There is a tradition in Nepal of appointing a Royal Kumari, a living goddess whose body is to be inhabited by the goddess Taleju. The living goddess plays a key role in important Nepalese festivals and her blessing is required for the continued authority of the monarchy. The living goddess is worshipped and her every wish is met. She gets to live in a palace, has great wealth at her disposal, and her every need attended to by her devotees.Sounds lovely?
Sounds also like a wonderful tradition of goddess-worship in which Woman is fully appreciated?
Think again. There are more than a few catches.
As for the goddess herself, it doesn’t seem like much of a life. The person chosen must, of course, be physically perfect and meet the requirements specified for a person who is to be inhabited by a goddess. (Seems fair enough? Sounds like an alternative version of the beauty myth to me.) One of these requirements is that the person must not have ever shed blood – for the shedding of blood results in the shedding of the goddess. This does not just mean that the living goddess is carefully shielded from accidents: it means that she cannot menstruate.
For this reason, the ideal candidate for elevation to the status of a deity must be a little girl many years from puberty. Children are usually selected at the ages or five or six. The current incumbent was appointed before her fourth birthday.
So this is what happens. A little girl, barely more than a toddler, is taken away from her parents and her family. Secret rituals purify her. From then on, she lives in a palace and her feet may not touch the ground. She receives no formal education. She sees nothing of real life, and very little of anything outside her palace. She is encouraged to behave at all times like a goddess: calm, serene, impassive, unemotional. Every whim is attended to. Then, one day, she bleeds. She becomes a woman. And she is immediately stripped of all status, her palace life is snatched from her and she is turned out into the world to fend for herself on a monthly pension of $80 in a place where tradition has it that if you marry a retired goddess you are likely to die within six months of so doing.
Is it any wonder that she looks unhappy?
There are suggestions now that these little girls may be being exploited. The BBC reports today that the Nepalese Supreme Court has ordered a full inquiry into the matter and will make a final ruling when this is complete, in three months time.
Modernisation might mean, perhaps, that the life of the Royal Kumari becomes a little less isolated, that she is given better education, and that her pension is increased. These will be good changes, but although they might ameliorate the situation for Kumaris and retired Kumaris, I’m not sure these steps would mean that the children in question are not being exploited: only that they would be well-remunerated for the exploitation.
But the question of exploitation aside, I want to ask if there is not something quite disturbing about the whole tradition of the Kumaris. This does not apply just to the Royal Kumari but also to lesser “minor Kumaris” who lead much more normal lives.
Here are some examples of things that give me the heebie-jeebies:
- The prospective goddess is selected on a number of exacting criteria, many of which focus on her physcial perfection, her “beauty”. One of the requirements is that she have small, well-recessed sexual organs.
- Pre-pubescent girls are being venerated – but, when they reach puberty and therefore (in the eyes of the Nepalese) womanhood, the veneration stops. To put it mildly, that does not send a good message about womanhood.
- The girl “venerated” is in fact wholly isolated and restricted.
- The raison d’etre of the living goddess is her power to endorse the (male) monarch, but she does not have any direct power of her own. (In this context it is worth noting that the family of the prospective goddess is carefully vetted to ensure they are firm monarchists.)
I don’t believe that anyone rules by divine right. However, if I had to make the choice, if we must have a living goddess of one kind or another, then I would rather see one in the style of a divine king: a grown woman, strong and vigorous and genuinely powerful.Or would that be too scary?
[Source]
2 November 2006 at 1:31 pm
Have you read the 2nd book of the earth sea triogy? I think you would like it. It about a girl who is the body of the goddess and she is kept in an underground maze. She is called the Eaten one because she is consumed by the goddess
2 November 2006 at 7:26 pm
Haven’t read it, maybe it should go on the feminist must-read list!
29 January 2007 at 8:48 pm
It sounds to me like a version of the great Goddess in her sovereignty roll, she who grants ruler-ship to an elected king ( for a set period ) through sacred marriage, like Isis, Lady of the Lake, Sovereignty herself. Reduced through a combination of time and patriarchy to a powerless child.
10 May 2007 at 10:02 pm
[...] blogged in November that the Nepalese Supreme Court had ordered an enquiry into the human rights violations involved in [...]
23 June 2008 at 8:00 pm
this is completely child abuse and i think it should be abolished. the little girls are deprived of their normal lives as women and are subjected to diffrent wicked practices like depriving them of marriage and other good things that life offer.
it is complete wickedness and has to be abolished.!!!
4 March 2009 at 5:59 am
it isn’t child abuse; its religion. just because something is different doesn’t make it bad or harmful. i’m catholic and we don’t just throw the Blessed Sacrament out for the world to see. there are routines and rituals we have to follow to bring it out of the Adoration Chapel for Benediction and you have to sign up in advanced to spend an hour with Him. a living goddess is the Nepalese equivalent of the Blessed Sacrament. i can see why she would be considered unclean after she starts her periods because when this practice began people didn’t understand what was going on during menstruation. it was a bad thing even if you weren’t a goddess. and besides all that, they focus on her physical appearance because, once again, when this practice began that was what mattered. you didn’t want an ugly goddess, you wanted a beautiful and exotic one. she is a symbol of purity and godliness. she isn’t deprived of marriage after she is replaced, but when she is still a considered sacred she is not to be married for obvious reasons. that would be like Jesus marrying someone (not at all meant to offend those who do not believe in Jesus, just trying to make a point). and she is chosen as a child because in almost every religion in the world children are the purest of all people. they aren’t yet corrupted by sex and money and greed and pride. they believe without asking questions. they reason very primitively and aren’t selfish or cruel on purpose. JEEZ PEOPLE, THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND ANY ONE PERSON/PEOPLES BELIEFS! YOU HAVE GOT TO GET USED TO THAT IDEA!
5 March 2009 at 8:13 pm
Domino – I think your identification of the Kumari with the Blessed Sacrament is misconceived. The Kumari is a little girl. The Blessed Sacrament is an object. Little girls are not objects. This is quite an important point to remember, isn’t it?
And although I too can understand how the practice may have come about, that doesn’t mean I have to agree with it or accept its validity. Religious or not, if it involves the exploitation of a child, it is wrong. The fact that is also just a little bit misogynist is also problematic in my view.
PS As the proud owner of one small child, approximately the right age to be selected as a Kumari, I don’t think your assessment of what children are is very accurate. Children ask lots of questions, including all the awkward ones, and they are, on the whole, enormously self-centred!
3 April 2009 at 4:23 am
I’m having a hard time deciding whether or not I agree with this.
I suppose it is a kind of religious thing but you’d think they’d give the poor girl some part of a normal childhood. And since when does menstruation make you unclean? Although I can see why they’d want a child they need to keep in mind that she’s still a person with feelings.
I figure if the little girl had rights and freedom, it might be okay… I don’t know. And she should be allowed to be with her family.
Poor little girl…