CHENNAI: When the 25th ‘Shradaanjalai’ of the late Seer of Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi was observed on January 8, one was instantly transported to a counterfactual possibility in the backdrop of the raging controversy over the Supreme Court ruling allowing women of all ages to worship at the Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa shrine in Kerala.
What if the late Kanchi Paramacharya, as he was fondly known to thousands of his devotees, and Mahatma Gandhi met again, as they did in a cowshed at Nallicherry on the outskirts of Palakkad on October 15, 1927, when another controversy over allowing the Dalits or Scheduled Castes into any temple was causing heartburns in a far more orthodox, rigid, hierarchical social milieu then.
That was a historic, very unique tete-e-tete between two great souls and public figures in their own right amid the National freedom movement. Removal of untouchability and discrimination against Dalits was high on the political agenda of Mahatma Gandhi, who with Periyar and other leaders had already won for the lowly ‘Ezhavas’ and ‘Pulayas’ to have access to few public roads to a Lord Shiva temple near Kottayam through the ‘Vaikom Satyagraha’ (1924-25) in Kerala.
As has been well documented, the ‘Sanatanists’ (traditionalists) within the Hindu-fold, vehemently opposed entry of Dalits into temples, fearing ‘defilement’ of the ‘Shastraic-Agamic ritualistic worship process’ that is believed to preserve the sanctity and power of the deities concerned. But for Mahatma Gandhi, everyone “as the Children of God” ought to have access to temples for worship and nobody’s entry could be forbidden, more so on basis of any caste.
The late scholar S. Sambamurthi Sastrigal has in his biography of the Kanchi Paramacharya in Tamil, titled, “Sri Jagathguru Divya Sarithram” meticulously recorded, what transpired at that historic meeting between the two great souls.
Sastrigal writes that the Kanchi Seer was very appreciative of Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘Satyagraha’ as a non-violent technique in politics that gives primacy to man’s ‘soul-force’ and his general spiritual outlook to life. In the same breath, on the issue of “Harijana Aalaya Pravesam (allowing Dalits into Temples for worship),” the Acharya told Mahatma Gandhi that there were “a very large number of people in the country who were rooted in the Shastras and old traditions; doing anything that could hurt their sentiments would be akin to ‘Himsa’”. This word is generally translated as ‘violence’, but in this context as one sees while reading Sastrigal’s account, it more refers to causing mental stress and agony in people.
That was the Kanchi Paramacharya’s considered view on the Harijans Temple entry issue. Gandhi then took the Acharya’s blessings and before taking leave told him that to the extent that was possible for him (Gandhiji), he would bear in mind what the Paramacharya felt (about this issue).” At one stage, as it was getting late, when Rajaji, waiting outside, went in to remind Gandhi about his dinner, Gandhi replied he had such a spiritually satisfying meeting with the Acharya, “which itself is my dinner today.”
Later that evening, Sambamurthi Sastrigal writes, that Gandhiji addressed a public meeting in Coimbatore and when some people there sought to know what transpired in his meeting with the Kanchi Seer, Mahatma Gandhi replied that he did not wish to disclose his discussions with the Paramacharya, as what they had conversed was personal and confidential. Sastrigal adds that he was able to chronicle what little was known about that meeting based on an authentic account of perhaps the only other person present at the Nallicherry meeting.
Sastrigal further writes that the issue of allowing Dalits to have free access to temples again figured in the run-up to Mahatma Gandhi’s “Epic Fast” in September 1932, when the latter issued a statement from the Yerwada prison in Pune to the effect that if there was no agreement between the ‘Caste Hindus’ and ‘Harijans’, he will fast unto death. Mahatma Gandhi’s protest was actually against the larger issue of the then British government conferring “separate electorate” to the “Depressed Classes” or SCs as they are now known.
The Agreement - the Poona Pact- that year signed by then leaders of the ‘Hindu Mahasabha’ and Dalit leaders who included Dr B.R. Ambedkar, M C Raja and Rettaimalai Srinivasan-, ensured there will be no “separate electorate” for the scheduled castes. Another fallout of the pact, though technically not part of it, was that Dalits should be allowed free access to all temples, which the ‘Sanatanists’ again stoutly opposed saying it was not part of ‘Poona Pact’.
When the first real test of applying this principle arose at the famous Sri Krishna temple in Guruvayur, again in Kerala, Sastrigal writes that the Kanchi Seer continued to maintain his earlier stand on the temple entry issue. On Gandhiji’s suggestion, a Congress team including Dr Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, K Bashyam Iyengar and Varadachari, met the Kanchi Paramacharya at Mylapore in old Madras and discussed the issue with him for two hours. But no amicable settlement on the issue could be reached, writes Sambamurthi Sastrigal.
Groups of ‘Sanatanists’ even organised meetings at places like Palakkad and Guruvayur against the proposed temple entry for all Dalits. Eventually, it was a legislation enacted by the erstwhile Madras Presidency which facilitated temple entry for the Dalits. Thus on this issue, there were unresolved differences between these two great souls- the Kanchi Seer and Mahatma Gandhi.
And much like what the Pinarayi Vijayan government in Kerala is doing now to facilitate the entry of women into the Sabarimala shrine, then too people close-to-the-powers-that-be had helped Dalits to enter various temples. However, it was Rajaji who shortly later, put the whole issue in perspective. Rajaji said that the Kanchi Seer was such a peerless spiritual leader who always had the welfare of the Harijans in mind and to judge someone like him (the Paramacharya) just on the basis of one issue (temple entry) “would not lead to any benefit”. That was Rajaji’s political wisdom and sagacity. In later conversations, Mahatma Gandhi himself said only a change of heart can bring about real changes in society.
Given this huge historical backdrop, in a counterfactual situation what if the Kanchi Seer and Mahatma Gandhi had again met “somewhere in the clouds” over the latest Sabarimala row? In all probability the Paramacharya would have voted for age-old ‘Sanatanic’ traditions of a particular temple even if it was originally a tribals shrine of ‘Ayyanar’ before being ‘Sanskritized’ as Lord Ayyappa, and Mahatma Gandhi glad to see women of all ages allowed for worship at the ‘Sannidhanam’. Yet, the issue is not a simple one of faith versus gender equality.As Karen Armstrong, in her brilliant work, “A History of God”- she was a nun in a Roman Catholic order and walked out of it- points out, the notion of ‘God’ for the early Messiahs, the ‘God’ of the Theologians, for the priestly class, ‘God’ for the Mystics and ‘God’ for the Reformers were not identical.Stating that human beings would always want to create new realms of meaning, Karen concludes her work saying: “The idols of fundamentalism are not good substitutes for God; if we are to create a vibrant new faith for the 21st century, we should, perhaps, ponder the history of God for some lessons and warnings.”
