Vaikom — two States, two leaders and a story of reform

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.Okay. Stalin presents the primary copy of ‘Vaikom Satyagrha (1924-2023) Centenary Memento’ to his Kerala counterpart Pinarayi Vijayan in Chennai in 2023.
| Photograph Credit score: The Hindu

A little bit over a 100 years in the past was a landmark socio-political second like no different. The Vaikom Wrestle, which culminated within the lifting of the boundaries to the entry of backward caste Hindus to the native temple within the erstwhile Travancore princely State, can be the primary of many mass actions that introduced political consideration to non secular reform. Since then, the Dravidian Motion based by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and its self-respect rules have enabled wider reforms inside the Hindu faith and paved the way in which for a extra egalitarian society. What’s much less understood is that this was made attainable solely as a result of insertion of a key clause within the Structure by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Celebrating the centenary of Vaikom isn’t just a tribute to Periyar’s persistence and B.R. Ambedkar’s acumen but in addition a re-assertion of the sturdy reformist tendencies that proceed to pervade by way of modern-day politik in South India.

The evolution of a mass motion

The Vaikom Wrestle was fought towards the prohibition of backward caste Hindus from strolling on the streets adjoining to the Vaikom Mahadeva temple. When leaders of Kerala State Congress Committee and different social activist leaders started agitating towards the injustice, they confronted a clamp down by the administration. With the entry of Periyar in 1924, it slowly turned a mass motion, bringing individuals from all courses inside its fold. In November 1925, when the restrictions to stroll on the streets lastly lifted, the lengthy arc of political motion started tilting in direction of social justice. Within the decade that adopted, actions erupted in different components of the nation, with B.R. Ambedkar main protests to enter the Ambadevi Temple and Kalaram Mandir, the place Dalits had been denied entry.

Nevertheless, the trajectory of reform in South India was progressing at a quicker tempo with the Legislative Meeting introducing a Invoice to permit temple entry in 1932, adopted by the Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation in 1936, the Malabar Temple Entry Invoice 1938. There was additionally the entry of backward castes within the Madurai Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and the Thanjavur Brihadeeswara Temple in 1939. The Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947 enabled Hindus of all castes to enter and provide worship in all temples inside the then Madras Presidency.

Although many of those reforms came about previous to the adoption of the Structure of India, the Constituent Meeting took nice care in delimiting the correct to freedom of faith. Throughout discussions on December 7, 1948, B.R. Ambedkar included the prefix ‘topic to public order, morality and well being’ limiting the extent of the basic proper and thereby enabling state intervention when obligatory.

These seven phrases went on to type the authorized and bonafide foundation for reforms inside the fold of faith, thereby enabling constitutional courts to intercede when there was a contestation of basic rights, specifically between these of equality and faith.

State and the difficulty of regulation

The bigger difficulty has at all times been whether or not temples, and faith at giant, could be regulated by the state. If that is allowed, some argue, then the federal government will lose its secular character. There could be nothing farther from the reality or logic. The intervention of the State to control temples, that are public areas, is to make sure equality and entry. A protracted historical past, starting with the enactment of the Madras Hindu Non secular Endowments Act 1927 to the present-day Tamil Nadu Hindu Non secular and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, would make it obvious the legislative intent to handle spiritual affairs in consonance with public order and morality. This place has been confirmed by way of varied judgments starting from The Commissioner, Hindu Non secular Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt 1954 (Shirur Mutt case), the place the Supreme Courtroom of India upheld the proposition that the state can handle the secular affairs of the temple and propounded the take a look at of important spiritual observe.

Since then, successive governments in Tamil Nadu, starting in 1970, have enacted legal guidelines to allow backward caste Hindus to be appointed as archakas (monks), which some have considered a contentious act of interference in spiritual affairs. In such cases, the Courtroom has upheld the correct of the State to handle secular issues in temples whereas carving out a particular class of ‘Agamic temples’.

Change and resistance

Over the previous couple of years, Governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu have appointed a whole bunch of educated archakas, Odhuvaars and Bhattacharyas from non-Brahmin castes. These have been met with resistance inside and out of doors the courts of regulation. These reforms problem orthodox spiritual beliefs and entrenched social diktats. Nonetheless, the push for reforms is stronger than earlier than. 100 years after Vaikom and over 75 years for the reason that Constituent Meeting debate on this difficulty, there’s a compelling ethical consensus that’s rising. Whereas the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala have collaborated to commemorate the centenary of the Vaikom Wrestle on December 12, 2024, they’re additionally celebrating a historic occasion that introduced collectively two States. They’re paying tribute to the beginning of a social reform trajectory that was made attainable as a result of coming collectively of two of the best leaders.

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is an advocate practising earlier than the Madras Excessive Courtroom and Spokesperson of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)