduism or Brahmanism. Consciously or unconsciously they are laying the axe at the root
of the very tree on which they are sitting, and when they tell you that shastras enjoin untouchability and when they talk of distance pollution, I have no hesitation in saying that they are belying their creed and that they are misinterpreting the spirit of Hinduism”. Gandhi was right; the Kerala Brahmins had been destroying the religion for long.
August 2000.
Mr. Vayalar Ravi , a Hindu, was once the home minister of Kerala. He was in August 2000 an MP of the Congress party. His wife was a Christian. He wanted to get his son married in a Hindu temple. That very intention of Mr. Vayalar Ravi showed that his son is a Hindu as he had been brought up in the environs of his community in the Hindu religion as mentioned in Explanation (b) to Section 2 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which attempts to define the term ‘Hindu’.
Yet, the tantri, the head priest of the temple, would have none of it. He simply performed the purification ceremony. In his opinion, the marriage has defiled the temple. And within the temple premises, it is only the tantri who is supreme and the Constitution and the laws enacted in accordance with it do not have any significance, the tantri presumed. The tantri has, therefore, seen to it that his opinion prevailed.
If, for the sake of argument, Mr. Ravi converts himself, now, to Christianity to escape from the tyranny of these tantris, the fundamentalist Hindu bigots would cry from the rooftops that the missionaries convert the Hindus through allurement or force. Because, Mr. Ravi had been born a Shudra only in order to stomach such insults and remain a Hindu still. And, that was the fatwa of the tantris.
“Kala Pahar, the Bengali Prince, turned Muslim when Brahmins refused him permission to marry the Muslim princess who was prepared to renounce Islam to be able to marry him. The revenge he took on his ancestral society is well known. The Muslim majority in East Bengal is mainly due to him”… {-Balraj Madhok- Indianisation- Page 52- 1970-Orient Paperpacks.}.But, these tantris would never learn.
In Mohandas Vs Devaswom Board, 1975 KLT 55, Jesudas, famous playback singer, was a catholic Christian by birth. He used to render devotional music in a Hindu temple and used to worship the presiding deity. He also filed a declaration stating that he was the follower of Hindu faith. It had been held such a bona fide declaration amounts to his acceptance of Hindu faith and becomes a Hindu by conversion. Mr.Ravi’s case is comparable to it. But these Guruvayur tantris would not listen to such court verdicts.
In Perumal Vs Ponnuswamy, the Supreme Court has held that the acceptance of Ms. AnnaPazham, a Christian lady, to the marriage in Hindu form itself was the proof of conversion. She continued to live as a Hindu even after. It has been held that if a person expresses his/her intention to become a Hindu followed by the conduct of community or caste taking into the fold of which he/she is ushered accepts him/her as a member, then he/she is considered Hindu. No formal ceremonies to effectuate conversion are required, said the Supreme Court. But the tantri exercises veto. If a Christian woman can thus become a Hindu through marriage, would not the son born of that marriage be a Hindu?
Now, the questions are
1. Whether the tantri was superior even to the courts of law in laying down law whether a person is a Hindu or not
2. Whether the tantri had not insulted the former minister and present Member of Parliament (i.e., an official representative of the people) who still continues to remain a Hindu
3. Whether the Constitution does not have role to play within the precincts of a Hindu temple where the tantris commit various social and racial crimes and do anything as they please to provoke others and thereby cause communal tension and other undesirable consequences and
4. Whether the upper caste Tantri's action in offending the religious feelings of the lower caste Hindu does not attract Section 295 A of the IPC
Mahatma Gandhi had said it very clearly. On 08.10.1927, Mahatma Gandhi, disenchanted with the obstinacy of the Brahmins of Travancore, wrote from Nagercoil, “Let me, if my voice will reach them, carry my voice to the Brahmin priests who are opposing this belated reform. It is a painful fact, but it is historical truth, that priests who should have been the real custodians of religion have been instrumental in destroying the religion of which they have been custodians”, (Page 94 – The Epic of Travancore - Mahadev Desai). On 09.10.1927, he wrote from Trivandrum, “The priests who today arrogate to themselves the function of the Brahman and distort religion, are no custodians of Hinduism or Brahmanism. Consciously or unconsciously they are laying the axe at the root
of the very tree on which they are sitting, and when they tell you that shastras enjoin untouchability and when they talk of distance pollution, I have no hesitation in saying that they are belying their creed and that they are misinterpreting the spirit of Hinduism”. Gandhi was right; the Kerala Brahmins had been destroying the religion for long.
