Wherever women can go, they should go. They should go to Sabarimala too, if they want, when they want. At the earliest opportunity, if you ask me. Otherwise what is the Supreme Court verdict for? To be framed and hung up on a wall? As some kind of a weird testimony for the record that, despite all the discouragement, all the harassment in public spaces, all the sexual attacks in every possible situations, India did treat its women with some dignity, some kind of decency, at least in theory?
First things first. It is silly to debate this question at this age and at this point in our evolution as a civil society. But the stiff resistance from certain quarters to women’s entry to the temple even after the top court verdict raises serious concerns.
Wherever men can go, women must be allowed to go.
The Supreme Court verdict in the Sabarimala women entry case is clear and definitive. Women are free to enter Sabarimala and no one should block them. The five-judge bench arrived at this decision by rightly interpreting that that denial of access violates the fundamental rights and equality of the women. Judges further noted that women have equal right to worship as men and ‘to exclude women in the age group of 10 to 50 from the temple is to deny dignity to women’.
It is a fact that many devotees and general public mistook the existing practice of denial of entry to women of ‘impure’ age as part of the temple tradition. However, it was not, as more and more evidences coming out point to: Women of powerful upper caste communities used to visit and pray at the temple with tacit approval of the temple administration from time to time. That says volumes about the urge to protect Lord Ayyappan’s celibacy, which by the way the court said is not the duty of the female devotees.
But that is an entirely different argument and applies only if you are a believer of the many myths surrounding the reigning deity of Sabarimala.
Denial of fundamental rights
For a sizeable number of people Sabarimala women’s entry issue is much more than a religious issue or a ritual taboo.
It is an issue of denial of fundamental rights and rights to equality for all enshrined in the Indian constitution.
The context in which the judgement was made should’ve been respected and accepted as it was solidly grounded on Indian constitution and citizen’s rights. Reliance on the rule of law, equality and fundamental rights is crucial for a pluralistic country like India. More than ever now in India: when minorities are being hounded out like never before and even lynched for their food choices, dress codes and religious preferences.
Also worth noting is the latest setback to the Hindutwa brigade on Sabarimala issue. The Kerala High Court has just the other day rejected petition by a BJP leader seeking ban on non-Hindus at Sabarimala. It is the only religious centre where people of all religions are allowed and denying entry to non-Hindus would destroy the communal harmony in the state, the court said. Hope it is amply clear who is trying to fish in troubled waters.
A fragile ecosystem mauled beyond redemption
Even after the court verdict, many try to justify the denial of entry to women in the name of tradition and glorify those willing to wait until they turn 50. And this 10-50 exclusivity is exactly the same kind of argument that leaves a stale aftertaste of Manusmriti (Ancient set of moral and legal codes for Hindus) that still controls the minds of the current Indian leadership.
Women should go to Sabarimala, of course. It is their right and it is important to exercise one’s rights without which everything is hollow. However, be considerate to nature. Sabarimala, located at Periyar Tiger Reserve, is already a fragile ecosystem mauled beyond redemption thanks to the massive, mindless developments for religious tourism and by the garbage devotees leave all around. Just don’t go there year after year like selfish male devotees. And please don’t leave anything there except your footprints.
