Thread by @cbkwgl

This Sabarimala thingy is nagging me for a long time. Forget about attacks on Hinduism. It highlights two important things.
1. The broken Kshatra arm of Hinduism
2. Eligibility criteria for temple management.

Today, whatever the issue is, if it deals with Hinduism, the first question to be asked is, where are the Sankaracharyas and other heads of the religion? Why are they not leading the fightback? The question is genuine. But, are we really saying they are capable of doing that?

Is it possible that their role position in Hinduism is completely different than protecting the religion from external threats? Take the example of Viswamitra. He was a great warrior, probably, even than Rama himself. But, he asked for Rama's help to conduct his Yaga.

It's not as if he was incapable of fighting his own war. Why did he do that? Because Religion always has two components - those who maintain the religion and those who ensure that the religion is maintained without hindrance. The first part is your religious gurus.

Their role is not to lead the masses. Their role is to guide you in the right direction, ensure that the religion doesn't stagnate and suits the needs of the time. Who should ensure that they are capable of doing that unhindered? It's the Kshatra arm.

Don't take it in the name of caste - Brahmin or Kshatriya. I am talking about the roles performed. Parasurama was a warrior first and a guru later. He wasn't both at any time. It becomes the duty of the Kshatriya or the king to ensure that the religion is practiced unhindered.

I can cite a thousand examples for this. Vidyaranya picked Harihara and Bukka. Garbhavaishnavam of Vaikhanasa cult is due to the fact that there is no one alive to further the cult. The family was protected. Shivaji, Krishna Raya and many such performed that role.

There were cases where it's broken beyond repair like the sack of Srirangam by Ulugh Khan. The kingdom collapsed and the fortress called the temple of Srirangam stays. The people there, most of them who fall into the category of gurus had two options - either fight or run away.

Some ran away to preserve the religion. Some stood and fought a losing war to give the others time to run away. Exactly what happens when Kshatra arm is destroyed. In this case, they created a new Kshatra arm for the preservance of the religion.

Now, take another example. Demolition of Kashi Viswanath Temple by Aurangzeb. The Kshatra arm didn't exist and those who are preserving the religion were thrown to dogs. Kashi was lucky. But, Zamindwar or Multan or Sarada Peetham weren't.

If there is no Kshatra arm guarding the religion and if the religion is under attack, what will you do? The only religion you know is the Brahmin part of it. You assume the Brahmin part of it to be the preserver as well as the protector. And you get angry if the preserver doesn't

take the role of the protector. And when this situation is seen for centuries, you will be under the impression that preserver is the protector. By this time, you have already forgotten that the preserver is the last one who should join the battle -

if he is exterminated, religion dies. Without Sringeri Sankaracharya, three-fourth of the Saivite/Shakta temples of Andhra and Karnataka will collapse within a generation. He is not responsible to lead the fightback. He is responsible only to ensure that the system is maintained.

Coming to Kerala. Kshatra arm is mauled beyond recognition. BJP is heading the fightback. The legions who are supposed to fight with BJP are nonchalant. Now, the responsibility to fight devolved upon the Chief Tantri, who was never to be a part of this equation.

The role of Hindus of Kerala is to ensure that the Chief Tantri is not touched. But what are we doing? It's high time we understand the bifurcation between protector and preserver and create a system which guarantees the continuation of the system.

Coming to the eligibility criterion. Temples are under govt control, temple management is corrupt, all these things are secondary. The real question is, do you need an eligibility criterion to be appointed in a post in a temple?

Let me cite you two examples from Tirumala, again.
1. There was a show cause issued to Ramana Deekshitulu garu for taking his grandson along with him into the temple
2. The then President of Sri Lanka was taken for Darshan through the route only the Jeeyar of Tirumala can use.

Both are a consequence of the fact that the managing authorities know a zilch about the religious customs. There can be political realities, there can be change in ground situation. But, did at least one from the temple management question this breaking of Aagamas?

That raises the important question, who should manage a temple? Is it anyone and everyone or is it someone who has cleared an entrance test for that particular temple? Probably, you are looking at a three tier examination to be appointed into Endowments Ministry, whatever your

role or qualification is -
1. A test over Hinduism
2. A test over the Aagamas followed in that temple
3. A test on the specifics in that temple.
It's plain and simple. Unless you know what you are talking about, there is a very high chance you will be talking wrong.

Even, this doesn't fix the issue. The next question then comes. What takes a precedence? Temple hierarchy or Constitutional hierarchy? Say, in this case, if the CM wanted a foreign dignitary to be taken through the route of Jeeyar and if the chairman of TTD refuses, what happens?

Rather than talking about freeing temples from govt control, which probably answers for all these questions, the priority now should be to ensure the strengthening of Kshatra Arm of Hinduism and to find ways to give absolute precedence to the religious hierarchy inside a temple.