Whatever happened to the Kumari case?
I blogged in November that the Nepalese Supreme Court had ordered an enquiry into the human rights violations involved in this practice of pre-pubescent virgin worship, which involves the isolation and use of a small girl as, in effect, a living statuette of the Goddess Taleju, an almost literal object of worship.
At that time, the news was that the committee had three months to report – so the report was due in February. Bikash Sangraula’s article in Christian Science Monitor (ugh) confirmed on 2 January 2007 that the report was still due in early February. Sangraula’s follow-up article in eKantipur on 24 February suggests that things had slipped a bit – the committee formed “a month ago” (NOT in November 2006?), had met only once, and had another two months before its report was due. Even on that slippage, where is the report? It should have been out by now, surely? Apparently, it is not or, if it is, then the English language media (including websites dedicated to the Kumari) seem to be having a blackout.
Sangraula’s articles are not promising on the likely outcome of the case, either. They both include an interview with 26-year-old ex-goddess Rashmila Shakya who regards her time as a goddess as a wonderful experience of privilege, her almost total lack of education notwithstanding – and almost completely glosses over the very serious damage that clearly was done to other Kumaris. The second article also includes the following:
“Jal Krishna Shrestha, who has taken a closer look at the tradition after being given the responsibility of coordinating the committee, also said that contrary to what rumors suggest, the Kumaris are provided with proper education and care.
“There is no evidence of rights violation,” he said. “Like any important personality, say a president or a prime minister, a Kumari is required to follow a code of conduct in her everyday life. She is not allowed to walk around as freely as ordinary girls. That is very normal,” he argued.”
“Like any important personality?” – except that a Kumari does not choose to be a goddess, at least not in any meaningful way – she is a very small child when the decision is made.
Nor does the “code of conduct” which a Kumari must follow in any way resemble the constraints on politicians or others in public life. Here are some snippets from this website, describing the life of a Kumari:
“She will leave her palace only on ceremonial occasions. Her family will visit her rarely, and then only in a formal capacity. She will neither work nor attend school. Her playmates will be drawn from a narrow pool of Newari children from her caste, usually the children of her caretakers. She will always be dressed in red, wear her hair in a topknot and have the agni chakchuu or ‘fire eye’ painted on her forehead as a symbol of her special powers of perception…she has ceremonial duties to carry out… she is expected to behave as befits a goddess… serenity is of paramount importance… The Kumari’s walk across the Durbar Square is the last time her feet will touch the ground until such time as the goddess departs from her body. From now on, when she ventures outside of her palace, she will be carried or transported in her golden palanquin… She will never wear shoes; if her feet are covered at all, they will be covered with red stockings.
“She is visited by bureaucrats and other government officials. Petitioners customarily bring gifts and food offerings to the Kumari, who receives them in silence. Upon arrival, she offers them her feet to touch or kiss as an act of devotion. During these audiences, the Kumari is closely watched… If the Kumari remains silent and impassive throughout the audience, her devotees leave elated. This is the sign that their wishes have been granted.”
“Many people attend to the Kumari’s needs… They must attend to the Kumari’s every need and desire whilst giving her instruction in her ceremonial duties… They must also take special care that the Kumari never falls or is cut — if she sheds blood, the spirit of Taleju leaves her and the search for a new Kumari must begin…Traditionally, the Kumari received no education as she was widely considered to be omniscient.”
“Many of these girls, having been taken from their families at the age of three or four, have no knowledge whatsoever of the daily tasks involved with a normal existence. They have never had to work, attend school, go to the shops, or even walk about town. Having been exposed to only a very tight circle of playmates and waited upon hand and foot by a bevy of servants, they have never learned the arts of communication, negotiation or cooperation. Some former Kumaris feel ill at ease in large groups of people and have difficulty conversing with others or becoming involved in social life.”
All that – That is very normal?
Dang, I wish I could find that Shulamith Firestone quote about men worshipping women.
