Hindu Devata Aradhana: The Human Right We Forget to Defend

Hindu worshippers deserve the same dignity and religious freedom as every other community, without ridicule, exploitation or ideological double standards.

In Bharat, the discourse on freedom of expression and the defence of the rights of marginalized communities, including minorities, women, gender groups, and tribal communities, is prominent. However, within this expanding rights narrative, the issue of the right to Devata Aradhana remains conspicuously overlooked. Millions of Hindus, whose lives are intricately connected to their Devatas, frequently encounter misunderstandings, ridicule, regulation, or exploitation of their sacred traditions. Their faith transcends mere ideology, manifesting through temples, rituals, festivals, offerings, and generations of devotion. Nonetheless, influential writers, activists, politicians, and occasionally institutions have failed to comprehend this sacred relationship, resulting in the worshippers’ voices being marginalized.

Recently, the Idu Mishmi community in Arunachal Pradesh initiated measures against researchers accused of breaching its community research protocols. This action underscores the necessity for researchers to respect and comprehend the worldview, traditions, and sensitivities of the communities they study. This situation prompts a critical inquiry: why is such sensitivity frequently lacking in the study of Hindu temples, sacred texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and living traditions? These are often interpreted through external frameworks without sufficient understanding of the worshippers’ perspectives. If every community merits the right to be understood on its own terms, should not Hindu traditions be accorded the same respect?

Double Standards

The inquiry becomes increasingly complex when considering the legacy of E.V. Ramasamy Periyar. While his opposition to caste inequality and social hierarchy warrants historical scrutiny, so too does the vehement manner in which he criticized Hinduism. 

His movement orchestrated campaigns against Hindu symbols, including the burning of Rama images, and in 1957, Periyar advocated for the burning of sections of the Indian Constitution, asserting that it upheld the caste system. Thousands of his followers engaged in these protests, leading to Periyar’s imprisonment. The issue is not whether Periyar had the right to critique Hinduism—he did. The challenging question is whether such criticism adhered to an equitable standard of secularism. His public campaigns predominantly targeted Hindu religious institutions, symbols, and beliefs. The question arises: where is the equivalent intellectual courage when addressing other religious traditions? It is legitimate to question whether a movement purporting to combat religious domination can simultaneously treat the sacred symbols of one community as valid targets of ridicule. This question merits serious discussion rather than ideological silence.

There exists another historical irony. The Constitution that Periyar’s movement chose to burn is itself an extraordinary testament to India’s civilizational legacy. The original illuminated Constitution includes illustrations such as a scene from the Ramayana depicting Rama’s conquest of Lanka and the recovery of Sita, as well as another depicting Sri Krishna imparting the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. The Library of Congress maintains a photolithographic reproduction of this historic edition, while the original is preserved in the Parliament of India. This does not imply that the Constitution is a Hindu document; rather, it signifies that India’s constitutional vision did not consider its civilizational heritage as something to be obliterated. This distinction is significant. Criticism is a democratic right; however, contempt for the sacred should not become the default expression of secularism. If Devata Aradhana is integral to the religious identity of millions, the dignity of those worshippers deserves the same moral consideration that is rightly demanded for every other community.

Disrespecting Symbols

The events surrounding the Ganesha procession in Nagamangala, Mandya district, in September 2024, followed by subsequent protests in Bengaluru, raise significant concerns regarding the respect accorded to Hindu deities. During a protest in Bengaluru against the Nagamangala incident, a photograph depicting a Ganesha idol being placed inside a police vehicle incited widespread outrage. This image was profoundly unsettling to many devotees, not solely due to the physical act, but because of Ganesha’s symbolic significance in India’s cultural memory. Historically, Bal Gangadhar Tilak popularised the public worship of Ganesha as a unifying force during the freedom struggle. Ganeshotsava emerged as a potent platform for social unity, cultural assertion, and nationalist mobilization against British rule. Consequently, witnessing this emblem of collective resistance placed inside a police vehicle evokes a painful historical irony. It constitutes an affront not only to the sentiments of devotees but also symbolically to the memory of those freedom fighters who invoked Ganesha to unite Bharat.

The broader issue pertains to the role of the State. When administrative actions appear insensitive to the sacred traditions of millions, the concern transcends a singular incident, evolving into a question of fundamental religious freedom and dignity. A government, irrespective of the ruling party, must safeguard citizens’ right to worship rather than act as an entity that seems to suppress or disregard it.

The issue of the insider’s perspective presents a significant methodological challenge that warrants careful consideration. In the social sciences, the emic–etic distinction is well-established, differentiating between understanding a cultural phenomenon through the categories and meanings of its practitioners (emic) and analyzing it through the conceptual framework of the external observer (etic). Similarly, in religious studies, the “insider–outsider problem” has been a topic of debate, particularly because the participant’s understanding is integral to the study of religion. This issue is particularly pertinent when examining indigenous Hindu traditions. A Devata is not merely a symbolic representation awaiting academic interpretation; rather, within the tradition, the Devata is revealed through its own Sthala Purana, Agama, ritual practice, festival, iconography, sacred geography, oral memory, and the lived relationship with devotees. These elements are not simply “data” to be decoded externally; they form the Hindu tradition’s epistemic vocabulary. 

Clifford Geertz’s interpretive anthropology emphasizes that religious symbols function within systems of meaning that require contextual understanding, which he termed “thick description.” Contemporary approaches similarly acknowledge that embodied participation can uncover dimensions of religious meaning that remain hidden to detached observation. Consequently, the study of a Hindu Devata should commence with the question, “How does this tradition understand this Devata?” rather than “What does this deity represent to me?” Scholars must first acquire the language of the tradition before translating it into academic discourse. Failing to do so risks transforming interpretation into substitution, where the researcher replaces the worshipper’s understanding with their own framework.

Living Right

If the United Nations is committed to cultural diversity, human dignity, and fundamental freedoms, it is imperative to explicitly recognize the civilizational and cultural rights inherent in Hindu Devata Aradhana. Although the current Sustainable Development Goals do not specifically reference Hindu Devata Aradhana, the 2030 Agenda endorses cultural diversity, religious freedom, human dignity, and non-discrimination, with SDG 16.10 advocating for the protection of fundamental freedoms. 

Consequently, Bharat should initiate an international dialogue to acknowledge Hindu Devata Aradhana as a living religious and cultural tradition. This includes the right to worship Devatas, preserve temples, practice rituals, celebrate festivals, maintain sacred traditions, and transmit them to future generations.

At the national level, deliberate and malicious attacks on religious beliefs are already addressed under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which prescribes penalties for acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any group by insulting its religion or beliefs. This principle should be applied uniformly, without political or ideological bias. The demand is not for special privileges for Hindus but for equal dignity for Hindu Devata Aradhana. If the international community can recognize the rights of indigenous peoples to preserve their ways of life and spiritual traditions, Hindu communities should be allowed first to preserve and practice their living relationship with their Devatas. Hindu Devata Aradhana should be a human right that international human rights organizations should recognize and defend.

(The writer is a Bengaluru-based author and scholar. Views personal.)