[sacw] SACW Dispatch June 9, 1999

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citzens Web - Dispatch
June 9, 1999
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)
===============================================
Contents:
#1.Divine Landlords (Op-Ed piece by Gail Omvedt on the Indian Supreme Court
Ruling declaring "Hindu deities'' to be "legal persons'')
#2. A Foolish Ban (Op-Ed piece by Chanchal Sarkar on Indian Governments
Recent Ban on retransmissions of Pakistan TV in India)
_______________________________________________

#1.

From: The Hindu, Online edition ( http://www.the-hindu.com )
Wednesday, June 09, 1999
Opinion

DIVINE LANDLORDS

By Gail Omvedt

IN A striking ruling, the Supreme Court recently declared ``Hindu
deities'' to be ``legal persons,'' capable like corporations or other
institutions of owning property under the law.

More precisely, Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao and Mr. Justice Umesh
Banerjee ruled that ``Hindu law recognises a Hindu idol as a juridical
(legal) subject being capable in law of holding property by reason of the
Hindu shastras following the status of legal person in the same way as that
of a natural person.'' The ruling was based on an appeal against the Patna
High Court's ruling regarding the idols of ``Ram Jankiji'' and ``Thakur
Raja'' in Bihar. The appeals are said to have been filed by the deities
through their managers or `shebait' controlling their temples.

The Supreme Court judges rejected the ruling by a judge of the Patna High
Court that one of the deities was false, arguing that ``there cannot be any
false deity'' under Hindu law. Relying on the shastras and various
``authorities,'' the court also explained the ``rituals of consecration,''
presumably to show how true deities were consecrated. Thus, they described
the rites of carrying the image to the snan mantap, uttering the sankalp
mantra, bathing the image with holy water, ghee, dahi, honey and rose
water; and taking it for oblation to the sacred fire; in this, they said,
the pran pratishta takes place in which the ``eternal spirit is infused in
the idol.'' With the image then taken to the temple and formally dedicated
to the deity, the court found it fit to rule that the deities or idols in
question were indeed ``legal persons'' consecrated in temples with lands
that were entitled to enjoy exemption under the State's land ceiling law.

The court decision seems bizarre. It is hard to imagine the implications
of taking a deity (or idol, in the courts' own language) as a ``legal
person.'' After all, a ``legal person'', whether individual, corporate or
divine, is legally subordinate to the laws of a country, something that
would be unsettling to any self-respecting god. Further, if a deity - or,
to follow the language used, ``the eternal spirit infused in the idol'' -
is seen as the owner of some land, this implies the exclusion from
ownership of the rest of the land. This would be somewhat puzzling to those
for whom the divine has ultimate governance over all creations. The Supreme
Court's strange decision is, in fact, derogatory to the deity, reducing the
divine to being yet another Bihar landlord.

In any case, almost everywhere in the world as in India, it is religious
institutions, not idols or gods taken as legal persons, that own property.
Idols, after all, have to have a human spokesman; institutions are socially
constituted to begin with. Such institutions, of course, own a lot of
property the world over; churches, temples, maths, gurdwaras, mosques or
whatever are not small powers. The Vatican, the Catholic and Protestant
churches and religious institutions in the U.S. are able to claim tax
exemption and other privileges that would make any company envious.
Individual Christian ``evangelists'' become millionaires. In India, not
only temples but such institutions as the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak
Committee of the Sikhs are powerful and wealthy. But they are wealthy as
institutions, not as the direct voice of the deity. This leaves it up to
the believer, and not the courts, to contest whether these institutions
actually express the divine will. The courts only have the authority to
decide on whether the institutions are following the laws of the country in
which the property is owned.

In Maharashtra, to take an important example, temple lands are registered
under public trusts. Most village temples, as a result, are controlled by
the villagers themselves - certainly not by a priest of ``manager''
speaking in the name of the devata. There are often conflicts over this
control; larger trusts may be controlled by cliques. Nevertheless, many of
the temple trusts function relatively democratically, with their lands
representing something like common property resources of the villages
concerned; They are, in any case, more democratic than feudal control.

For that matter, the vast majority of the Maharashtrian trusts are in the
name of Bahujan devatas and devis unknown to the Sanskrit dharmashastras.
It is thus unlikely that any of the current crop of judges would be
qualified to rule on their qualifications. These Bahujan devatas and devis
have their own characteristics. Khandoba, for example, may be claimed by
Brahmans to be a form of Shiva, or may be argued by scholars of religion to
be closely related to the Dravidan Murugan. Little of this means much to
his Maharashtrian devotees, for whom he is simply one of the most popular
peasant devatas. Khandoba has his own stories and his own characteristics,
including what might be called an `intercaste' marriage: while he is
thought of as a Maratha-Kunbi king, his second wife Banu was from the
Dhangar community. Similarly, Jogeshwari, one of the most widely revered
devis of Maharashtra, may be taken to be a form of `Parvati' by Brahmanic
tradition or a local form of the worldwide `great goddess' by feminists.
What is significant is that in her local story, she refuses to marry
Vaijanath of Parli, and settles down firmly as an independent devi at
Ambejogai. There is really little of Sanskrit tradition in this, whatever
glosses might be added.

