The Sabarimala Verdict : Two Sides Of The Story
Written on November 11th, 2018 by {"login"=>"jcbitshyd", "email"=>"journal@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in", "display_name"=>"Journal Club, BPHC", "first_name"=>"", "last_name"=>""}Against: Religion and Equality
The Sabarimala shrine is dedicated to the deity Lord Ayyappa in his ‘Naishtik Brahmachari’, that is, the form of a celibate, which is just one out of the many forms he takes. In Kerala alone, there exist more than 1000 places of worship for Lord Ayyappa not restricting anyone’s entry. Yet this one shrine that bars entry to a certain group of women, due to the nature of the deity seated within, has been the subject of major debate throughout the country in the last month.
This issue has surfaced and dipped irregularly over the last three decades. On 28th September 2018, however, there was a landmark development in this issue, when the Supreme Court, in a controversial verdict delivered by a 5-judge panel, sought to eradicate this tradition of keeping women between menarche and menopause from entering Sabarimala to worship the deity. Ironically, the verdict was supported by the four male judges on the panel and opposed by the one female judge in the 4-1 ruling.
One cannot help but wonder about the reason behind the only female judge on the panel opposing the change of this tradition. Does she not stand for gender equality? Why do a large number of educated women of Kerala protest against this ‘grant of rights’ by the Supreme Court?
Let us step back from Sabarimala for a moment; the world knows India for the practice of Yoga. Hundreds of millions of people practice Yoga today, as a way to live a healthy and balanced life. But those who truly know Yoga, know that the health benefits derived out of it are merely by-products of its spiritual benefits. Yoga involves the use of mind and body, and since the bodies of males and females are different, some practices within Yoga have to be taught differently to females than males. If the distinction is not followed, the woman in question can be adversely affected. If a woman believing in the omniscience of the right to equality demands to be treated equally as man and practices Yoga the same way a man does and accuses this informed distinction created between the practices for the two genders of being discriminatory, will that argument hold any weight? Even if one does not believe in the spiritual side of Yoga, it does not change the truth. Without the knowledge of what Yoga really is, that is, it is larger and more unobvious aspect, any allegation made against Yoga as discriminatory in its methods is worthless.
Activists siding with the decision of the Supreme Court see the tradition of disallowing women capable of reproduction into the shrine of a celibate deity as merely a matter of gender/biological discrimination. To them, it is only a matter of equal rights and ending a practice of gender discrimination present since almost 800 years of a largely patriarchal society.
Before deciding to label a certain tradition as discriminatory in nature, one must know its origins. Is the reason for the tradition the free will of a person misusing power? Or is it rooted in a belief or a tantric practice that has nothing to do with discrimination despite appearing so? Without doing proper unbiased research, if a tradition or ritual is called out as discriminatory and patriarchal, it is an ignorant assessment.
The main argument of the judge who differed was that the Supreme Court should not interfere in matters of religion, whichever religion they belong to, unless a particular practice or ritual turns out to be harmful for a particular section of society, like the old practice of Sati. [Claims that menstruating women are ‘impure’ or ‘polluting’ is baseless; there is a temple dedicated to the ‘Bleeding Goddess’ in Assam (Kamakhya temple)].
Hinduism is a liberal religion, allowing every one of its followers a right to choose their own deity, his/her forms, characteristics, ways of worship and what not. If the history of the deity, that of the tradition practiced in the shrine is ignored and is instead directed by the highest judicial authority, it is an attack primarily at the foundations of Hinduism. It is also in violation of the right of the deity, Lord Ayyappa, as a legal person, to be allowed to practice ‘Naishtika Brahmacharya’ in a manner he deems fit. For ‘the way he deems fit’, the scriptural account of his life must be consulted. Coincidentally, it may appear to go against the right to equality, but it is a necessity for the temple deity to remain a deity with respect to what he is worshipped for.
The shrine is one of many unique ones in the country. As the Sabarimala shrine disallows women of menstruating age to enter, there are temples and rituals which men are not permitted to enter and witness. They contribute to the diversity that this country is proud of. If such a decision as in the case of Sabarimala is not revised, it will have a vast impact for the practitioners of all religions and will lift the faith of religious persons from the Constitution.
For: The Verdict For Women
“Irony of society is to impose a rule, however unjustified, and then justify the rule. Historically, women have been treated unequally. No philosophy has so far convinced the large population of this country to open up and accept women as equal partners… ” - (Former) Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice Khanwilkar, passing the judgement for women entry in Sabarimala.
The issue of Sabarimala being open to women has caused a lot of unrest in the state of Kerala especially for the women of the state. Social media is floating with hashtags like #ReadyToWait, #SaveSabarimala.
But what are they saving Sabarimala from? Let’s have a look at the basis of the restriction of women entry between the ages of 10 to 50 inside Sabarimala. This was not a consequence of any myth or tradition that strictly prohibits women from entering the Shrine but a court order in 1991 by the Kerala High Court when S. Mahendran filed a petition alleging entry of women in Sabarimala and stating it was a practice from time immemorial. But who was S. Mahendran petitioning against?
