Goddess Worship and Misogyny
Hitherto understood as a paradox within Hinduism, I would say the characterization of the relationship as a paradox is rather mistaken -- In fact, this is paradigmatic of a symbiotic relationship.
I have seen some literature essentially characterizing the relationship between goddess worship within Hinduism and the subordinate position accorded to real women by the religion as a paradox. Off the top of my mind, Upinder Singh’s book ‘Ancient India: Culture of Contradictions’ has a chapter titled ‘Goddesses and Misogyny’, dedicated to what I reckon is a mischaracterization.
A few days ago, I came across a debate among university students on YouTube. While left leaning students were arguing how religion diminishes the status of women, a Hindu student chipped in with an oft-quoted shloka from the Manusmriti Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devatah, which can be translated as “Gods reside wherever women are worshipped”, in a bid to claim how “Indian culture” — a term he was using as a proxy for Hinduism — accords women a superior status. One of the left leaning students countered the argument, using a quote that he attributed to Camus. I am paraphrasing the quote here. He said that the easiest way to deny someone rights is to deify them. While I haven’t been able to verify if what he said is attributed to Camus, he did raise an important point, adding that women ask to be treated equally and not as goddesses — goddesses can’t go to bazaars as they please. In a country where DHS surveys point out that most women are denied freedom of movement, even to go to markets and health centres, his point is especially valid. For people struggling to grasp the cultural context, think of it this way — many misogynistic “trads” in the West claim to treat their wives as “queens” by basically reducing them to the household (as queens don’t need to go to work or go to the market).
As discussed above, use of deification (or quasi deification in some cases) is a “useful” tool to deny people rights. A few other examples that come to mind are the use of the patronizing term Harijan for Dalits, characterizing them as God’s people while denying them rights and even practicing untouchability. For instance, tea shops in Gujarat have separate cups for Dalits, which are termed Rampatra (or Ram’s vessels). By terming tea cups used by Dalits Rampatra, they quasi deify Dalits, while simultaneously following scriptural injuctions of untouchability and ritual purity and pollution against them and essentially dehumanizing them. Another example of this that comes to mind is the use of the term “Kinnar” (demigods from Hindu mythology who are part bird and part human) for trans folks in India and the associated belief in their supernatural powers (including the power to curse). Instead of humanizing them and ensuring equal rights at par with cis people, this quasi deification basically stigmatizes them as the “other” while feigning a sense of respect. It is similar to the treatment of trans folks among South Asian Muslims, who use the honorific term Khwaja Sira for them and have similar beliefs in their power to bless and curse. They partake in Sufi ceremonies like Urs. However, much like with Hindus, this quasi-deification is one of the reasons for their stigmatization as the other in South Asian Muslim society.
Another example of this, albeit a rather imperfect one, is the multitude of restrictions placed on Brahmin women during the Peshwa period, despite the fact that the period saw a further elevation in the status of Brahmins and is often termed Brahmanya-raj. Uma Chakravarti notes this in her article Wifehood, widowhood and adultery: Female sexuality, surveillance and the state in 18th century Mahrashtra. Peshwa rule saw a strengthening of the Brahminical social order, including scriptural injunctions related to ritual impurity and pollution. For instance, Mahars were banned from entering the capital after 3 PM lest their shadow “defile” Brahmins. There is a recorded instance of a sonar having had his tongue chopped off for uttering a sacred Vedic verse, considered to be the prerogative of Brahmins. The state also maintained the Brahminical social order by banning even upper castes like Kayastha Prabhus from wearing sacred threads and performing certain rituals considered to be the sole prerogative of Brahmins even within their homes.
Now, Brahmins already had a super privileged status within the Hindu society, including under Marathas, the predecessors of the Peshwas. However, Peshwa rule was unprecedented in the sense that it saw secular and ritual power concentrated in the hands of Brahmins. Their rule has been described as follows:
The burden of justifying this superior ritual status was placed on Brahmin women who had to maintain pativratadharma even after their husbands passed away — even if they were teenagers when they became widows. Widow remarriage was banned by the state for Brahmin widows. It was basically regarded as adultery and could even lead to years of incarceration and slavery. Apart from being forced to abstain from having sexual relations their entire life under threat of incarceration, widows were discriminated against in other ways as well. The state banned widows from dressing as married women did, only allowing them to wear an ekvastram, discarding all ornaments, regarded as symbolic of a suhagin. They were also banned from dining with married women due to concepts of ritual impurity and the burden of ending the ritual pollution of the house was dependent on the widow’s tonsured head.
