Mrigu Sambyal
Beautiful is the place I’m born in and beautiful are its people. Often celebrated as “mitthi e dogren di boli te khand mitthe log dogre”. There was a warmth in the air of this city that kept me wanting it even more after I moved to Delhi. It is just heavenly how a beautiful town is situated on the banks of River Tawi that seeps in the hills and enchants the ridges. Decorated like a dewdrop on a fresh leaf are the Hari Palace and Mubarak Mandi that seem to sing in glory of their beloved mistress Bahu Fort off the shore. There are several tales that celebrate how Bawe wali Mata has always been shielding the town from adversaries, which has kept people’s faith in it alive. The sanctity of the temple is one of the classified identities of the town. There would hardly be anybody who doesn’t have memories of that godly hill that houses India’s biggest underground aquarium and popular picnic spots. It is however interesting to note that it is people’s faith that made the place magical.
Whenever I visited the shrine of Bawe wali Mata, I felt peaceful and empowered. There has always been serenity in the chants of bhakts and power in the jaikaras that were no less goose bumping. Ever since I moved to Delhi I missed all of this until recently when I was back in town and excited to revisit my childhood memories. However it didn’t take long for disappointment to hit when I visited the place last week. The place has been beautified under the smart city mission, there has been ever more streamlining of the administration of affairs in the area and probably more sources of employment than ever before. However all of these being positive developments, ironically didn’t really leave an appealing impact. Last it could take to hit another disappointment was the introduction of a strict dress code for devotees. Anything that seemed indecent to the authorities invited disapproval of the person’s entry in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. However all these developments have no historical backing, I remember going on evening walks in half joggers and never returning back without praying at the temple that was on the way, when stopping everytime at the Tawi pull and sometimes spontaneously planning to visit the temple, dress code was the last thing we thought of. Now that the new rules about the dress code are out, it has only been detrimental for the devotees, stealing the place of the sense of relief and peace that it once bestowed. From the moment you step in the temple, all you could hear is the authority telling you what you are not allowed to do. If something has kept me so attached to this place was the sense of security I enjoyed here that is very much intertwined with the sense of freedom you feel. Not to mention the fact that once mitthi boli of jammuites now seem to be consumed in the politically charged wave of radicalism that has never been a part of the culture of Jammu. Even when radicalism gripped most of Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu did remain protected.
Arguments for introducing a dress code remain to maintain the ‘modesty’ of the religious place. One can also very easily argue that there already are many religious places in Jammu with a dress code, why introducing in just another is now a matter of concern. It is a matter of grave concern because firstly, it is first-of-its-kind dress code to be introduced in a temple in Jammu, and secondly it is not hampering the freedom of devotees in ‘just’ another religious place, those who live here know that no life in the town is untouched by the place that has always been an integral identity of Dogras. When the time wheel demands progression, I see regressive rules breaking the inertia. It is not at all the debate between tradition and modernity, but the trajectory that suggests that we, as a society, aren’t heading in the forward direction. And how do we calculate that? By weighing it against the Indian principles as enshrined in the constitution. Yes it does allow freedom of religion under article 25 and 26, it also guarantees individual freedom with reasonable restrictions including modesty and morality as in Article 19(2). Question remains who get to decide what defines modesty, although I do have a definition but I choose not to use it as a lens for every affair, that’s also my way of respecting the constitutional principles and upholding the values that my hometown had once inculcated in me, i.e. respecting everybody’s definition of modesty, allowing dialectics to coexist.
Let’s put on Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’ and decode the legality of the issue. While Article 25 focuses on individuals, Article 26 holds primacy with respect to the community, not to mention the fact that although both the articles complement each other, individuals are often at conflict with the community. This leaves the Right to Freedom at the behest of how the judiciary interprets the issue. The recent landmark verdict in Sabarimala Case was much celebrated, but what exclusively caught my attention was the beautiful remark by CJI DY Chandrachud that morality conceptualised under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution cannot have the effect of eroding the fundamental rights guaranteed under these Articles. Similarly, in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath temple of Varanasi and others vs. State of UP, the Supreme court ruled that “the blanket and self-drawn power of the board of the temple to impose the dress code is not only unconstitutional but also crushing the choice of individuals to wear the clothes of their own choice”. It cannot be said more bluntly than in this ruling that upheld the right to choose as under Article 21 over any other right.
There still remain ample religious denominations in India with a dress code and the arguments of modesty, morality and decency cannot be ignored. But things become problematic when they are imposed compulsorily, overriding volunteerism. History stands testimony to the fact that imposition of anything that does not arise from the general will of people does not stand a chance to sustain, even if it sustains it will invite ill wishes of those who are forced to follow them. That might not matter in other institutions where rules are important reminders against misdemeanours, ill wishes become significant when it comes to religious places whose whole existence is based on faith, belief and emotions of the devotees. Imposition is in itself a justification of the fact that the practice of following a strict dress code didn’t arise from within the society, but was decided by a handful people, as what arises from within society is a common practice, a tradition and needs no external imposition. Simply put, coercion can get things done, but cannot necessarily get them right. To this Ramakrishnan rightly substantiated that spirituality is more of an individual practice and has to do with having a sense of peace and purpose. Without peace, purpose is disillusioned.
One cannot close the case without talking about the most acclaimed legal concept of ‘essential religious practices’, an innovation that came up in the ‘Shirur Mutt’ case, 1954. This remains my strongest manifestation why a strict dress code deserves no place when it comes to one’s devotion. The case categorised religious practices into essentials and non-essentials. As far as hinduism is concerned, even a naive would tell that head gears and full length leg coverings have never been a sine qua non.
Hinduism, although being the oldest, is yet the youngest religion for its tendency to evolve and accommodate with changing times. This makes it a liberal way of life, which also suggests that fundamentalism is essentially outside the purview of Hinduism. Neo Vedantism as put by Swami Vivekananda remains the most relevant in today’s milieu and is very much in agreement with my arguments. It’s this tendency of Hinduism to align with the zeitgeist that has kept it ever popular when all other religions saw a decline in their popularity. Buddhism remains a classic example of how imposition of fundamentalist beliefs sank its own sail.
The much angelic Mahakali Mandir at the Bahu fort deserves more love of the devotees than disaffection towards the new rules, so is why devotees are humbled to give in to the new set rules. Although the head priest clarified that the notice isn’t an order but an advisory, in practice it seems very much a compulsion. What worries me more is the image that we are setting in front of the pilgrims who visit shrines like Vaishno Devi and Amarnath and do consider stopping by the Bawe temple, but were recently turned back for dressing inappropriately. Jammu and Kashmir is known for its hospitality but I’m afraid now we will lose this recognition too just as we lost the paradise to radicalism and fundamentalism decades ago. Last I would want is to see is this place, I’m so passionately in love with, succumbing to radicalism, sadly I see that happening faster than ever before.
Just as the Trika philosophy of Kashmiri Shaivism underlines “Shiva without Shakti (Mahakali) is Shava (corpse)”, a law without general will is but a dictate, that adds up to the inconvenience of the public.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