The counter affidavit, in this case, was issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), the authority responsible for running the temples in Kerala according to the Hindu Traditions, which clearly stated:-
” …women used to visit the temple though very rarely. The Maharaja of Travancore accompanied by the Maharani and the Divan had visited the temple in 1115 M.E. There was thus no prohibition for women to enter the Sabarimala temple in olden days, but women in large number were not visiting the temple. That was not because of any prohibition imposed by Hindu religion but because of other non-religious factors. In recent years, many worshippers had gone to the temple with lady worshippers within the age group 10 to 50 for the first rice-feeding ceremony of their children… For the last 20 years, women irrespective of their age were allowed to visit the temple when it opens for monthly poojas... Many female worshippers of the age group of 10 to 50 used to go to the temple during these days…” - Para 7,8 & 43, S. Mahendran v/s The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kerala High Court on April 5, 1991
The non-religious factors that the TDB mentioned, were the difficulties of the path that affected women to travel for long days in the olden times. They stated:
“After pointing out the difficulties experienced by pilgrims in olden days to trek the entire distance through thick forests, it is stated that transport facilities had improved in the recent past resulting inflow of pilgrims in large numbers from all over Kerala and outside. Scientific advancement and its influence in the modernisation of human life is bound to bring about changes in the old customs and practices…” - S. Mahendran v/s The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kerala High Court on Apri 5l, 1991
The body responsible for dictating religions and traditions to the temple stated the above arguments in Court, still, the High Court not finding its rule in violation with Article 15, 25 and 26 gave the judgement of barring the entry of women in Sabarimala. The issue started there, a flawed decision. For almost 20 years, this rule was followed unquestioned until in 2006-07 someone re-read the court proceedings and saw the following lines mentioned:
“...Since the deity is in the form of a Naishtika Brahmachari, it is therefore believed that young women should not offer worship in the temple so that even the slightest deviation from celibacy and austerity observed by the deity is not caused by the presence of such women……..” - Para 39-42, S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Kerala High Court on April 5, 1991
The High court had given their judgement on the basis of the witness of three Thantris out of which two had stated the above. Isn’t it silly, that we, mere humans, who can’t control our own senses, are helping a God in controlling his? The true ‘Brahmachari’ according to Hindu Scriptures can’t be deviated by the presence of women or any other things that satisfy his/her personal pleasure other than knowledge of the Supreme Lord. This makes us wonder how deep our religion is and how shallow and senseless have some hypocritical people of our society made it for their selfish goals. On one hand, we say that everyone has the access to God and how all are equal for him while we don’t allow our women access to him and burn their faith. Moreover, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud clearly stated that the constitutional rights can’t be extended to a deity.
Yet there was another section of people like Justice Indu Malhotra opposed this decision believing that court should stay away from the matters of religion. Justice Malhotra said that the court can’t impose its morality on any religion who have a set of beliefs. The judiciary in our country is the most trusted institution that is thought to be a ‘messiah’ by each group of people. And this is not the first time that the courts have interfered in religion for the rights of women. Some would argue that entry into a ‘mere temple’ does not constitute a right ‘worthy’ of protecting. However, it is imperative to understand that view discounts the subjective experience of many women, who feel they their practice of faith being hampered unfairly. Our Constitution takes care of this factor through Article 26 where the court can intervene if any religious practice/custom is not subject to public order, morality, and health. A very similar issue came up when Bombay High Court ordered women entry in the inner sanctum of ‘Shani Shingnapur’. And not just Hindu religion, the Courts have helped women of other religions as well. The practice of ‘Triple Talaq’ was struck down by Supreme Court (with 3:2 majority). An age-old practice was again broken in 2014 when the Bombay High Court allowed women entry in the Haji Ali Dargah in Worli.
Another reason given for not allowing women to enter is that some ‘educated and well-informed women’ have stated ‘physiological’ reasons as to why women can’t go to Sabarimala.
Before going to Sabarimala people were expected to keep a 41-day penance and had to travel rough paths to reach there. They believed that women in the menarche phase of their life wouldn’t be able to undergo such rigorous penance due to the blood loss during menstruation. But the irony of the fact is that young women won’t be able to handle it and those little girls below 10 and elderly women above 50 will be able to…
Also with modernisation, as mentioned, the path to Sabarimala is no longer a rigorous one and can be easily covered by any individual. In addition, Hindu tradition also dictates that for monthly pooja at Sabarimala no ‘Vrathams’ are necessary. Then what were the women initiating #ReadyToWait and #SaveShabrimala waiting for? They have not realized the legend completely and are just following what was being told down the generations blindly. They have not realized that God is not a human who discriminates between genders, caste, creed, and even religion.
This issue at the end of the day has shown the entire country that no matter how much we try women can’t be stopped from progressing. They are a force that is breaking the boundaries between male and female roles and it is in the best interest for everyone to give this force as much support as we can as this will determine the path to our future. This issue gave us another chance to prove this…