How do we understand the problem of caste based restrictions on temple entry? In Kanaka’s Udupi and some other temples in coastal Karnataka, ‘anna santarpane’ is given separately to Brahmins only. There are men who monitor this and they would ask “which sub caste are you (among Brahmins)?", if they get any doubt about the caste of the person who enters this separate hall. How do we understand this and such practices?
It is not clear to me what precisely you are aiming at. I get the impression that you find something objectionable to excluding people on grounds of their birth. If this is the case, I would like to suggest that such exclusion becomes a case of ‘discrimination’ if, and only if, an additional normative assumption is present.
Consider the presence of all kinds of youth hostels in India that cater only to students from specific jatis: Kuruba hostel, Gowda hostel, Lingayat hostel, and such like. Is this exclusion also a case of discrimination? Consider another kind of example: Only men can become priests and offer a mass in the catholic churches. If these are legitimate, then excluding on the basis of birth alone is not enough to speak of discrimination. You speak of dining practices in some temples and suggest that exclusion based on money and power is less heinous than exclusion based on birth. If we look at it empirically, you will find that it is far more difficult to become rich or powerful (if you are born poor or powerless) than it is to gain entry into these dining halls at temples. All one has to do is to wear the ‘sacred thread’, claim to be a second generation immigrant from Rajasthan or Bihar or some far-off place and mention some fictitious ‘sub-jati’ as a brhaminical jati. In other words, all one has to do is wear the thread and tell a lie. Which is easier? Tell a lie or cough up 10,000 Rs, when you are poor? Nothing is easier in India today than change jatis, even at an official level: consider how many people do not obtain false jati-certificates by paying a bribe to concerned officials!
Furthermore, in India, the Temple Entry Acts play a peculiar role. They masqueraded as a struggle of reason, equality and morality against the horribly inegalitarian tyranny of caste (apparently, the British and colonized lawyers had forgotten that European societies were dominated by ‘clubs’ with restricted entry). In reality, these Temple Entry Acts imposed the Protestant model of religion as a relationship with God in which all souls ought to be free and equal as though it was the one true morality. These secularized Christian attitudes towards morality and equality were imposed and diffused by the legal system in India. Our objections to the restriction on temple entry, today, are rooted in these secularized Christian attitudes.
______________________________
Much has been written on the issue of the ban on temple entry. The prohibition on the entry of some caste people in some parts of a temple (occasionally the entire temple) is seen as an act of discrimination and untouchability. To the extent this is a question of untouchability, the argument about untouchability enumerated in an earlier section (see: Untouchability) is applicable to this debate as well. Below are arguments specific to the debate on temple entry issue.
1. It is often complained that only two people are allowed to enter the (‘sanctum sanctorum’ of the) village temple. What argument can one advance to say that it is okay for only two people to have the privilege to enter a particular spot no matter which framework one views this from and even if it is not a problem with the village folk? If one prefers to stay within the sphere of so-called religion, just turn to Roman-Catholic Christianity: what is wrong with the fact that only some people are allowed to take the host or that only priests are allowed to take both the host and the wine? Nothing much, unless you are a particular kind of Protestant who believes that we should all be able to have the Eucharist in two kinds. But that is the theological argument of one particular religion against another, which hardly gives us social- scientific evidence that something is wrong with the practice. The traditions of most parts of the world only give access to some people to the so-called ‘sanctum sanctorum’ of temples. To Protestants, this was unacceptable because the privilege of the priests had to be broken, since all believers are priests according to them. If you leave the "religious" sphere, just turn to the variety of institutions and buildings in western societies that are accessible only to a privileged few (private clubs, your home, the white house, the senate, etc.). What is wrong with this?
2. The legal system both in Enlightenment Europe and in colonial India forced all traditions to accept the normative framework of liberty, equality and fraternity as the superior model of society. These Protestant values were imposed by law as though they embodied secular reason. In European nation-states, for instance, the legal systems began to compel ‘citizens’ to pledge loyalty to the national sovereign alone in the temporal realm of our earthly lives. Catholic believers could no longer submit themselves to the papacy as a temporal authority, but only as a spiritual authority related to the heavenly realm and the salvation of the soul. This was enforced as the sublimely rational model of a nation-state that treats all citizens as equals irrespective of their creeds. In reality, secular law compelled the European Catholics to accept the Protestant notion of religion as an individual relationship with God over which no human being could have authority in this world.
In India, the Temple Entry Acts provide a good example. These masqueraded as a struggle of reason, equality and morality against the horribly inegalitarian tyranny of caste (apparently, the British and colonized lawyers had forgotten that European societies were dominated by ‘clubs’ with restricted entry). In reality, these Temple Entry Acts imposed the Protestant model of religion as a relationship with God in which all souls ought to be free and equal as though it was the one true morality. Again, the secularized Christian attitudes towards morality and equality were imposed and diffused by the legal system in India.
3. During extended field work conducted by the CSLC researchers, it is found that each and every jati has its own temple and a ‘priest’. Take the example of the Chamaras. They have their own devas (Bhutappa) and devates (Mari, Chudi) and temples for them. Chamaras also take part in the village festival (the Gram Devata Utsava) and perform their specific role, which they have inherited traditionally. During the festivals of Bhutappa, Mari and Chudi, people belonging to other castes (traditionally considered as upper castes in relation with the Chamaras) like Gowdas, Brahmans and Kurubas take part. Interestingly, they do not enter into the Chamara temples but stand outside the temple and show their reverence to the deva and devates. There are also occasions when ‘upper caste’ people salute an ‘untouchable’ when he is engaged in a ritual (when ‘possessed by the deity’, for e.g.) and accept the mediation of an untouchable in relating to a deity. The ‘upper caste’ people even collect contributions for these Chamara temples from the public. How do we understand such practices? Untouchability is not, as it usually understood, a one-sided practice observed only by the upper castes. In our field work, we have seen and have been told that the ‘untouchable’ caste people too guard themselves from the physical contact with the upper caste people. When we ask for the reasons for this behavior, they have often told us that such contacts with the upper caste will be bad for them (Kavithaa #4170).
The dominant explanation offered for such notions is to say that the ‘lower castes’ are brainwashed into believing the caste conventions. Such explanations have one important problem: they render the lower caste people intellectually incapable. Such explanations also fail to say anything interesting when similar practices are observed by the so-called upper castes. Here is an example. There are Brahmans, who think it is auspicious to dip the thali/mangalasutra (the pendant a wife is supposed to wear until her husband is alive) in the water used for processing leather in a Madiga’s house. Madigas, we are told, are reluctant to observe such practices. Brahmans, therefore, have to steal the water from a Madiga’s house. Present theory of the caste system will miserably fail to explain such practices.