Finally, bowing to mounting national and international pressures, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahl 'Prichard' revoked his decision to appoint new priests in the Pashupatinath Temple urging the old priests to perform pooja till the next arrangement. The previous priests' resignation had already been accepted by the government. He also instructed the Trust board to recommend the names of new priests, urging all to keep religious harmony intact. The PM had recently announced his decision to appoint two local priests - Dr Bishnu Prasad Dahal and Shaligram Dhakal - at the Pashupatinath Temple. At this instant, the unnecessary controversies and the apparent politicisation of the appointment of two Nepali priests generated for the last couple of days seems to be abated. Earlier, the government had appointed Bishnu Prasad Dahal and Saligram Dhakal as the head priests (mul bhatta). Accordingly, Dahal would work as the priest of the main temple while Dhakal would be the priest of Basuki temple.
Opposing the new appointments, the Bhandaris had been preventing puja at these temples and politicians including Indian one were seen backing the agitators. The break of tradition of assigning South Indian Bhatta as caretakers of Pashupati temple by appointing Nepali Priests had erupted strong protests. The pressure and protests had been mounted nationally and internationally over the replacement of South Indian Bhattas by Nepali Priests at the Pashupati Nath temple. Afterward issuing an interim order on a writ petition, the apex court had asked the government and Pashupati Area Development Trust (PADT) not to let the newly appointed Nepali Priest offer worship the temple till the Supreme Court (SC) issues its final verdict on the case. SC in its interim order had asked to reinstate former Indian Bhattas that had already resigned. The petitioners contended that long-held tradition and laws were violated while making new appointments at Pashupatinath, one of the most important Hindu temples in the country. But, performing puja by Nepali priest was not only a new tradition. Historian Gyan Mani Nepal in an article published recently in a Nepali daily, the Annapurna Post, says Nepali priest had been performing the puja in Pashupati temple until first half of the 18th century. After Danda Pani Sanyasi, the then ruler of Nepal had initiated inviting South Indian Bhatt to perform the puja. The reason behind bringing Indian pujari was to give continuity in performing puj, as Nepali citizens had to perform ashauch (mourning ritual) in the death of a king and while in Ashauch, puja could not be performed by him. At this time, when there is no king's rule in the country, there was no question of performing ashouch by Nepali priests and causing interruption in daily puja and other rituals of Pashupati Nath.
The appointment thus had drawn fury from different quarters including the political parties, the Bhandaries (traditional caretakers of the temple) and India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP in a statement expressed concern over the "forced replacement of Indian priests by the Maoists to install their own appointed priests also expressing fear that Missionary activities could flare up in the days to come in the aftermath of Nepal being declared a secular state and age-old harmony among various religious groups within the country could be endangered. The decision of the Nepali parliament to declare the country as a secular state had offended pro-Hindu political forces in India from the beginning. Some Hindu groups took to the streets in the southern town of Birgunj denouncing the parliament's decision to turn the world's only Hindu kingdom into a secular state. They also demanded that the country be declared a Hindu kingdom once again. Also some political leaders gave support to the protest against the appointment of Nepali citizen as the priests of Pashupati Nath Temple. Former King Gyanendra also took opportunity to break his long silence saying Pashupatinath should be kept free from politics, and called for unhindered religious activities at the temple. Thus, the appointment of Nepali priests at the Pashupatinath temple seemed to be politicised.
Bhattas also had been allegedly blamed that the money offered to pashupati Nath is being miss used not by submitting the offerings to the Temple fund. The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives (HoR) also recently had made an inspection tour of Pashupatinath temple area in course of its probe into alleged irregularities of the temple fund. Misuse of people's offering to Pashupatinath temple had been reported time and again. Bhatta claimed informing the MPs that the income of the temple is always divided between Bhattas and Bhandaris and that there was no irregularity. Bhatta also claimed that he had only been taking the amount of the special puja and the amount would be deposited in the safe (main dhukuti) of the temple. Though hundreds of thousands devotees visit the Pashupatinath temple, the annual offering to the temple reportedly was just 71,000 rupees this year. According to critics the income is very low in comparison to the devotees visiting the temple. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands rupees would have collected during the closed-door prayers during the month of Poush, but it is not transparent how many people offer such prayers and how much money they pay for such prayers. People say the money could be misappropriated in mutual consensus among the Bhattas and Bhandaris, who are responsible for the protection of the property of the temple. The information that Rs. 306,900 donation had been collected and deposited in the fund in a short period from January 1st, since appointment of new priests also supports the allegation made by critiques.
Obviously, for the Hindus of the entire world including India, Lord Pashupatinath evokes the deepest sense of reverence. But, who to appoint priests is the task of concerned authority, but not of the citizen from neighboring country whosoever they are. Similarly, it may be worth mentioning that the PADT had moved ahead with the appointment of two priests of Nepali citizenship, after the resignations tendered by the Mool Bhatta and other Bhattas, the citizens of neighboring India, citing ill health was accepted. The appointment of Nepali priests in place of Indian citizen was also a break of a tradition that obviously annoyed some section of society including neighbors.
Undeniably the procedure, however, was debatable. The appointment of two Nepali priests lacked transparency. It could have been made acceptable to all groups by inviting applications for selection through free competition. But favoring Indian Bhattas and trying to provoke Indian Hindu orthodox political leaders in the name of tradition and procedure could not be taken positive by any nationalist citizens of Nepal. Therefore, no one should defy the decision of appointing Nepalese priest by supporting Indian Bhattas. Now, it is hoped the fresh process will take this into account following appropriate procedure through enough transparency. Thus, the recent events may have provided scope for further reforms in the management of the sacred temple including the appointment of the priests.
(Vijaya Chalise is journalist and literature)
No comments:
Post a Comment