Top

No caste discrimination in Archakas’ appointments: Dr MA Venkatakrishnan

Venkatakrishnan responded to a wide range of issues in an interview in Chennai on Friday.
Chennai: Human birth is itself an accident and nobody really chooses one’s caste or religion. Welcoming the recent Supreme Court judgment by a two-member bench headed by Mr Justice Ranjan Gogoi affirming the primacy of the ‘Agamas’ in appointment of Archakas (officiating priests) to temples in Tamil Nadu as “very fair”, Dr M.A. Venkatakrishnan, a renowned scholar in Indian Philosophy and former Head of department of Vaishnavisim, University of Madras, asserts that there is no discrimination based on caste or creed in appointing ‘Archakas’ in temples. He responded to a wide range of issues in an interview in Chennai on Friday.
Excerpts from the DC interview:
Q What do you think is the significance of the recent Supreme Court judgment in the Arckakas’ appointment case?
Dr Venkatakrishnan: The apex court has made clear that the appointment of ‘Archakas’ should be made only in accordance with the ‘Agamas’, namely, the respective ‘Agamas’ of the respective temples. In Vaishnavism, there are two ‘Agamas’- Vaikanasa and Paancharaatra. So, you just can’t appoint ‘Archakas’ as you appoint government servants through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). Traditionally, the ‘Archakas’ have belonged to specific denominations and don’t pigeonhole them as belonging to one community (Brahmins). I happen to be a Brahmin, but not all Brahmins are eligible for performing ‘Pujas’ in temples, only persons who are born in the lineage of ‘Archakas’ are eligible to perform ‘Pujas’.
Secondly, any rigorous training for it will take at least seven years, whereas the training the State government says they have given to 206 people was for a period of one-to-two years… It is like putting college professors in an IAS training academy for a while and then saying appoint such persons to the IAS; will that be proper? We welcome the judgment, which has basically reiterated what has been laid down in earlier ‘Seshammal case’ by a Constitutional bench.
The Apex Court has only added that such appointments are subject to “their due identification” as well as conformity with the Constitutional mandate. The judgment itself makes clear issues under Article 17 will not be attracted in this case, if the ‘Archakas’ are appointed from their respective denominations, while throwing open of temple worship to all castes is of a general nature. The exclusion here is not on the basis of any caste, birth or pedigree.
For example, the ancient Sri Ranganathaswamy temple in Srirangam follows the ‘Parameshwara Samhita’ of ‘Paancharaatra Agama’, while the Sri Varadarajaperumal temple in Kancheepuram follows the ‘Jayakya Samhita’ of the same ‘Paancharaatra Agama’. So, an ‘Archaka’ performing ‘puja’ in the Kancheepuram temple cannot do ‘Puja’ or enter the sanctum sanctorum of the Srirangam temple and vice-versa. Such subtle and nuanced differences are there even with respect to the Shaiva Agamas, governing worship in Shiva temples, which are 28 in number. The court has also drawn attention to Article 16(5) and as long as appointment of ‘Archakas’ is also part of the religious belief, then I understand that it is part of the Constitutional mandate.
Q The Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) leader Shri K. Veeramani has said the State government can now go ahead and appoint the 206 trained people as ‘Arckahas’ as the apex court has not (explicitly) struck down the May 2006 G.O. (the Ordinance came in July 2006), that said any person who is a Hindu with the requisite qualification and training can be appointed as a ‘Archaka’ in temples.
Dr Venkatakrishnan: If the G.O. has not been explicitly suspended or struck down by the Supreme Court, it means it has been implicitly suspended. I guess there was a reason for it when the court said that the validity of the impugned G.O. should be tested in each and every case of appointment, whenever the issue is raised. As the challenge against this G.O was clubbed along with another G.O. on the specific appointment of the 206 trained persons in temples, it may have been the reason why the apex court had left matters at that. In other parts of the order, they (Judges) have given reason why the G.O. is not totally acceptable, and in no place they have validated the G.O.
Q The Vaishnavite Acharya Ramanuja’s ‘Kovil Ozhugu’, the primer of temple worship that he laid down for the Srirangam temple is hailed as progressive and socially inclusive and hence can it not be a model by itself?
Dr Venkatakrishnan: Yes, Ramanuja’s ‘Kovil Ozhugu’ was progressive in including all classes of people. But that pertained only to the external management and administration of the temple. Ramanuja never interfered or meddled with the religious rituals or ‘pujas’ in the temple’s sanctum. In fact, Ramanuja appointed a ‘Paancharaatra Archaka’ to do the ‘puja’ in the Srirangam temple and a ‘Vaikanasa archaka’ to do the ‘puja’ in the Tirupati (Lord Venkateshwara) temple. The original idea of the State HR & CE department was also only that, only to manage the temples without interfering in their religious affairs.
Q What do you feel is the way ahead for the Tamil Nadu government now on this issue?
Dr Venkatakrishnan: My suggestion is that out of the about 36,000 temples in Tamil Nadu under the HR and CE department, only about 2000-odd temples are governed by one Agama or the other. The 206 people trained by the State government (during the previous DMK regime) can be appointed in the non-Agamic temples. That seems to be the best possible solution to resolve this issue.

Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.

( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story