It may seem out of line for a non Hindu - particularly one whose place of
birth would make her a second-class citizen under some current proposals by
political leaders - to comment on `Hindu' theology. Hindu (Brahmanic)
judges may indeed understand Hindu (Brahmanic) law far better than any
outsider. If it were a matter of the judges of the Supreme Court
interpreting Brahmanic law only for those religiously inclined to accept
it, there would be no problem. However, two points can be made.

The first is a question about the Bihar situation out of which this court
case arose. It is not that there are no religious institutions controlling
lands in Bihar. One of the most famous is the Bodh Gaya math, where a land
struggle was carried on for years among the Dalit agricultural labourers
working the lands of the math by the Sangarsh Vahini.

The struggle has become famous among feminists because the end result was
that, in 1983, after the labourers won the rights to some of the land, the
momentous decision was taken by the Vahini to give the land won in the
names of women. The Bodh Gaya math is also notorious for a different
reason, because the trust that runs it is controlled by Brahmans in spite
of at least a century of protests by Buddhists, and in the last decade
there have been mass struggles of Dalit Buddhists to regain this sacred
site of the Buddha. Could it be that the appeal in the name of `Thakur
Raja' and `Ram Jankiji' is being made in order to evade the results of
similar land struggles?
It is also intriguing the names of the devatas in question would appear to
suggest that these are Bahujan or perhaps even adivasi devatas who are
being Sanskritised. This fact, and the question whether they should enjoy
exemption from the state's land ceiling law, are certainly a matter of
concern for the rural poor of Bihar.

The second point is one that convinced (Brahmanic) Hindus themselves
should be concerned about. Letting the courts rule on the status and rights
of deities may be quite satisfactory as long as the current Brahman
monopoly of the judicial system continues. But what if the benches were
occupied - through some fluke of increasing education and political
appointments - by those people who, according to the very dharmashastras
the judges are interpreting, are not even supposed to hear the most sacred
Brahmanic scriptures? What if the Dalits, those who used to be called
`shudras,' and even women become judges? The divine landlords of Bihar and
their all-too-human supporters would then indeed have something to worry
about.

(The writer is visiting Professor, University of Pune.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

# 2.

The Hindustan Times - Online Edition (http://www.hindustantimes.com)
Wednesday, June 9, 1999, (New Delhi)
Opinion

A FOOLISH BAN

By Chanchal Sarkar

AT THIS testing time of warfare and tension the minds and hearts of every
Indian woman and man - and it's the same for Pakistanis - are pinned on the
remote and rugged areas around the Line of Control. Many have their loved
ones fighting there.

>From their own governments they are unlikely to hear the truth of what is
happening - governments suppress truth and exaggerate gains in war time.
And so some bits and crumbs of reality might fall from the broadcasts of
the opposite side, heavily larded, of course, with propaganda and
tendentious untruth. But it is something and it has been crassly unwise to
ban television signals from Pakistan.
We have been through three full-scale wars without any banning. Jamming
and banning with viewing or listening punished by fines, imprisonment or
worse were practised by Vichy France and totalitarian dictatorships like
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Democratic countries abjure such
throttling. Its effect is invariably counter-productive.

Most disappointing is the realisation that those responsible for taking
such decisions are totally unaware of the nature and power of broadcasting.
It is immensely more powerful than Bofors guns, aircraft carriers and
Stealth bombers. For Pakistan, Bangladesh and our other neighbours, India
should have a very well thought-out and programmed broadcasting policy not
just for times of tension and shootouts but very much so for the
roller-coaster years of relative non-war.

For after all we are getting into the homes, parlours and chabutaras of
people across our borders. Have we really evaluated the effect of the crap
that we are giving them? Or of what they are giving us?
Pakistan may be engaged in a proxy war but we have become a proxy
democracy. Else how is it we cannot trust our people not be moved by and to
see through the propaganda of Pakistani television?

I cannot say I watch a great deal of Pak television, but if it is a
matter, as some say, of juggling images around and harping a lot on the
communal issue, I cannot see what would be the gain. Juggling images and
figures is done by all military spokespersons.

As for the communal issue in a country that has more Muslims than
Pakistan, do the strategists in Pakistan really expect Indian Muslims to be
convinced and to rise in revolt? Their thinking cannot be so infantile. In
fact they must be laughing into their sleeves because India has exposed
itself as insecure. Look at the design for broadcasting to our neighbours.

It needs psychology, sensitivity, deep knowledge of the people concerned,
and a mix of entertainment, news, drama and discussions. It needs excellent
planners and producers. Such people are not easy to find. To stimulate them
to work creatively is harder still.
It is criminal to downplay radio. The poor people displaced from Kargil,
Drass, Batalik or Skardu and living either in caves or in uncomfortable
camps are desperately eager to listen to what is going on in the fighting
and to know about their future.
Giving them radios and broadcasting to them is essential for their morale.

As for those who complain about the falsehoods in Pakistani broadcasting -
and therefore say that it should be banned - far better to have a
programme, or more than one, pointing out the falsehoods and setting the
record straight.

What amazed me is that at a meeting of senior journalists the other day
the majority supported the ban.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/act
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications