Dilemmas of Public Reason: Secularism and Religious Violence in Contemporary India Author(s): M. S. S.

Pandian Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 22/23 (May 28 - Jun. 10, 2005), pp. 23132320 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4416711 . Accessed: 01/04/2013 05:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

special artcles

-__

Dilemmas of
Secularism and

Public
Violence
in

Reason
India Contemporary

Religious

The opposition between the secular and the religious is a constructfor, in reality, both often co-produce notions of culture that are intimatelyconnected with violence. To recognise this intimacy could be the beginning of imagining a new political language which transcends the secular and religious through a process of creative contamination.The search for a new political language begins in this paper with two sets of descriptions of animal sacrifice from the past - one by the Tamil Saivites, who were at the forefront of campaigning against animal sacrifices in temples during the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the other by the Madras legislative assembly in 1950, when it debated a bill to abolish animal and bird sacrifices in temple precincts.
M S S PANDIAN

of the secular Theconcept cannot do without the concept of the polluted.)4 For the secularists,Jayalalithaa's earliersupportto 'karseva', the CommonCivil Code and ban on cow slaughter religious. -Talal Asad2003 indexesherreal intentions in banning animal intemples.5 sacrifice G Ramakrishnan, the statecommittee of theCommumember I nistPartyof India(Marxist), claimed,"[these]formsof worship are practised the for Introduction by people a very long time. None has the in them."6 rightto interfere Addinga class dimension,he noted n August27, 2003, the chief ministerof Tamil Nadu, thatthe deities of popular Hinduismare those commonpeople a well knownproponent J Jayalalithaa, of theHinduright who were deified for fighting against injustice in society. stateofficialsto prevent thesacrifice R Nallakannu, the state secretaryof the CommunistPartyof ideology,instructed of animals andbirdsintemples"inthenameof propitiating tooopposed thebanon similar a gods". India, grounds. Interestingly,just She also soughtstringent actionagainstthe violatorsof the ban. yearearlier, in August2002, he tooka different stanceon a local Theimmediate reason thatprovoked thechiefminister to enforce ritualin whichchildrenwrapped in yellow cloth were lowered the ban was the sacrificeof 500 buffaloesin a village temple in shallowmudand retrieved in about30 seconds.Nallakannu near the town of Tiruchi.1 incidentin a society which bannedcruelty Though the ban appliedto Hindu called it a "barbaric hadhardlyanythingon religion.Instead toanimals."7 he neverrealised thenthatcruelty to animals temples,her statement Perhaps she invokedtheTamilNaduPrevention of Cruelties to Animals would return in yet another context soon. The response of the amendments. Herreasonwas thus members of the People's Art and Literary Association and the Act, 1950,andits subsequent In fact, reporting the move of the chief Revolutionary Students and Youth Front - both belonging to a overtlynon-religious. the Englishnewspaper The Hindureadit as an act of faction of the Communist Partyof India (Marxist-Leninist)- was minister, initiativepleasing dramatic. Protesting the ban, they slaughtered a goat in front of enforcinganimalrights.It wrote,"Inanother to animal rights activists, the Tamil Nadu governmenttoday the Sappani Swami temple in Tiruchi.8 A letter in The Hindu banned animal andbirdsacrificein templesthroughout thestate." commented, "It is quite amusing to find the so-called rationalist It continued "Thisis the second time in threedays the parties such as the DMK and the CPI(M), not categorically further, in the interestof animalsput to opposing the practice of animal sacrifice in temples, saying it chief minister...hasintervened is an age-old custom."9Another letter summoned up the past of sufferingin temples."2 But it was a section of secularists3 who broughtthe issue of the Left to critique its present: "The Left's opposition to the ban mostforcefully intothedebate. religion Theyhadenoughreasons is intriguing. I recall how a veteran communist leader used to to suspectJayalalithaa's move.Theyunderstood herintervention be at the spot with his comrades before the traditionalritualbegan as a steptowards in theimage in our temples and stridently register his objection..."10 homogenising existingHinduisms of Brahminism, an agendawhichis centralto the Hinduright's The incongruity of the situation where a Hindu right chief a left activist, succinctlycapturesthis minister espouses secular reason and the secularists defend repolitics. S Venkatesan, in the title to his essay on the ban on animal ligiosity, was compounded by the view of a section of the Hindu understanding sacrifice: 'Punithamana Kadavulkalum Theetuppatta rightwhich defended animal sacrifice. The BharatiyaJanataParty (The gods thatare pureand the deities thatare (BJP) indeed supported the ban. In fact, Kottakkudi Saravanan, Theivangalum'
Economic and Political Weekly May 28-June 4, 2005

2313

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the farmers'wing secretary There Saivites theJains, of the TamilNaduunitof the BJP, sacrifice. organisedby werejoint meetings losthisparty two goatsatPandiMuneeswarar and the rationalists to campaign against animal sacrifice postforsacrificing to enableAtal BihariVajpayeeto stage a [Kalyanasundaranar 1982].Thesejointcampaigns byrationalists templenearMadurai comebackin the Lok Sabha elections of 2004.11 There were and religionistsproduceda vast corpus of literature on why howeverothersin the Sanghparivar who opposedthe ban.The animalsacrificehad to be stopped. mostdetailed defence of animal camefromS Gurumurthy, In orderto understand how animalsacrificewas represented sacrifice theall-India co-convenor Heclaimed in the Saivitepublicdiscourse,I would turnto the writingsof of Swadeshi Munch. Jagaran thatit was wrongto debatewhetherworshipping scholar of Tamiland gods by sacri- Maraimalai Adigal(1876-1950),a versatile he Saivismandan important ficing animalsis rightor wrong.In defenceof his argument, publicfigurein colonialTamilNadu. detailedthe Kali temple festival in his native village in which Here I shall primarily focus on one of his key texts, Vellalar the vegetarians the brahmins Kali in before whichwas firstpublished (Vellalar civilisation), including worshipped Nagarigam sunset, by breakingcoconuts, burningcamphor,and offering 1923. BeforeI proceedwith this text, we need to bearin mind 'pongal'.Otherswould go to the temple in the nightand offer thatMaraimalai Adigal,deeply influencedby westernscholaranimals.He wrote,"During the day, that ship,believedin historyas progress andtriedto claimthe status worshipby sacrificing Kaliwasvegetarian; That Saivism. of science for [she was] during night, non-vegetarian. is worshipbased on the lifestyle of the worshipper..."12 Maraimalai Workingwithina historicistframework, Adigal Such a sharedview betweenthe secularistsand a section of developed a particular sequencingof history which linearly the Hinduright is no doubtbased on differentreasoning.For moved from the state of barbarityto civilisation. Here, he S Gurumurthy, the defence of diverse forms of being Hindus typologised distinct occupations as markersof progress or is a way to markout otherreligionsas fanatical: "It is not the otherwise.14 culCharacterising huntingand nomadicmaterial cultureof Bharatto assert that this is the [only] way god has tures,he noted,"Beforeknowing[thetechniques of] cultivation to be worshipped; or these are gods and othersare satans.This and the ways of using them, people lived in great difficulty is the tradition of Christianity andIslam."13 He too invokedthe withoutenough food and properclothing...One can directly 'varna'-based dharmafor differentcaste groups.For the Left, observeeven today the difficultstate in which the hill people itwasawayof contesting theHindu notion of ahomogenised and the forest dwellers lead an uncivilisedlife of hunting."15 right's Hinduism. However,suchan uncivilisedregimefull of scarcity,economic andotherdebilitating Despite these criticaldifferences,the untidinessof the ideo- hardships qualitiesof life, drewto a close to rethink as the Vellalars(uppercaste,non-brahmin Saivites)discovered logicalpositionsseems to me to offer an opportunity theopposition in thecontext modesof settledagriculture: betweenthesecular andthereligious "Onlyafterthe Vellalarshad disof communalviolence. It is my argument that this opposition coveredcultivation, the hardship for food, clothingandhousing is a construct; and in reality,both the secularandthe religious came to an end; the murderous act of killing animalsfor food often co-produce notionsof culture,which are intimately con- ceased; andmunificence, basedonsharing thesurplus compassion nectedwith violence. And to recognisethis intimacybetween harvest of paddy,pulsesandothercropswiththe starving ones, the secularandthereligiouscould,in my view, be thebeginning thrived;kings... townships,wealth,education,happylife, and of imagininga new political languagewhich transcendsthe the worshipof god, prospered..."16 secularandthe religiousthrough a processof creativecontamiWhat is significantin Maraimalai of Adigal's construction nation. And this could be a languagewhich might be more history is hisclaimthatsettledagriculture pursued bytheVellalars human but productivein addressingthe question of and engaging with notmerelyunfettered beingsfrommaterial hardships, it also cultivated theirmindsandgave riseto a worldof superior religiousviolence. I would begin this searchfor a new politicallanguagewith culturalvalues. In explaininghow the cultivationof land and two sets of descriptions of animalsacrificefromthe past- one cultivation of themindwereintimately connected, Adigalargued, of campaigning "Cultivation is an exactingjob... To perform it well, one needs by the TamilSaiviteswho were in the forefront againstanimal sacrificesin temples duringthe late 19th and probingintelligence.That is why, those who do it have high earlier20th centuries,and the otherby the Madraslegislative intelligence andknowthewaysof usingit. Onlybecauseof this, assemblyin 1950, when it debateda bill to abolishanimaland it has been said thatcompassion,intelligenceand munificence birdsacrificesin templeprecincts. In bringing to lightthesetwo are the age-old traitsof the Vellalars."17 This was indeed a instancesfromthe past,my intentionis to show how the notion criticallyimportant move for Maraimalai Adigal.The recently of culturein differentcontextsand in differenttimes plays out schematised SaivaSiddhanta of Saivism),whichto (philosophy an inevitablepolitics of power;and how both the secularand him was the highestachievement of the Tamil mind,18 had as one of its centraltenetsnon-killing(readvegetarianism),19 and religiousreasoningare complicitin it. hencethe claimto compassion andmunificence. Thus,Adigal's of Tamilhistorydevelopedan identitybetweenthe II sequencing their traditional of settledagriculture and Vellalars, occupation A Hierarchy of Beings Saivism as the civilisationalapotheosisof history. - now through Firstto the Saivitesand animalsacrifice.Followingthe forFromhere,Maraimalai a set Adigalproceeded mation of the South Indian JeevarakshinaSabha, a Jain of comparative studies of castes - to assess the civilisational in Madrasin 1926, there were active campaigns location of the non-Vellalars/Saivites within his teleological organisation, to stopanimalsacrificesin templesin the Tamil-speaking areas. scheme of history. His conclusion was foregone - the nonThe Jainswereactivelysupported by the Saivites.Forinstance, Vellalarswere way behindthe superiorcivilisationalmoment Thiru Vi Kalyanasundara Letus firsttakeupthecase of 'Aryan Mudaliar,a Saivite and an ardent of theVellalars. brahmins' nationalist, used his journal Navasakthi to oppose animal who wereunquestionably the mostimportant targetof Adigal's

2314

Economic and Political Weekly

May 28-June 4, 2005

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

historicism. hissequencing Within of history, theAryan brahmins hadremained ina stateof barbarism in thepastwhiletheVellalars werebuildinga civilisationbasedon settledagriculture: "Inthe olden days, when the Vellalas were practisingagriculture and were a civilisation, expanding Aryans merely leading hunting andpastoral life. Thatis why, cultivation had been condemned in the books authored by them and theirfollowers.Moreover, the impositionthat cultivationshould not be performedby anyonebelongingto their communitycould also be found in these books."20 In keeping with their uncivilised status, the universeof the Aryanbrahmins hadalso remained religio-moral unrefined. 'minor'deitiessuchas Varuna and Theyworshipped Indira,offered them inebriating drinks,and persistedin "the of bloodysacrificesso muchso thatas time went performance becamemoreandmorerevolting to thedelicate on, theirconduct of the humanitarian Vellalars."21 the Even constant efforts feelings of the Vellalarsto initiatethe Aryanbrahmins into civilisation endedinfailure. WhentheVellalars therituals of blood disrupted that sacrifices wereperiodically carried outbytheAryan brahmins, it enragedthemandas a result,they characterised the Vellalars as rakshashas andasuras.22 Blood sacrificeis thusa sign of the Aryan'scivilisationalinadequacy. As in the case of early Aryanbrahmins, Adigal argued,the uncivilised status of the non-Vellalar non-brahmin of the proof castes was theirlack of love and compassion,as evidentfrom their dietarypracticeof meat-eatingand religiouspracticeof animal sacrifices. to theirdeities,he,forinstance, noted Referring
in contempt: "What are Pidari, Kurankunni, Isaki, Madurai

Hereis thusa storyof culturegrounded in teleologicalhistoricistimagination. BeforeI move on to the secondset of representations of animalsacrificeduringthe Madraslegislativeassemblydebates,let me flag a coupleof pointsaboutMaraimalai narrative andthecultural which Adigal'shistorical prescriptions follow from that,to be takenup at the end of the paper.First, was meantto despitethe fact thatMaraimali Adigal's narrative constitute Saivismas theapotheosis of civilisation, it is structured Its imagination of timeas linear, by modesof secularreasoning. historyas stages of culturemoving from the lower to higher, the possibility of human one's condition agencyin transforming - areall hallmarks of suchreasoning. The only place wherehis asserts itselfis whenheequates civilisation spirituality non-killing, andSaivism.Thenthisunityis achievedthrough a secularmode of reasoning.Second,his mode of representing identitiesis to treatthem as singularand bounded,which again is to a great of modern Brahmin, Vellalar, degreea product governmentality. non-brahmins arediscreet andmarked non-Vellalar, by theirown distinct culturalsigns of inferiorityand superiority. Thirdly, inhisnarrative culture asthemostimportant anddefining emerges trope.

Ill WhatIs To Be a Hindu

Nowtoanother setof descriptions These about animal sacrifice. in an different institutional location descriptions emerged entirely - a modern InSeptember 1950,theMadras legislature. legislative assemblydebateda bill to abolishthe sacrificeof animalsand birdsin Hindutemples.The bill was a resultof a long-standing and sustained campaignagainstanimalsacrificein templesby the TamilJainsled by T S Sripaland had the open support of the then chief ministerof the Madrasstate O P Ramaswami a followerof Vadalur Reddiyar, Ramalinga Adigalwhopreached as of his The Saivism.29 in the assembly debate non-killing part finally led to the passing of the MadrasAnimals and Birds Sacrifices AbolitionAct, 1950.Oneof the moststriking features of the debateis the overwhelming consensusthat animaland birdsacrificesshouldbe banned.However,a carefullook at the debatetells as thatthis consensuswas produced on the basisof two overlapping groundsoften employedby the same person. Firstof these groundson which consensuswas sought was religious.It was basedon the questionwhatconstitutestrueor authentic Hinduism. The answers often carried traces of variousmediations For example, includingthatof Christianity. D V Ramaswamisingularisedthe Hindu gods, and using a Christian claimed,"...this kindof sacrificemadein vocabulary, fortheworship of thecommon dedicated anypartof thebuilding L N Gopalaswami God,is wrong..."(p 122).30Similarly Father, to life during the debatethe figureof the heathen: "...A brought man has somehowor otherthis instinctin him that before he eats anything,he shouldoffer it to god. Even the worstmana Heathen,however savage a life he may lead - believes in offeringthe best to God..." (p 640). be the sourcesof theirdefinitionsof Hinduism,a Whatever section of the legislatorswas categoricalthat animaland bird sacrificescould not havebeen or be partof trueHinduism. For example,V I MuniswamiPillay claimed,"I do not thinkthat accordingto the Hindureligion therecan exist such kinds of offeringsfor the worshipwhichinvolvescrueltyto animalsand birds... I thinkit is high time that these small blemishesthat

Veeran andthe like?Thesearethe spiritsof thosewho indulged in evil deedsduringtheirlifetime,shunned by kingsandothers, The TamilJainswho campaigned for and died prematurely."23 the ban on animalsacrifices in temples, also sharedsuch an aboutthe deities of popularHinduism.24 understanding which is very muchpartof the teleoloGiventhis reasoning, scheme that Maraimalai gical Adigalhaddeveloped,he did not whodividedthe inclaiming: "itis theVellalars haveanyproblem other andwentlow in Tamils,whodidnotavoidkilling[animals] into 18[occupational] morals, groupsto assistthemin cultivation He proceeded and to do otheroccupationsuseful to them."25 further theVellalar Heclaimed,thelowly to affirm magnanimity. was not eternallycondemnedto be so: "...by avoidingkilling food andby grounding themselvesfirmlyin andnon-vegetarian as as the Vellalar."26 one become elevated morals can He, [high] "Itis essentialthatthosewhofollowtheSaivite insisted, however, shouldmix only withotherswho also moralof non-meat-eating If theyhaveto mixwithmeat-eaters.. followthesamemoral. .they shoulddo so only after convertingthem to Saivism..."27 Adigal'sclaimconnotestwo things:First,historyas a process fulfilleditself at thepresenceof the SaiviteVellalarandits only taskfromnow on is to convertothersin his image.Second,the lower occupational/caste groupscould liberatethemselvesnot on theirown terms,butonly by castingthemselvesin the mould was of theSaiviteVellalar. Maraimalai Adigal'scultural project thus one of attuningothersto a putativelyhighermoralorder in enforcing of non-killing.28 of attunement, theground Projects
for consensus (either through enunciation or violence), cannot

escape the network of power. As William Connolly notes, fromonesideas themeansby whichattunement "...whatappears is fostered often appears from another as the terms are enhanced whichpainfulartificesof normalisation through and legitimated" 1995:14]. [Connolly

Economic and Political Weekly

May 28-June 4, 2005

2315

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

are a blot on Hindu religion should be removed... It will go a long way to show to the world how sacred our religion is and how pure its worship" (p 113). V Lakshmi Ammal went a step ahead in defining what was authentic Hinduism. For her, the deities of popular Hinduism such as Kali, Karuppan, Madan, Maariyayi, and Kaateri were not or inadequately Hindu. She referred to them as 'bootha kanangal', i e, inferior beings often physically deformed like the attendants of the Hindu god Shiva. She wanted a ban on the consecration of new temples for bootha kanangal and argued, "...if we remove deities such as Madan and Kaateri and enforce that all should worship only in big temples, we can stop this sacrifice in a little time..." (p 637). The play of culture and power is too evident here to expand upon. The second ground on which arguments for the ban of animal sacrifice was advanced, was secular. K BrahmanandamReddy, for example, claimed, "...this usage or custom in the country is a remnant of barbarism and it is a heinous sin too, but this country is ignorant and superstitious, and as such perhaps be not a religious thing but a superstitious matter"(pp 124-25). Thus, for him, usage and custom, conceptualised as frozen in time, was not in tune with progress; and superstition was of course the opposite of rationality.There were otherways in which the secular ground was brought into play. Civic sensibilities were one of them. N S Varadachari defended the ban because "not that sacrifice itself is wrong, but that it will avoid all the unseemly, ghastly, and revolting sights that we see in front of temples sometimes" (p 126). He wanted the government to tell the people that the ban was "a mark of progress in our state..." Pleading against penal action, he offered a linear notion of humanprogress: "Human history shows that after thousands of years, we are not able to give up a certain type of food. Progress is not measured by the progress we have made within the short span of life.. .That is not the way progress is looked at. It is looked at by making advance in stages..." (pp 126-27). The most interesting secular argument for the ban of animal sacrifice came from D S RamachandraRao. He began with an account of the primal condition of human beings: "Cruelty is human prerogative. There is something in human naturethat we are born in cruelty with tendencies of cruelty. Children are very cruel - it may be unconsciously - and animal life is a species of cruelty..." Then such human nature is amenable to improvement. According to him, "To go against the propensity of human nature is not an easy thing. But man is different from animal... It is this that encourages the hope that all men and women, when they reach manhood and womanhood in its perfection, in its highest ideals, will be able to exercise control over their lower nature and begin to see even in mute creatures like animals something of divinity, some expression of the higher and loftier principle..." (p 135). Several of the legislators, independent of the ground on which theyjustified the ban. assumed a pastoralrole towards those lesser beings who sacrificed animals and birds. Assuming a civilising role, they discounted penal action but sought education and propagandaas the means to make the law effective. For instance, D S RamachandraRao argued, "We have to teach our people the higher ethics of divinity. We must educate them at home, educate them at school and lateron we must take up the education of the masses, and unless we are endowed with much higher qualities than mere vindictiveness, we shall never be able to get the cooperation of people at large" (p 136). Yet again, as in the

case of Maraimalai Adigal,whatwe get to see hereis a project of attunement in the name of culture. Letme flag hereonce againa coupleof briefpointsto be taken up for discussionlater.First,thoughthe banon animalsacrifice in its defence was meantto reform advanced religion,arguments wereoften grounded in secularrationality. Second,the modeof of the animalsacrifice- bothby thosewho spoke representation the languageof religion and reason- is foundedon a linear of timewhichis central to secular imagination. conceptualisation Finally, the idea of culturewhich is centralto the projectof was substantially invoked in the debates in the attunement, Madraslegislativeassembly.

IV of the Religious TheWorld

I wouldleave behindthe reformers for a while andturnto the world of those who are sought to be reformed.The Madras Animalsand Birds SacrificeProhibition Act 1950, despite its andthe euphoric penalprovisions responsefromthe legislators, failed to stop the practiceof sacrifice in temples of popular Hinduism. a recentpetition the Interestingly, hearing challenging legalityof the act, the chiefjustice of Madras HighCourtasked
the advocate general who represented the state, "...What is the

in enforcing theimpunged Act whenit was notenforced urgency the 53 the act is a dead letter. during past years."Practically,
As a journalist commented, "...if Jayalalithaahad not suddenly

raisedthe issue, people would not even have knownthatsuch a law existed in [the] Tamil Nadu statutebook."31 Let me give two instancesto illustratethe extent to which animal sacrifice is part of popular Hinduism onTamilNadutoday. AtPandi Muneeswarar located ontheoutskirts of Madurai temple, townandwherePandiMuneeswarar, and SamayaKaruppasamy areworshipped, on anaverage 200 goatsaresacrificed Andisamy on Fridays andSundaysandaround100 on Tuesdays. Thereare about100 stalls selling 'puja'material. Duringthe ear-piercing of a child, communityfeasts preceremonyor the christening withthemeat of thesacrificed pared goatsandfowls,areorganised. Threehundred butchersskin and debonethe meat for a small fee.32At Sudalaiaandavar near Otthaipanai templein Sirumalanji, in south Tamil over a lakh Nadu, devotees, Nanguneri mainly drawnfromthe casteof nadars, congregate duringthe bi-annual
festival and offer sacrifices of thousands of goats and pigs. These

are two established temples.But usuallythe dwellingsof these deities,to whomanimalsareoffered,aremostlymodest,found in inconspicuous locationssuch as tankbundsand outsidethe And regularworshipis not usuallyoffered village boundaries. to these deities. The sacrificeof animalsandfowls is carried out primarily as 'nerthikadan'or the fulfilmentof vows madeto local deities. Oftenthe vow is madeseekingdivineintervention in situations of ill health, elusivemarriage, etc.Animalsacrifice childlessness, is also offeredduringceremonieslike ear-piercing and naming children.The animalsdedicatedto the deities cannotbe used for any otherpurposeand the vow has to be fulfilled.This is KV R Illango whya lawyerfromMadurai perhaps Karupaaurani, soughtan interimstay on the ban (so thathis wife could fulfil hervow).Henotedin hispetition, "When I fell ill, mywife vowed to sacrifice twogoatsatthePandi Muneeswarar templeif I recover When I we went to the recovered, fully. templeon August30 to fulfil the vow. Revenueofficials and police stoppedus."33

2316

Economic and Political Weekly

May 28-June 4, 2005

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The meat of the sacrificed animals and fowls are cooked in the vicinity of the temple and consumed there itself. The priests in these temples are drawn from the local community, often doing regular work for their livelihood, and on occasions, donning the role of ritual specialist. All these point to a certain degree of unmediatedintimacy with the divine. It is importantto remember that those who defended animal sacrifice on religious grounds always alluded to this intimacy. A letter written wrote in a Tamil daily stated, "People choose their method of worship from their lived environments. In the Golden Temple, the Sikhs offer wheat halwa. In Kashmir, it is the practice to offer apples. This reveal the fact that people offer to god what they eat."34 Significantly, animal sacrifice has an importantrole in forging community links. Though dalits are not allowed to enter a number of caste Hindu-controlled temples in southern Tamil Nadu, they are allowed to offer sacrifices. The Sudalai temple at Seevalaperi belongs to the yadhava community but the dalits are allowed to make sacrifices during temple festivals. The head of every goat sacrificed goes to the thevar community. This practice is also prevalent in Sudalai Maadasamy temple at Arumugamangalam, Saastha Malai temple at Marukaalthalai, Oththappanai Sudalai Andavar temples at Vijayanarayanam and Sirumalanji, Kallaththiyaanand Saasta temples at Naduvakurichi.Though the SirumalanjiOththappanaiSudalai Andavar temple is controlled by the nadars, the first sacrificial goat is to be offered by a dalit and all animals are later sacrificed by a barber. And before the trancedancer leaves for the cremation ground in traditionalrobes of Sudalai Andavar, members of all communities, including the nadars, the dalits, the yadavas and the thevars, would go to his house to invite him to start the 'yatra'.35 In offering these instances, I am not claiming that these rituals which brought together different castes are not mediated by notions of hierarchy and caste power. They indeed are. As S V Rajadurai rightly reminds us, "The village where I was born,there is a famous Kali temple. Evey year, during the Amman festival, caste Hindu men sacrificed goats: women sacrificed fowls and offered pongal. The next day, the parayarsoffered buffaloes; and on the last day, kedambarswho used to carry night soil, sacrificed pigs. For each caste, a different animal; and a convention of who would sacrifice first and who would last."36 My point, however, is thatanimal sacrifice as a mode of worship is saturatedwith a network of significations ranging from remedying worldly afflictions, to mark life-cycle transitions, to reproducing community links and hierarchies. And the language of reform anchored in notions of culture, is. for most part, so reductive that it is incapable of comprehending and engaging with these web of sacral significations which are important for communities, families and individuals. The narrativeof culture as progress cannot but be impatient with such significations. Let me give a brief account of the way in which the government of Tamil Nadu tried to stop the sacrifice of animals, following the ban reintroducedby J Jayalalithaa. The instance that I would take up here is the bi-annual festival at Sirumalanchi conducted in September2003. A police force of 500 was deployed to prevent sacrifices during the temple festival. Three check-points were established on the roads leading to the village so as to filter out animals and birds. The house of the 'sammiyadi' (the trance dancer) M Muthuraj,a retired village administrative officer, was surroundedby the police and he was prevented from visiting the cremationground, a ritualto be carriedout before the commencement of animal sacrifice. Finally when he donned the traditional

robes and began his journey to the cremation ground, officials and police intercepted him and asked him to appeal to the devotees not to perform the sacrifice. The samiyadi asked the devotees not to offer sacrifices in the temple precinct, but in their own places facing the temple. The devotees did carry out the sacrifices but in the nearby fields.37 On the concluding day of the festival, the samiyadi was taken to the temple, under heavy police escort, so that he could distribute prasadams to the devotees. Thus, the state's singular language was one of enforcing law - a law that reduced the multiple sacral connotations surrounding animal sacrifice to a singular representation of violation of animal rights. The samiyadi's final declaration at the end of the festival spoke a different language. He said to his devotees, "Though abstaining from the crematorium visit was painful for me, I did not go there for the welfare of the devotees. I will go to Kailash to solve this problem and once this issue is settled, Sudalai Andavar will go to the cremation ground and occupy the paran [alter] to accept the animals offered by the devotees."38 Thus he was the devotees' protector,their welfare was his concern, and he promised to solve the problem. His was a language of community and its reproduction. And the very imprecision which marks his statement offers a range of meanings to be accommodated. The devotees become interpreters.In other words, there is a deep incommensurabilitybetween the languagesof the reformingstateand religion. With the impending parliament elections, the chief minister Jayalalithaadid scrap the ban on animal sacrifice by an ordinance in February2004. It was claimed by her that the ordinance was promulgated "in deference to their [ruralpeople] religious belief and in orderto remove their fears of attracting 'divine retribution' for not following the centuries-old custom". Invocation of religious belief, the fear and centuries-old custom, set the devotees in a time past. Traces of secular imagination haunt the statement. The teleological time marks it with its unmistakable presence. It is exactly these secular traces which were referred to when

NO. 1/2005 ADVERTISEMENT We are a premierICSSR institute devoted to research and teaching on socio-economic development, constituent Institute of Allahabad (central) University. The Institute invites applications for positions of Professor, Reader, System Analyst, Lecturer/Research Associate for its Centres : (a) Development, Planning and Policy; (b) Environment & Health; (c) Rural Population, Development and Management; (d) Democratic Processes and Insititution; (e) Human Development and (f) Power, Culture and Change Visiting and contractual appointments on deputation may also be considered, Minimumqualifications & pay scales will be as per UGC norms. Allowances, and other benefits will be as per the rules of the Institute.Applicantswith proven research and teaching experience may submit applications to the Registrarby June 30, 2005 on the proformaobtainablefrom the Registrar by sending a self-addressed envelope of 23x10 cm size affixedwith postage stamps of Rs. 22.00. Proforma and other details are also on the Institute's web site (address : www.qbpssi.nic.in). Those who have applied earlier need not apply again. REGISTRAR

Economic and Political Weekly

May 28-June 4, 2005

2317

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

one of the devotees of Pandi Muneeswaran temple told the press, "There is every reason to attribute a political motive to the government decision..."39

V ToMake on the Religious a Claim

Using the preceding accounts of the controversies surrounding animal sacrifice in temples of popular Hinduism in Tamil Nadu, I wish to begin this concluding section with a plea for a more complex understanding and engagement with the languages of the secular and the religious. First and foremost, the language of the secular is footloose. It comfortably inhabits competing ideological camps. A Saivite hagiographywhich inferiorises non-Vellala castes as well as nonvegetarianism, a legislation which tries to contain diversities within what we know today as Hinduism and to recast it in the image of brahminism, and the very opposition to the Hindu right from the secular scholars and activists - all can be grounded in notions of progress, imagination of time as linear,civic sensibility and other markersof secular disposition. Similarly, the language of the religion too can serve competing ideological projects. As much as it could help to mobilise the Hindus against other religions (as is being done by the Hindu right in India), it could also shape ethical dispositions of tolerance and dialogue with others [Asad 2003]. And as we have seen, it was the partial abandonment of the language of the secular and acceptance of the language of the religious by the Left in Tamil Nadu, that gave them the space to critique the Hindutva agenda of Jayalalithaa's ban on animal sacrifices. The contingent natureof these languages in terms of producing political outcomes makes it necessary to have an ambivalent stance towards them. What seems to matter is which language would produce what results in what contexts. Let me here quote from an article on cow slaughter by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar: "I have long opposed a ban on cow slaughter as a secular liberal. But in the light of Bhavabhuti's narrative, I also oppose the ban as a beef-eating Hindu. I am following in the footsteps of Vasista, no less."40 The narrative in question is Uttara Rama Charitra authored in the 8th century A D, where it is claimed that the brahmin guest in the hermitage had to be fed with meat along with curds and honey, and so every host had to offer a heifer, a big bull or a goat to him. As in the world of Aiyar, both the language of religion and the language of the secular can co-habit to produce a discourse of toleration. I think, it is critically important, especially in the current context of Hindu right's aggressive politics in India, to recognise and acknowledge that the language of the secular alone cannot always be the foundation for a politics of toleration and dialogue. If this is so, the secularists, as they practise their politics today, are in a position of disadvantage. As we have seen, the Hindu communalists are truly comfortable in using the language of the secular to advance their politics of majoritarianism. But the secularists are rather reluctant to embrace the language of religion. When opposing the ban on animal sacrifice in Tamil Nadu, the Left. for instance, awkwardly distanced itself from the language of the religion even while employing it. While R Nallakannu of the CPI, prefaced his opposition to the ban by noting that "Communists do not have superstitions; do not even have faith in god", G Ramakrishnan of CPI(M) noted, "Scientifically we

cannot accept both offering milk, curdand ghee in agamic temples and offering of goats and fowls [in non-agamic temples]."41 (While this is a sign of reluctance among the secularists to adopt the language of the religion, I do not want to miss out on its positive attribute:that is, it is as well a statement that I do not believe in what you believe; still I would defend your case.) Such reluctance is not only a result of non-belief in religion, but also of the secular agenda of treating religion as properly belonging to the private domain. The language of religion cannot, thus, legitimately be part of the public discourse. The secularists are also faced with an additional disadvantage. The very language of the secular, being grounded in notions of rationality and progress, cannot but privilege itself over other forms of languages such as thatof religion. Given this, the secular always talks of educating rather than dialoguing. To give an example from the controversy on animal sacrifice in Tamil Nadu, the state secretaryof the CPI(M), claimed, "People N Varadarajan, can be freed from such practices only by providing basic necessities of life, education and science and rationalistpropaganda."42 In other words, the secular looks for a unified speech or a discursive consensus that endorses its position. This is a deeply problematic attitude grounded in a sense of moral and intellectual superiority. In the context of this self-arrogating superiority of the secular, we need to keep in mind the perceptive comment of Talal Asad that "...the ruthlessness of secular practice yields nothing to the ferocity of religious" [Asad 1993:236]. Such an attitude blocks the possibility of even recognising the language of religion as worthy of serious consideration. This is perhaps why, for sections of the believing public, the Hindu right's claim that it alone could speak for the Hindus sounds legitimate. Given these, I would suggest that unless the secular discourse reinvents itself by creatively engaging with religion ratherthan keeping away from it, it cannot rise up to the task of confronting religious violence and speak a truly democratic language of dialoguing with the religious and questioning its own normalised beliefs. Here I would speculatively and with a measure of uncertainty,offer three possible moves that may reconstitute the language of the secular in a politically enabling direction. In other words, it is more a script for reflection rather.thana statement of certitude. First of all, the presence of religion in the public domain of the present and the future India cannot be wished away. This is not merely because of the politics of the religious right, as has been normally understoodby the secularists. The Constitution of India itself conceptualises a place for debates aroundquestions of religion in the public domain. As Marc Galanter, in a refreshingly insightful essay published four decades back, puts it, "The freedom that is a principle of [a] secular state is not freedom for religion as it is (in India) but freedom for religion as it ought to be... The ultimate argument for the secular state then is not to maximise the presently desired freedoms but to substitute a new andmoreappropriate or valuablekindof freedom..." [Galanter 1998:258]. While Galanter points out that it would be the educated middle classes which would have the power to define what religion ought to be, we may have to also remember that it is a more complex affair of contestations involving larger sections of the people who are marginalised within religions - in the name of, among other things, caste, gender and language. The contemporarydalit critique of Hinduism is a case in point. Equally importantis Galanter's other point: "...the notion of religion as

2318

Economic and Political Weekly

May 28-June 4, 2005

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

essentiallyprivateand separatefrom public life is an... indefensibledogmato those who hold religionto encompassmore than doctrine,worship, and private conduct, but to provide for the ordering of publiclife. Secularism obligatory principles cannotbe entirelyneutralamongreligionswhen it undertakes to confine them to their propersphere"[Galanter1998:259]. Ambedkar's Buddhism is as muchan effortto orderpubliclife as the Hinduism of the proponents of Hindutva. In the nameof the to we would be stifling domain, confiningreligion private theenabling whichAmbedkar's Buddhism holdsfor possibilities the dalits and be left with an impoverished politicallanguage to confrontthe Hinduismof the Hinduright. Importantly, to recognisethe languageof religion in the public domainis to subduesecularism's desireto imposepublicreasonas the only of politicsandto openup spacesfor dialogue possiblelanguage with otherkinds of politicallanguages. of the languageof religionas legitiSecond,such validation matein thepublicdomainwouldexpandthe notionof thepublic andcouldproduce a stageto initiate a newandnecessary dialogue with hitherto domain of communitywherequesmarginalised tions of religionandreligiousreformare most often discussed. HereI wish to turnto Partha muchdiscussedpaper Chatterjee's on secularism andtoleration[Chatterjee 1998].Referingto the assertion of religiousminorities that"Wehave ourown reason for doing thingsthe way we do", he comments,"Thisimplies the existenceof a field of reason,of processesthroughwhich reasonscan be exchanged andvalidated, even if suchprocesses are open only to those who sharethe viewpointof the group" [p 376]. It is only by recognisingthe languageof religion as thatonecanvalidate suchfieldof reasonandexchange legitimate as important sites of politics.In otherwords,the secularproject these alternative domainsof politics could, by acknowledging as legitimate, over' movefromtheconception of poweras 'power to 'power of theauthorised to', i e, powerto thosewhoarenotpart publicdomainand who do not speak the authorised language of politics. Here, I think, one needs to take into accountan argumentmade by Talal Asad about culturalminorities.He the crucialpointabouta politicallyestablished writes,"Perhaps cultural is thatconstitutionally it cannotauthorise new minority cultural but only requestthem"[Asad 1993:259]. arrangements The validationof minorityself-representations in autonomous domainscould be the first step towardsredressing community such constraints.

VI for Spaces Self-representation

endorsessuch autonomouscomThoughParthaChatterjee domains of munity exchangeand debateas a way of ensuring a site of politicsto religiousminorities in India,I wouldsuggest thatit would be equallyvalid for variousmarginalised groups which constitutewhat we know today as Hinduism.If social reformduringthe late 19th and the early 20th centurieswas basically an acrimoniousdialogue and consequent change amongbrahminsoften throughthe language of religion, the of newer 'Hindu'religiouscults, with newly inproliferation novatedreligiousconceptionsindicatethe expansivepresence of such autonomous community domains among various sectionsof Hindusas well. This is perhaps inevitablegiven the of power,basedon caste,gender,regionandlanguage, structure which mediatesthe relationship between differentgroups of

Hindus.Only a recognitionof the languageof religionwould validate such communitydomains as legitimatedomains of of religionproposed politicsagainstthe singularised conception by communalists. The preceding point is one of creating spaces for self(whichare usuallynot recognisedby the secular representation in its desireto imposeits own publicreason)andengagingwith such self-representations. alone Space for self-representations cannotbe a resourceagainstreligiousviolence. We also need newerstrategies of representation. Thelanguage of religion could also openup the possibilityof hitherto unavailable of strategies whichcouldcapture the senseof multiple representation belongin theiractuallives. This possibility ings thatpeople entertain is not availableto the secularin its presentformas it shutsout identities fromthe publicdomainin the nameof reason.Simultoo does not allow spacefor taneously, religiouscommunalism multiplebelongingsas its agendais one of singularreligious It is onlyby recognising themultiplicity andinterlocked identity. nature of identitiesandchangesin themthatone can makeany move towardsstrategies of representations which are inclusive and contingent. This means,in a regimewhereinthe languageof religionis as legitimate, one needsto thinkof moreinclusiveand accepted modes of Letmegive, as anillustration, complex representations. twocompeting of theIndian lawcourtswhiledealing approaches with people'smultipleaffiliationsto groups.As MarcGalanter shows us, the "pragmatic or empirical" dealswiththe approach problemin termsof whethera groupacceptsone as a member despiteher belongingto othergroups.This often resultsin the of multipleaffiliations. On the weightof case laws, recognition he writes,"It was possible to be simultaneously a Maharand a memberof the Mahnubhava panth;a Samgarand an Arya a Christian andanOraon, anAnglo-Indian anda Khasi" Samajist, The second approach,which he calls as [Galanter1997:114]. formalor fictional,triesto decide cases of multipleaffiliations with formalcategoriessuch as fourfoldvarna.This approach never endorsesmultipleaffiliationsbut affirmssingularidentities. To me, the story of these competingapproaches of the Indian is rather instructive. It shows that there exists judiciary a possiblelanguageof dealingwith identitieswhich belong to the lived environment of communities.In saying so I do not discountfor a moment,the aggressiveenforcement of identities by communitiesas exemplifiedin violence against religious can also be a minorities,dalits and women. Still communities site to locateenablingways of engagingwithidentities. In other hasto contaminate its categories words,the secular by searching out otherlanguages,includingthe languageof religion,which recognisethe life beyondboundedidentities- such as those of the deracinated individual of secularism andthe singular Hindu or Muslimidentityof communalism. All the threemoves- recognising the languageof religionas as a legitimate site of politicsandlooking valid,the community - cannotbutbe contextual for new strategies of representations and shifting.As muchas all threecan be important resources to confront canalso,dependreligiousviolence,theythemselves be sourcesof suchviolence.It maynot be out ing on situations, of place hereto emphasisethe cautionwhich YoginderSikand seeks in the contextof religioussyncretism: "Whenassessing thepossiblepotential of shared in countering religioustraditions the politics of communalstrife it is important to bearin mind thata religioustradition thatborrows sources freelyfromvarious

Economicand PoliticalWeekly May 28-June4, 2005

2319

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

makethose who claim to follow it tolerant neednot necessarily of otherreligionsand theirfollowers"[Sikand2003:17].Thus, what one needs is a practiceof politics which does not dwell in a world of consistency or certainty (as secularism and communalism does), but in one of contextual and creative inconsistency with a willingness to partake in different IE3 politicallanguages. Email:[email protected]