The Peshwas also issued a diktat which made it compulsory for Brahmins to marry off their daughters before the onset of puberty under threats of a fine. State officials were required to look into it when some Brahmins kept their daughters unmarried after turning nine. This was also deeply connected to the concept of menstrual “impurity” within Hinduism as the state required Brahmin girls who didn’t get married before starting menstruating to undergo prayashchita (a sort of penance asking for forgiveness).
Interestingly though, these restrictions on women’s sexuality were seen as a privilege or prerogative only available to Brahmin women (who had a superior ritual status), much in the same way apologists see deification of women as a prerogative for Hindu women, although it is often cited as a reason for curbing their freedoms and expecting them to behave impeccably(as goddesses can’t be flawed) in conformity to the expected patriarchal norms, which expect them to be “pure” or “chaste”, thus leading to a heavy social control of their sexuality. Coming back to the Peshwas, when other castes did try to elevate their status by banning widows in their caste from getting married, the state actively banned them from doing so, as they felt that it would endanger the very premise upon which the superior status of Brahmins within the kingdom was based: “purer” and “chaster” women. This ban on widow remarriage and control of their sexuality being associated with a higher ritual status continued even after the Peshwa period. In fact, most Indian anthropologists would tell you that banning widow remarriage was the most sure-shot means of Sanskritisation for intermediate castes. During British rule, it became even more prominent as non upper caste Hindus, who had hitherto not been subject to Shastric personal laws, began to be governed under those laws.
This supposed dichotomy between high ritual status (often a form of deification or quasi deification) of Brahmin women and a multitude of restrictions placed on them wasn’t limited to the Peshwa period. For instance, there are verses from Hindu scriptures, which say that every tirth (holy place) lies at the foot of Brahmins and that worshipping Brahmins is akin to worshipping God. Others claim that worshipping a Brahmin brings the fruits of an Ashwamedha Yajna or that feeding Brahmins appeases deities. This deification is also accompanied by verses, which place a multitude of restrictions on Brahmin women that women of other varnas aren’t subject to. Higher the position in the caste hierarchy, higher are the restrictions placed on women. That is why, shastric punishments for sexual intercourse between a Brahmin woman and a man from the other three varnas are much harsher. It also explains why anuloma marriages are permitted while pratiloma marriages are punished. This brings me to the original (mis)framing of the phenomenon as a dichotomy. When inspected closely, it is more of a symbiotic relationship. The restrictions and control over these women are justified through the need for them to be “chaste” or “undefiled” as befits their higher status or in some cases, their status as “deities”. The said “purity” or “chastity” is in turn used to justify deification or higher ritual status. It’s similar to how honour culture operates in many ways. Higher the status, more is the shame. This leads to higher levels of control on women’s bodies. Thus, deification or higher ritual status of a caste often indirectly acts as a control mechanism for women of that caste.
While we have discussed how deification or quasi deification act as control mechanisms for women indirectly, they often directly impede women’s freedoms. Case in point being Kumari goddesses in Nepal. Prepubescent girls as young as five are chosen as goddesses. They have no agency and have to live confined within the four walls of the temple for years until they lose their status when they get their period. They can’t step on the ground (They are carried in palanquins if they need to get out of the confines of the temple) and can’t interact with people outside their family, apart from blessing them. They take a lot of time to adjust to normal life after they lose their goddess status. What makes this more problematic is the fact that this is far from a fringe cult in Nepal. The erstwhile monarchy used to appoint Kumaris when Nepal had a monarchical system. Now, the government publishes advertisements for interested parents after which Kumaris are chosen by priests.
The curtailment of freedoms of young girls and the subsequent problems they face while adjusting to the normal world are only one aspect of what is wrong with the tradition. The word kumari or kanya means “unmarried girl” or “virgin” and nearly all kumaris worshipped are prepubescent. They are worshipped, because they are deemed “pure” as virginity or chastity is venerated in the culture. Prepubescent girls are deemed even purer, because menstruation is associated with ritual impurity and pollution. While the Nepalese tradition, which requires girls to be placed in confines of a temple for years, isn’t practiced in India, a more milder form of Kumari/Kanya Puja is practiced among Shaktas in India during Durga Puja. In my culture, kumaris are fed during Durga Puja and people touch their feet to seek blessings as the Goddess is said to reside in them. A lot of people deem this as an innocuous custom. Apologists even regard this as some sort of feminist custom. But, it is deeply problematic to worship young girls for their “inherent chastity”. It is problematic to treat biological phenomena like menstruation as the culmination of a girl’s state of “purity”. In a conservative culture lik ours, all this contributes towards strengthening taboos towards menstruation and sex, which leads to further curbs on women’s sexuality. The concept of Kumari Puja is rooted in a Shakta text called Devi Mahatmya. The philosophical justification provided (by scripture) is even worse than the above justification — that a kanya (maiden) represents the “pure” form of the “forces” that govern creation and stability— basically pigeonholing women to the role of motherhood.
Conservative Hindu organizations view women through the lens of matri-shakti (the power of motherhood). Being a suhagin and a good mother to Hindu sons is the be all and end all for women, according to them. You would often see politicians (largely from the BJP) talk about matri-shakti while talking about women empowerment while more progressive politicians use the neutral term nari shakti. But, all this talk about some power of the divine feminine (the power of motherhood) residing inside women also means they are pigeonholed into a role and burdened with responsibillities of motherhood, often denying them sexual and reproductive agency.
Even menstrual taboos related to impurity and pollution (ban on menstruating women dining with others, entering the kitchen or temples, having sex and even untouchability) are often justified by neo-apologists using a similar tactic of faux elevation of status and saying that menstruating women have an unbridled power to absorb energy. This quasi deification and the associated belief in women’s supernatural powers are used to deny women basic rights while ostensibly regarding it as a prerogative.
Similar beliefs are used to deny women entry into certain temples associated with Tantrism. Tantrism is inextricably linked with Shaktism, a sect in which goddesses are worshipped. Yet, women are not allowed to perform certain Tantric rituals or enter certain temples associated with Tantrism. The reason cited by new age apologists is similar and pseudoscientific: the presence of unbridled kundalini energy which can be unleashed during certain rituals.
The belief in presence of some unbridled divine feminine energy being present in women of certain is also used to deny them freedom and sexual agency. For instance, a few years ago, Yogi Adityanath, a militant Hindu monk who rules over India’s largest state home to nearly 250 million people, wrote about a special kind of urja (energy) being present inside women and used it to argue against women’s independence as “energy that is unchecked can go to waste”, citing an oft quoted verse from Manusmriti (also present in several Puranas and other Hindu texts) which says that a woman must be protected her father in her childhood, husband in her youth and son in her old age and that she must never be left free. He further added that women don’t need independence, but need to be “protected and channelised” as a protected woman’s “energy gives birth to great men”. Not all of this is rhetoric. His government came up with moral policing squads, which infantilize and paternalize young women in relationships, especially Hindu women in relationship with Muslim men, through a nexus of Hindutva extremist groups like Yogi’s Hindu Yuva Vahini and VHP working in tandem with the police.
Other politicians from India’s ruling party use a similar rhetoric — that of deification — to justify their misogyny as well as provide rationale for curbing women’s freedoms. For instance, just a few days ago, BJP General Secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya said, "We consider women Goddess, but the girls wear such indecent clothes in which they look like Surpanakha”. In the popular versions of the Ramayana, Surpanakha is the sister of the demon king Ravana. She is depicted as an ugly and lustful creature who tries to hit on Ram and his brother Lakshman. When they reject her advances, she attacks them and Lakshman cuts off her nose and ears.
Other BJP leaders who rushed to his defence said even wackier things. Spokesperson Neha Bagga said, "Vijayvargiya's statement is being presented in a distorted manner. His intention is that of a parent. There is a concern because of that he has put his point in front of the society. His topic was on the girls who get intoxicated with liquors.” Madhya Pradesh tourism and culture minister Usha Thakur offered an even worse explanation: "If one doesn't follow the Vedic Sanatan tradition, then the person will be called of Rakshas Pravriti (characteristics of demons)."
So, this deification of women comes with a lot of restrictions and is contingent on them behaving impeccably according to the established patriarchal norms, failing which, they will be demonized and compared to figures considered antagonistic and ugly in popular Hindu imagination. Women who don’t dress in accordance with the expected norms are dubbed “indecent” as are women who drink, because they don’t conform to the ideals expected of a goddess, who is supposed to be flawless. Also, a woman have to the adhere to the Vedic Hindu tradition to not be dubbed a “demoness”.
What a lot of apologists overlook is how Hindu goddesses also perpetuate patriarchy. For instance, in this chapter of the Hindu text Padma Purana, a Brahmin narrates to Vishnu a discussion between Goddess Parvati(Uma) and Narada on women’s conduct. The goddess uses misogynsitic stereotypes, hypersexualises women, thereby suggesting that women don’t deserve freedom and deserve to be controlled. The wackiest thing she says is that a young woman would become corrupt if left free, just like cooked food, which would be eaten by animals if left free. Thus, the goddess herself is used as a tool to justify curbing women’s freedoms by the writers of the text (who are in all likelihood male).
There are many women from mythology who are deified in Hinduism and looked at as role models for young women, because they adhered to the stringent misogynistic codes of conduct expected from them and maintained their “chastity” and “purity”. There is Savitri who is worshipped during Vat Purnima or Vat Amavasya, depending on whether the region follows Purnimanta or Amanta calendar. According to Puranic tales, she was so “devoted” to her husband who died that she accompanied her husband to the world of Yam, the god of death, and was fully prepared to die, before Yam granted her a boon that she used to bring back her dead husband. Then there is the story of Vrinda/Tulsi whose husband’s life depends on her “chastity”. The worship of basil (Tulsi) in Hinduism is believed to be rooted in this tale. Apart from this, there are Shakta temples known as Shakti-peeths dedicated to Shakta goddesses throughout South Asia at spots that are believed to be places where Sati’s body parts fell after she self-immolated, because her husband was verbally insulted. This is considered to be the paragon of devotion for a Hindu wife. Apologists often cite worship of goddesses as some sort of “W” for Hinduism, but the goddesses that are worshipped often help perpetuate patriarchy by reducing women’s role to being the ideal devoted wife. As discussed previously, the Hindu society is obsessed with wifehood. Marriage is considered the be all and end all of a Hindu woman, as can be evidenced from the fact that the very term for a married woman whose husband is alive (saubhagyavati) means someone who is fortunate. The same obsession can be seen on wedding cards as well. While the name of the groom is prefixed with chi which stands for chiranjeevi (immortal), the name of the bride is prefixed with sau which stands for saubhagyvati (basically someone who is fortunate because her husband is alive). When Hindu elders bless young folks, men are blessed with a long live (chiranjeevi bhavah), women are blessed with a long life for their husbands (saubhagyavati bhavah) or sons (putravati bhavah).
As stated in the previous paragraph, the obsession with women adhering to strict patriarchal norms of being a devoted ideal wife is often sinewed with examples of chaste ladies from mythology, who attained the adoration and honour of gods for their “devotion” to their husbands. For instance, in this chapter from Shiva Purana, a “chaste” Brahmin lady explains to goddess Parvati how a chaste wife is expected to adhere to patriarchal norms and how many women have been immortalized due to chastity, which includes not only being loyal, but adherence to patriarchal norms. A woman who conforms to those norms is believed to have attained so much power that the messengers of the god of death fear her, all fiery being tremble at her sight and she has the power to take whole families to heaven. Women’s status is often “elevated” by this quasi deification, but subject them to strict rules, which leave them with no freedom. It invariably burdens them and a woman who doesn’t adhere to the patriarchal norms is believed to drag the whole family to hell.
One of the Shakti-peeths, where Sati’s body parts are believed to have fallen after self-immolation, is the Kamakhya temple in Guwahati. It is also a major centre for Tantrism. It was originally the site of an indigenous fertility goddess. Even after Hinduization, the association with sex and fertility persisted, which is why there is a yoni inside the garbhagriha (inner sanctum). Unlike other temples, Kamakhya takes a more liberal view towards menstrual taboos and allowing women, largely because the goddess is believed to menstruate for three days during the month of Ashadh, during which the Ambubachi fair is celebrated. However, again, the rationale given for the celebration of the goddess menstruating is to celebrate women’s “universal power of motherhood” — again rooted in the same unidimensional bioessentialist view of women as mothers. Apart from that, Kamakhya also witnesses Kumari Puja (virgin worship) that we discussed earlier and Tuloni Biya, which means “small marriage” — a mock wedding of young girls who have just had their first period. While some frame celebration of Tuloni Biya as something that breaks menstrual taboos, I reckon it doesn’t. In fact, the concepts of purity and pollution are present in the ritual. Apart from that, In find it really problematic for young girls who have just had their first period to have a faux wedding to a banana tree as part of some sort of gradual progress towards motherhood. I believe that such customs, on the contrary, reinforce menstrual taboos.
Worship of goddesses and patriarchy share a symbiotic relationship and not a contradictory one as one facilitates and perpetuates the other. It happens in different ways. At times, you would see male writers of the Puranas write misogynistic stuff and advocate for curtailing women’s freedoms, while attributing these parts to the goddess. Or it could be regarding chastity and utmost devotion to husband as virtues which make someone worthy of deification. Or it could be talking about women’s “unchained divine energy”, which would make them unworthy of freedom. Therefore, I believe deification of women is just a tool to deny them rights and freedom.