Touchingly Naive 
4 June 2007 at 8:53 pm
[…] Maia at Touchingly Naive blogged about pre-pubescent virgin worship in Nepal in Royal Kumari: The Living Goddess. […]
4 June 2007 at 9:05 pm
[…] Here is the Carnival post. Here is the post chosen: Royal Kumari, the living goddess […]
4 March 2008 at 1:07 am
Now I didnt get a chance to read the entire article up here, but I want to say this one thing just because I’ve been doing some research and reading on Kumaris:
1. supposedly the court of religious beliefs or what not are trying to get rid of this cultural ritual because certain psychologists feel that these young girls end up psychologically disturbed and that these girls are viewed to be above the society.
I think that the united nations including america and other countries outside of the buddhist and hindu religious countries have already done enough damage to these countries. The Kumari who went to america was stripped of her title because of the religious beliefs of her country, but she was reinstated to her title through cleansing and so forth. But now there is a group trying to get rid of this Kumari belief. There is no harm being done to these little girls. matter a fact they are living a life of importance and not only that they are representing their country and their belief. It is tradition for the girl to go back to her family once menstratiion occurs. everyone in the country knows this. I just dont see why the world needs to interfere in a belief that has not caused any pain or corruptance to the human race.
Traditions ahve been lost because of the fact people think it ruins a persons mind or all that hogwash. I honestly think this situation should be left alone and that countries should continue this belief. YOu can’t go and change the rules of a holy book and belief
4 March 2008 at 1:14 pm
Well thank you Romula for that insightful comment. I guess you think FGM should be perpetuated as well?
If practices based on the “rules of a holy book and belief” are harmful – and I think it is legitimate for anyone to consider whether practices are harmful – then, yes, they *should* be stopped or at least modified to eliminate the harm.
Note – I say that the *practices* should be stopped. I don’t give a fig about the religious beliefs used to justify those practices, as long as those beliefs don’t harm. It is the harm I care about.
You will get no argument from me if you suggest that interference by Westerners in undeveloped or developing countries is damaging and that people should reach their own decisions within their own communities. That is not an excuse for those of us outside those communities to romanticise or help perpetuate what is harmful, or to stand idly by, aloof and objective, as if we were watching a nature documentary.
You say Kumari traditions are not harmful. Where is your evidence? Many people within Nepal say otherwise. It is interesting to note that the slippage noted in May 2007 has extended so that still, in March 2008, no report has been issued by the Nepalese authorities who are meant to be investigating the issue of harm and reporting on whether Kumari traditions are in fact harmful to the little girls forced to participate. In light of that – where is your evidence?
4 March 2008 at 11:41 pm
I think it would be good to distinguish among the Kumari traditions. The Royal Kumari has a very different, and much more restricted, life than the other Kumaris. The Bhaktapur Kumari, Sajani Shakya, is the one who was temporarily removed for traveling to the US. Her family has just (as of March 3, 2008) had her removed permanently for other reasons. But while she was Kumari, her life was comparatively normal: she lived at home with her parents, brothers and sisters, went to school, etc. She had ritual duties that she performed regularly, but otherwise lived a pretty normal life. In every picture and clip I’ve ever seen of her she certainly looks like both a living godess and also a happy, normal, sweet young girl. Perhaps the Trust can consider reforms to make the life of the Royal Kumari more nearly normal. I’m sure Kali or Durga intend for the girls who are called to be Kumaris should be happy, healthy and normal.
5 March 2008 at 12:01 am
“I’m sure Kali or Durga intend for the girls who are called to be Kumaris should be happy, healthy and normal.”
This bit made my brain explode.
I’m guessing that your certainty about the intentions of Kali / Durga is not based on any meaningful understanding of Kumari worship? The Goddess in question here is not just a jazzed up female equivalent of the Christian God we like to think of as being generally benevolent. She is a different kind of deity entirely.
And this bit:
“her life was comparatively normal: she lived at home with her parents, brothers and sisters, went to school, etc. She had ritual duties that she performed regularly, but…”
Yes, relatively speaking, the lesser Kumaris have more normal lives than the Royal Kumari. But do you see nothing problematic in taking a two year old girl (the age of Sajani Shakya when she was selected) and imposing unusually significant religious and ritual duties upon her for no other reasons than the fact that she has the right horoscope and meets the physical requirements for occupation as the non-consenting vessel of a goddess she knows nothing about? – *even if* she looks undamaged to you in the publicity shots you’ve seen? *even if* her life was otherwise “comparatively normal”?