Notes
[An earlierversionof this paperwas presentedat a conferenceon 'Violence and State in South Asia' organisedby the Departmentof Politics, Amherst College, in April-May2004, at Amherst.I benefiteda lot from the comments of the organisersof the conference and the participants.AnandhiS, Vijay Baskar,andRajanKrishnan providedme with useful commentson an earlier version. I also benefited from my conversations on the theme with Itty Abraham,Nivedita Menon, Aditya Nigam and PrabhuMahabatra.I am grateful to all of them.] 1 The Hindu, August 29. 2003. 2 The Hindu, August 28, 2003. 3 The exceptions are the rationalistpolitical groups in Tamil Nadu such as the DravidarKazhagam and the Periyar Dravida Kazhagam. 4 Vallinam,August 2003, January2004, p 124. 5 Detailing, J Jayalalithaa'sprevious term in power, C J Fuller notes, 'Inpractice...Jayalalitha's Sanskritic, regimehasbeenactivelypromoting brahminical Hinduism,almostas if it were the official religion.Dravidian ideology has been effectively reversed in favour of something close to Tamil-style Hindutva'.C J Fuller, 'BrahminTemple Priests and Hindu Revivalism in Contemporary Tamil Nadu', South Indian Studies.No 1, January-June1996, p 22. 6 Vallinam, August 2003-January2004, p 115. 7 The Hindu, August 26, 2002. 8 The Hindu, September 9, 2003. 9 The Hindu, September 5, 2003. 10 The Hindu, September 15, 2003. 11 The Hindu, March 18, 2004. 12 S Gurumurthy,'MirugankalPali - Ithu Vazhkai Murai Vazhipaadu', Thuglak. October 22, 2003. 13 Ibid. p 39. 14 Arguments developedin this sectionon how time was usedas a distancing device throughthe 'denial of coevalness' owe a great deal to Johannes Fabian, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object (Columbia University Press, New York, 1983). Walter Mignola characterisedthe 'denial of coevalness' as "the replacementof 'other' in spaceby the 'other'in time... andthearticulation of cultural differences in chronological hierarchies."Walter D Mignola, The Darker Side of Renaissance: Literacy, Territorialityand Colonization(The University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, 1995), p xi. 15 MaraimalaiAdigal, Vellalar Nagarigam, South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Society, 1975, Thirunelveli, p 4. 16 Ibid, p 5. 17 Ibid, p 2. 18 Duringthe Pallavaperiod,the landedVellala elite developed an overlap between Saivism and Tamil. This was achieved through the 'bakthi' literatureof the Nayanmarsand was meant to constitutea broad-based historicbloc of differentcastes with the Vellalas at the helm of leadership, so as to contest the well entrenchedauthorityof the hegemonic trading classes. The tradingclasses were mainlyof Jainswho promotedSanskrit and Prakrit.Saivism acquiredthe trappingsof a philosophicalsystem. i e. Saiva Siddhantam, duringthe Chola period when the Vellalas were already a hegemonic landed caste/class. For a lucid analysis, see New Century Pandai TamizharVazhvumn K Kailasapathy, Vazhipaadum, Book House, Madras. 1991. 19 MaraimaliAdigal's defence of vegetarianismwas not merely based on his argument. theethics of non-killing.He also invokedscience to buttress food Based on evidence from the west, he claimed that non-vegetarian contained uric acid which was supposed to be bad for human health. Maraimalai Adigal, Tamilar Matham, Manivasagar Pathippagam,

Chennai, 1999, p 65. 20 MaraimalaiAdigal, Vellalar Nagarigam, p 5. 21 Ibid,p 44; see also Maraimalai Adigal, 'Preface to the Second Edition', Vellalar Nagarigam, p 13. 22 MaraimalaiAdigal, Vellalar Nagarigam, p 72. 23 Maraimalai Adigal,ArivuraiKothu.PaariNilayam,Chennai,1979, p 36. Prachara 24 T S Sripal,ShattamPesukirathu,TheninthiyaGeevarakshaka Sabha, Chennai, 1956, pp 6-10. 25 MaraimalaiAdigal, Vellalar Naagarigam, p 11. 26 Ibid. p 22. 27 MaraimalaiAdigal, Tamilar Matham, p 285. 28 On the notion of attunement,see Connolly (1995). For an excellent discussion of the relationshipbetween culture,attunement and violence, see Daniel (1996). 29 Fora historyof the campaignby the TamilJains,see T S Sripal,Chattam Geevarakshaka Prachara Pesukirathu, Sabha,Chennai,1956. Theninthiya 30 All referencesin this section, unless statedotherwise,are from Madras Legislative Assembly Debates, Vol IV, Nos 1-8, September 1950. 31 M V Kamath,'ReformingHinduism,'News Today,September29,2003. 32 The Hindu, February22, 2004. 33 Dinamani, September 13, 2003. 34 Dinamani, October 10. 2003. 35 The Hindu, September 15, 2003. 36 S V Rajadurai, 'Kida Vettu: Villanku Paathukappum Manitha Urimaikalum',Vallinam, August 2003-January2004, p 106. 37 The Hindu, September7. 2003. 38 The Hindu, September 14, 2003. 39 The Hindu, February22, 2004. 40 Swaminathan S AnklesariaAiyar, 'Serving Beef in Ayodhya and Cow SlaughterPolitics', The Economic Times, August 24, 2003. 41 Vallinam, August 2003-January2004. pp 103, 115. 42 Dinamani, September 3, 2003.

References
Asad, Talal (1993): Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reason of Powerin Christianityand Islam.JohnHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore and London, p 236. - (2003): Formations of the Secular:Christianity, Islam,Modernity,Stanford University Press, Stanford, p 200. Connolly, William E (1995): The Ethos of Pluralisation, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Chatterjee,Partha(1998): 'Secularismand Toleration'in Rajeev Bhargava (ed), Secularism and Its Critics. Daniel,ValentineE (1996): CharredLullabies:ChaptersinAnAnthropology of Violence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, chapter 7. Galanter, Marc (1997): 'Group Membership and Group Preferences in Indian' in Marc Galanter,Law and Society in Modern India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, (1989), p 114. - (1998): 'SecularismEast and West', Rajeev Bhargava(ed), Secularism and Its Critics, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, (2004), p 258. Thiru Vi (1982): Thiru Vika Vazhkkaik Kalyanasundaranar, Kurippukkal, South India Saiva Siddhanta Works Publishing Society, (1944), Tirunelveli,p 647. Sikand. Yoginder (2003): Sacred Spaces: Exploring Traditionsof Shared Faith in India, Penguin Books, New Delhi, p 17.

Back Volumes
Back Volumes of Economic and Political Weekly from 1976 to 2004 are available in unbound form. Write to: CirculationDepartment, Economic and Political Weekly HitkariHouse, 284 Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai 400 001.

2320

Economicand PoliticalWeekly May 28-June4, 2005

This content downloaded from 121.241.25.103 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 05:21:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions