I often visit places of worship (PoW) out of gluttony. If there is good food available, and there almost always is near every major PoW, I'm game. I also visit PoWs for aesthetic reasons. Some of the world's most wonderful works of architecture, art, literature and music, et al, were created in honour of the divine. If a PoW is beautiful, or it has historical significance, or it hosts tuneful musicians, or features mellifluous chanting, I am happy to show up. Of course, I also visit PoWs for social reasons. Somebody has died; somebody is getting married; whatever. I will show up to demonstrate my affection for the concerned persons.
The stated purpose of a PoW - that is, worship - is irrelevant to me. Nor do I care what the specific religion may be. Food, social connections, aesthetics are enough to take me to PoWs and over the years, I have visited hundreds, if not thousands.
Despite my unbelief, I find it mildly upsetting that there are PoWs from which I am excluded. I suspect I would find it more upsetting if I was a believer. If I strongly believed in a specific religion, donated money to its institutions, followed its strictures, and was still excluded from its PoWs, I would be extremely upset. This is why I empathise with the social activists who are currently agitating for women to be granted the right to enter various PoWs. Ditto for those who are seeking similar rights of entry for Dalits.
The arguments for upholding the exclusion of women, and of Dalits, are specious. Beyond blind references to tradition, analogies are sometimes made between exclusionary PoWs, and housing societies. Those analogies are imperfect but breaking them down may lend some clarity.
There is legal precedent to exclude people from membership of a housing society. A housing society can openly discriminate and refuse to allow membership to a citizen who does not have a specific lifestyle, or does not hail from a given caste, religion or community. The justification is that you cannot force people into intimate association with other persons. The first such landmark case involved fire-worshippers. But vegetarians, non-vegetarians, camel-trainers, snake-charmers and probably, stamp-collectors, can form exclusionary housing societies.
Private clubs, which are in some ways similar to housing societies can also refuse membership to anybody, depending on specific articles of association and by-laws. In most clubs, a member must also pass some sort of vetting process before being granted membership.
If this analogy held, PoWs should be allowed to discriminate and run themselves on exclusionary principles. But there are key differences between a PoW and a housing society and that is why the analogy breaks down.
First, the influence of a housing society doesn't extend beyond its walls. The members pay subscription fees. Societies don't raise money from non-members and they don't exclude members from their premises. Membership cannot be denied on grounds of gender. Also, the rules of a society, however eccentric, cannot be imposed on anybody (including members) outside its own walls.
Unfortunately, none of this is true for a religion. Religions have no compunctions about taking money from people who are excluded from PoWs. Also, a decree issued from within a PoW can affect the lives of people living outside it. Such decrees can and are often enforced in coercive ways, or with threats of outright violence, affecting even non-believers. What is more, unlike societies, PoWs and the religious trusts running PoWs are often exempted from tax.
On a principle of reciprocity, anybody whose life is affected by a PoW should influence the PoW back. One way to influence a PoW's style of functioning is by going there and networking with the believers. Since women, and Dalits, are often the targets of the most oppressive of religious and social decrees, they should surely have the right to enter the PoWs and have a go at changing the way those function. If the PoWs insist on exclusivity, rescind their tax exempt status.
Twitter: @devangshudatta
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