(On that note, let’s be clear. Her life is/was fairly normal by comparison with the Royal Kumari but not by comparison with her own classmates and siblings – and which of those comparisons is likely to be more relevant to the Kumari herself?)
I’m not going to pretend that Kumari worship is the biggest human rights problem the world is facing. But nor am I going to pretend that it’s nothing more than a harmless cultural tradition. It isn’t.
6 March 2008 at 11:21 pm
” …the Christian God we like to think of as being generally benevolent…”
Actually I have a pretty good understanding of Kumari worship — certainly better than this statement about “the Christian God.” Particularly the God of the Old Testament isn’t any kinder or gentler than any of the Hindu deities on their bad days…
What makes my “head explode” is your comparison of the lives of the Kumaris to FMG. You seem to be given to extremes and I don’t think that is especially conducive to meaningful discussion of the beliefs and practices of spiritual traditions.
I know that some former Kumaris have bad, or mixed, things to say about the experience and how it effected them, but on the whole the things I have read from the women and their families are positive. Much of the anti-Kumari propaganda is just that — propaganda in a political struggle between the Maoists and the traditionalist/monarchists. I think it is important when assessing any of the information put out on this topic we have to take into account the source and whether any bias is informing the reporting.
7 March 2008 at 1:48 pm
Kevin – you seem to forget that this my personal blog and that you are a stranger to me. You come here and (wilfully?) misinterpret my comments, you make ad hominem comments such as “You seem to be given to extremes” when you don’t even know me, and you expect – what?
For this one time only, special offer, I will respond to the points you make. But next time you comment, bring your manners, please, and remember that this is my personal *woman-centred* blog.
Firstly, you said “I’m sure Kali or Durga intend for the girls who are called to be Kumaris should be happy, healthy and normal.” which if you do know anything much about Kali or Durga seems like a pretty strange thing to say, it seems like the same pretence we make about the Christian God being benevolent and kind. Instead of responding to my criticism of that statement you divert attention by taking my words out of context, misinterpreting them so that you can pretend I said that the Christian God actually *is* benevolent (which I didn’t) and then mocking that statement – but you are mocking something I never said.
Next you argue that comparing Kumari worship to FGM is not conducive to discussion because it shows that I, personally, am “given to extremes”. Let’s leave aside the ad hominem nature of that criticism and focus on the actual point you were presumably gesturing towards – that Kumari worship is not in fact as harmful as FGM and so that the two should not be compared.
(1) I agree – and in fact have already stated – that (unlike FGM) Kumari worship is not one of the world’s major human rights problems. I have already said this.
(2) I do not agree that there is no comparison. FGM is a cultural / religious practice that harms women and girls. So is Kumari worship. The first commenter Romula suggested that we should not criticise Kumari worship because it is a cultural / religious practice. My response was that this cannot be right: because if you say that, and fail to take questions of harm seriously, as the commenter was doing, then logically you cannot criticise *any* cultural / religious practice on the ground of harm, not even FGM. The point was not that Kumari worship is as harmful as FGM, but that we must not gloss over real harms just because the harmful practice happens to be cultural / religious.
Finally, while you acknowledge that some former Kumaris have bad / mixed reports of their experiences, you then immediately go on to erase them by pointing out that other former Kumaris are positive about their experiences and that anyway the whole thing is some grand political struggle in which we need to be careful of propaganda. Too right we need to be careful of propaganda, especially when most of it takes the actual Kumaris completely out of the centre – as you do when you start referring their personal problem to a larger issue about (male) political struggle.
My post, and my comments, have not been about Maoists, traditionalists or monarchists. They have not been about weighing up the ex-Kumaris who report positively and those who do not, to reach a judgement from on high about whether “on the whole” the women who were harmed are to be ignored.
My post, and my comments, have been about a little girl, a toddler, whose childhood is stolen either wholly (as in the case of the Royal Kumari) or in part (as in the case of the lesser Kumaris). I have been talking about little girls who have been exploited and used by priests and kings.
