Maoists in the temple

By Yubaraj Ghimire

Nepal was declared a secular state more than five years ago, but religion still triggers debate here over the way politicians are using it. On Vijayadashami day on October 6, President Ram Baran Yadav offered prasad to senior government officials and others in his office, following a practice of the monarchs before Nepal became a “secular republic.” A month earlier, he had visited the temple of Kumari, considered a living goddess, in the capital, with Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai at his side, representing the state. The former king, Gyanendra, was stopped from visiting the temple in an individual’s capacity for fears he might be awarded literally royal treatment.

Yadav apparently knows that in a country with religion and religious practices so deeply entrenched in social and cultural life, deviating from them may land him in controversy. Bhattarai had to apologise as finance minister two years ago, when he tried to stall the usual state monetary support to celebrate Indrajatra day after the organisers and local community threatened to agitate.

Maoists apparently have, of late, come to realise that religion may be used against them, and that the issue should be carefully handled, without antagonising practitioners. They tried to fiddle with the Pashupatinath temple by replacing priests from southern India abruptly, and hiring their own people two years ago, but withdrew after public protest snowballed into a anti-Maoist movement.

Some walls in public places are now painted with slogans demanding Nepal’s return to Hindu nationhood. “We will not accept secularism,” reads the common slogan coined by Rashtriya Dharma Jagaran Samiti. The Samiti has been conducting its “awakening programme” across the nation, almost in the same manner as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad prior to the Babri masjid demolition. India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which has substantial organisational and ideological presence in Nepal in the guise of “Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh”, has extended its support to the campaign.

Bhattarai, however, has been taking a contradictory stance on the relation of state, religion and politics. He apparently took his old parents to “Char dham” (four major Hindu shrines in India) in deference to their wishes before he disappeared in 1996 to join the decade-long insurgency that favoured Nepal’s turning into a secular republic. That insurgency apparently had an anti-religion component as part of its avowed objective to “demolish the old state.” Instances were alleged of Maoists destroying idols, setting fire to a Sanskrit library with rare manuscripts, and even killing some people observing “Hindu rituals” to mourn their parents. Bhattarai, however, went along with the party on these issues. Cow-slaughter was a common practice among Maoists during the period although it was banned for two reasons: the reverence the cow enjoyed in Hindu society, and its status as a “national animal” in the constitution. But Bhattarai asked Nilambar Acharya, chief of the constitution committee in the Constituent Assembly (CA), not to recognise the cow as a national animal, and instead leave such an issue “open” while preparing the draft of the future constitution. But some are getting organised in a big way to challenge this. The slogans on Kathmandu’s walls are the first indication .

Human rights groups are lobbying for a debate in the CA, which also functions as the legislature, on a pending notice on the right to adopt a religion of choice. With the Maoists’ known stand that religion is a “personal affair”, the lobbyists hope that Maoists would uphold that principle.

The Maoist government, on the other hand, did something smart during this Dashain. Culture Minister Gopal Kiranti, who was responsible for the Pashupatinath temple fiasco, entrusted a comrade to manage and regulate activities in the Dakshinkali temple, one of the most revered Shakti Peeths, attracting huge crowds round the year. Many believe this is the beginning of an exercise on the part of the Maoists to have all big temples brought under the party’s control and thus deprive the “Hindu Nepal” campaigners of their most effective platforms. But this is also likely to trigger a debate on the relation between religion and politics.

(Courtesy: Indian Express)