Should Private Temples Be Allowed to Discriminate Based on Gender and Caste?

Had an interesting discussion the other day about discrimination against women and other groups by mosques and temples. This is one of those areas where I’m conflicted. On the one hand I believe that a person’s private property is sacrosanct. I can prohibit anyone I want from entering my house even if it’s discriminatory and doesn’t make sense. The government has no right to interfere. So if I stand up and say “No women shall enter my home!”, it may be stupid but not illegal. No one has an a priori right to enter my premises. You can ridicule me, avoid my company, call me a jerk or whatever. But you can’t put me in jail. Because it’s my home.

Discrimination in Private Temples and Mosques

Discrimination in Private Temples and Mosques

So if a temple is private property, doesn’t the owner have the right to restrict entry to women or lower castes if they want?  It’s not public land and there’s no god given (pun intended!) right to enter a place of worship you don’t own.

On the other hand, this kind of argument can be extended to allowing discrimination based on race, caste, or gender at work as well. After all, if a private business decides not to hire people of a certain caste or skin color, surely that is their prerogative? To take matters further, they will also have the right to deny service to whomsoever they want based on the same parameters. It’s a private business no?

Indeed this was the case in the US until the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Then the Supreme Court made its ruling and all such discrimination was made illegal. Even today when you go to rent an apartment in the US, there are prominent notices saying something like “Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, gender etc etc”. This has been a good thing. The status of minorities has been dramatically improved due to these measures and it has done much to curb bigotry displayed towards them.

So how do we reconcile these two? How to we square property rights with making discrimination illegal in businesses?

One way is to view a business as a quasi public entity. They pay a different tax rate, electricity rate, have to adhere to employment standards, safety regulations, minimum wage, etc. Since there’s already so much government involvement in them it’s clear we don’t treat them as a totally private entity in the first place. So adding another rule to ensure that they don’t discriminate based on race and gender doesn’t seem so outlandish. Perhaps that’s just a rationalization but if it is, then all the other regulations imposed on businesses have to be rationalizations also. And that is a whole other discussion.

Coming back to temples. Should we disallow discrimination in private temples the same way we disallow discrimination in private businesses?

I don’t think we can do that. Unlike businesses, religion is an entirely private matter. If I start a new religion saying my god favors bald men over those with hair, the government cannot intervene and say my god is illegal and that my religion simply has to accept those with hair too! So if a private Hindu temple says that women or lower castes are not allowed inside it, I don’t see what basis the government has to violate the property rights of the owners and force them to accept those people whom they don not wish on their land.

So while I think there are reasons for the government to enforce non discrimination rules for businesses, I don’t believe that the same can be extended to temples and other houses of worship. So even though a private temple  or mosque banning women or lower castes is repugnant, I guess we just have to put up with it.

Do you agree with this reasoning? Or do you feel that laws in India banning discrimination against certain groups in religious places of worship are a good thing?

1 2

Comments

  1. Nik says:

    Temples are public institutions that operate within public spheres- this is no rationalization, this is a legal reality- i.e., if you need to set up a temple, you will require government authorization and the aims of the Trust cannot be against public policy or discriminatory)(read Constitutional Equality protections).

    Since you don’t seem to have gained from your education, you will not know by now that there is NO fundamental right to property in India, and your analogy comparing the two, seems strange and motivated.

    For your information, the enjoyment of any Right under common law is limited to the private enjoyment of that right, so the right does not extend to causing harm to others, or doing any act that perpetuates injustice and discrimination based on Caste, Religion or Sex. You clearly do not find any direct harm that the denial of a woman’s right to worship in the temple of her choice, a fundamental human right, has done by reiterating the subservient position of women in Indian society for centuries- and it is clear that you have never experienced discrimination in your life. By your reasoning marital-rape, or child abuse can be justified within the ‘private’ confines of ones home.

    Equality is the cornerstone of our life as a democracy, but if your opinions reflect that of even 1% of India, then we as a nation have clearly not turned that corner.

    • bhagwad says:

      So you mean I can’t keep a statue in my own house, and open it to the public? Please show me where that is not allowed.

      The right to property is a constitutional right – not a fundamental one. The Supreme Court has already served a notice to the government asking why the right to property should not be made a fundamental one. The issue is far from settled and is in legal limbo.

      How can you compare marital rape/child abuse to not allowing someone into your home?! Strange thought process you have. One is a direct violation of a person’s body, the other is merely preserving your own right. To suggest that I should be forced to allow the whole world to enter my home is absurd.

      Sorry, but you’re not making sense and are becoming emotional.

1 2

Add Your Comment