Can you even see that? Can you see that little girl, can you wonder how it would feel if *you* were a little girl obliged to blank out your own thoughts and feelings so as to be a vessel for a Goddess you never even chose? Can you look at her and say it doesn’t matter? I can’t.
16 April 2008 at 7:15 pm
I’m curious: are you equally concerned about the boys that similar things happen to? Dozens of boys every year, particularly in Tibetan and Nepalese Buddhist families, are sent off to be monks when they are only 4 or 5 years old. This includes also the boy picked to be the Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama, and hundreds of kids who just end up being regular monks. Of course once they are adults they could choose to leave, but all through their childhood it isn’t a matter in which they have any choice.
17 April 2008 at 7:15 pm
What are you saying – don’t go on and on about these little girls because there are little boys who have it bad as well?
The classic switcheroony.
Nice try.
For the record, my view is that any abuse or exploitation of children in the name of religion is bad. In this case, I was talking about, specifically, the exploitation of girls who are turned into Kumaris.
24 August 2008 at 2:38 am
[…] Maia at Touchingly Naive blogged about pre-pubescent virgin worship in Nepal in Royal Kumari: The Living Goddess. […]
8 October 2008 at 1:39 pm
This is a retarted belief, and as all retarded beliefs should be; planet earth should be cleansed of it.
24 February 2009 at 5:34 am
So I stumbled upon this blog and came up with a few thoughts:
I understand this is a personal blog, as is this a personal comment, but in Kevins defense you do sound a little angry and irate. So much so that as a WOMAN I don’t really want you focusing on my issues because you scare me a little and you make people, like Kevin and myself, feel as if they have been or will be attacked for having an opinion. Just because he brings up boys isn’t a “classic switcheroony” as you called it, and frankly you calling it one makes you go from an intelligent sounding woman to a man-hatin angry feminist. This site is called “Touchingly Naive”. You might want to think about that.
Secondly, to relate this, a holy tradition, to FMG is a bit of a stretch, and once again degrades the intelligence I’m sure you have. It IS extreme and it weakens your argument.
Thirdly, many children in these cultures make sacrifices to help their families survive the poverty. Its not right for any child to have their “childhood” stolen from them, but think about how often that happens. Not because of religious ceremonies but in the streets surrounding our own neighborhoods in our own towns and cities, and yes, that is sad. These little girls, however, are proud. Their families are proud. They have the chance to not only live a better life themselves, but to provide one for their families that neither would ever see. They are paid an extreme amount of money, not only when they are praised but for their life after making almost twice in one month what a normal person of that class would make in an average yearly income. Think about what they can do, not only for their families but for their people and the integrity that gives them whether or not it is on your level.
Also keep an open mind. I think in the liberal mind set, we have gotten so hell bent on freedom for all that we forget to take into account other cultures and traditions. Just because something is different doesn’t always mean its wrong.
And lastly, I feel like you might need a hug, a really good one. Im sorry this is over the internet or I would give you one, a really good one.
Thanks for reading this.
28 February 2009 at 7:17 pm
Kelly, thanks for your thoughts.
If you don’t like the way I speak to people who come expressing their opinions in the way that Kevin did then you can of course opt to read a different blog. Frankly, I had every reason to be irritated with him. Does the fact that I got irritated with one (rather irritating) man mean I am a man-hating angry feminist? Perhaps you think so, but I don’t.
Moreover, and I think I have already explained this, I did not actually relate FGM to Kumari practice. I stated, in response to a specific comment defending Kumari practice on the basis that it was a religious / cultural practice, that FGM is also a religious / cultural practice and that if you can criticise one then you can criticise the other. I also later clarified for Kevin’s benefit that I do not compare the two in the sense that I feel they both create the same level of harm. They are both harmful practices; FGM is the more harmful of the two; this does not erase the harm of Kumari practices.
I don’t think Kumari practices are wrong because they are “different” – I think they are wrong because they are harmful to the little girls who are exploited by them. These children did not “make sacrifices” because they did not get to choose – they were chosen, and taken, and gave no consent. As I previously stated, the fact that some – but not all, please remember – of the children say they feel positively about their experiences and manage to re-adjust to normal life on being expelled does NOT erase the harm.
Little girls should not be stolen and exploited in this way. Not even if they get paid for it.