The Author, Indrasish Majumder is currently pursuing B.A.L.L.B Honours from National Law University Odisha.
The subject matter of the Sabarimala controversy is as inter twisted and sundry as the history of Indian culture and society itself. Ayappa the worshipped deity, as myth goes is the son of two other male deities , Shiva and Vishnu . The rather improbable intercourse was made possible when Lord Vishnu took the form a women .
Accordingly lord Ayyappa is also referred to as Hariharaputra , son of Shiva (Hara) and Vishnu(Hari). Lord Ayyappa , may be referred to as a pre-Aryan deity , worshiped throughout the subcontinent . With the advent of the Aryans the Deity was absorbed like many others in the Aryan Phaeton.
Adding to the melange , is the lineage of Lord Ayyappa that has a Muslim strain connected to it as well. In defeating an abominable enemy , Lord Ayyappa found a helping hand in the muslim warrior leader Vavar. Located not very far from the temple premises stands a mosque devoted to warrior Vavar. Devotees before entering the Sabarimala temple are supposed to pay a visit to the mosque have their forehead smeared with ash by one of the Muslim’s solemnising the rituals and guzzle sacred water from the pond within the mosque’s premises , while enumerating verses from the Fatiha. A singular but remarkable instance of the egalitarian citizenry we thrive in.
Despite being a melting pot of Aryan and pre-Aryan ingredients , the Vaishnavite and Shiviate schools of worship , Hinduism and Islam , discrimination prevails at a more rudimentary level. Orthodoxy alienates menstruating women aged 10-50 , from participating in the religious activities associated with this temple . Basis of this estrangement is in a long standing norm of lord Ayyappa being a celibate , devotees who visit him are supposed to be observing vows for celibacy for a period of 40 days.
Women therefore , are denied entry in the temple during their menstruating time cycle (10-50 years) , the same being perceived as a threat to lord Ayyappa’s celibate identity. Secondly , there are females who out of empathy and respect for Malikapurathamma (Lord Ayyappa’s forever lover , waiting for him eternally ) refrain form visiting the temple .
However what needs to be taken in consideration is as pointed out by justice Deepak Mishra in the second Ananda Margi case, the practice of exclusion was never a continued existence and began only after the enactment of the subordinate legislation . Therefore , as pointed out by Justice Mishra, it is an “alterable part of practice “ that does not constitute the “core” of the religion upon which the practice is based and the religion is founded ”. The practice lacking any scriptural basis and “unhindered continuity “ was thereof declared not an “essential religious practice”, lacking which the religion in it’s entirety will be nullified . The basis of this practice can therefore be stated to be in the minds of few discriminatory , prejudicial individuals , who wants us to practice their beliefs in the garb of religious propaganda. The ban was customised and needed to be stood up for.
Jeopardising only women from worshipping in Sabarimala , is a clear violation of article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution which constitutes an individual’s rights to practice ,profess and propagate any religion of his/her choice without restrictions unless it is against notions of public order morality and health, and article 15(1) of the constitution which prohibits states from indulging in any practices that discriminates citizens on ground of religion , race , caste , sex , place of birth . Only exception to these clauses is if the religious practice can be brought under the domain of “essential religious practice “ , which the temple authorities failed to prove in due course . The judgement examined the validity of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public worship , 1965 in scope of the aforementioned articles and declared it void to the extent of barring women from entering temples at such time as custom and usage prohibits them from entering temples.The foremost role of the Supreme Court is to defend the constitution , and that is what it was trying to do via the verdict it pronounced. One argument put forward by Kerala chief minister and several other individuals against the judgement was , even if women aged 10-50 are legally allowed entry into the temple , women from decent class and stature would abstain from visiting the temple since the same would put their morality to question . What needs to be realised is , in the short run the judgement might not find widespread applicability but in long run steadily and surely people will come to realise the discriminatory and prejudicial basis to the the custom and try to abrogate it from the surface of society , like sati or child marriage however, there needs to be precedence in regard tot he inapplicability of a particular social custom, to nullify the same from the minds of people.
Hindu religion and mythology is renowned for it’s diversity , acceptability and progressiveness. .Whence Hinduism encompasses individuals belonging from copious cultures , traditions , caste and other religion partisanship between members of its community is but an embarrassment to the coterie and dispense a defeatist light on the religion in the international arena.
Hinduism is but relentless pursuit of the ultimate truth .Truth is God . If the religion has today become static and invariable it is not because it always was like this e.g Islam or Christianity , but rather because our conscience and morality has been jaded with time , influence of external religions , change in social norms and values aided and abetted by major political transformations . Once the veil which has descended on Hinduism due to external interventions and internal transformations is removed , the brilliance of the religion will burst out before the world disseminating fragrance of equality , acceptability and fairness . How can women be denied from practising a religion they were born into and brought up in simply because of their physiology , an aspect over which they harbour no control.
Shyalaja Vijayan , president of the National Ayyappa devotees Association has stated, religious norms should not be pondered upon in the lens of rationality and logic , as has been pointed out by Indu Malhotra judge from the opposition in her dissenting opinion, that the court should refrain from intervening in the religious matters and sentiments of individual communities the same being beyond the scope of logic and argumentation . However going by this reasoning , the terrorist attacks being committed globally should not be condemned either , neither should have been practices such as child marriage , female genital mutilation or Sati since all these are carried out in name of propagating and spearheading religious beliefs . What needs to be appreciated is , the above mentioned actions are condemned in name of “atrocities “ not because they lack logic or reasoning , but because the same goes against basic human rights principals as enshrined in “Universal Declaration of Human Rights “ and are crimes against humanity and peace . In similar fashion be it not allowing women to enter a temple because of their physiological characteristics , or be it coercing them into burning or poisoning themselves to death (sati , Jauhar) all can be perceived as human rights violation at its rawest and most blatant form . And because of this underlying rationale should practices such as the above mentioned ones be abolished, irrespective of whether it classifies as an “essential religious practice “ on the tenants of which an entire religion is based upon or not. And if the constitution chooses to put humanity over customs and religious practices , an iota of doubt should not exist in regard to the former’s preponderance.
Pro’s to the judgement therefore might be , altering an old and parochial mentality to enlightening human kind about the obscurity of certain if not most customs. As put forward by few, the verdict poses a threat to India’s secular identity, any such fears can however be warded off , the constitution interferes in the religion of a sect only when allowing a norm or belief of that religion of the sect to go unchallenged would lead to it going against notions of gender equality and discrimination on the basis of sex. It can be discerned from the past 2 millennium that customary law can never pave way to modern life . It is the healthy and progressive mindset of the people that does so thereby aiding in a country’s cultural and economic enhancement .
Of course there are always two sides to a decision like to that of coin and there certainly are negative aspects to the Sabarimala verdict as well. The verdict may for example sow the impetus of a feeling of insecurity among devotees of the religion and other religions which entails discriminatory practices . To few the the verdict might seem an unnecessary meddling in the religious affairs of a community by the judiciary . There must have been some substance to Judge Indu Malhotra’s dissenting judgment. The verdict has in addition paved way for chaos and turmoil in Kerala particularly as devotees of Sabarimala in collaboration with devotees from other temples across Kerala expressed their concerns against the pronouncement . However, irrespective of how many con’s the judgement might entail the pro’s shall have a more permanent basis to it . Particularly in bestowing women, who always have composed the disadvantaged and ostracised sections of the populace, their share of dignity and honour. .
Change is the law of nature and the nature of law. And to affect a person’s morality tremendous change in social order is necessary . Change in itself is a kind of rebellion or insurrection . And history stands witness that people realise the drawbacks of a revolution much sooner than they do it’s benefits , therefore the positive impact the verdict vouchsafed to be realised and credited will take time . It is undoubtedly a monumental and prodigious leap by the Supreme Court to ensure the country’s prosperity by decimating any instances of bigotry.The issue that needs notification in the verdict is not an entry, but equality. That the embargo has a public character to it, and that the issue is not one of a sacred tradition purely but of the civil rights , and notions of material and symbolic equality as well . It might be considered calamitous and cataclysmic that the courts have become the arbiter of what constitutes “true religion”. However one cannot escape the fact this situation of chaos and confusion has arisen because the Indian state and citizenry has been for the last two millennium the agent for the reform and management of Hinduism and its tenants . Of course beliefs and customs of devotees can never be altered through a judicial process since the change should stem from within oneself and so long as that does not happen, we are likely to see religious issues being repeatedly taken to court on charges of violating principals of fairness and non-discrimination .
BIBLIOGRPAHY
1.https://www.bloombergquint.com/law-and-policy/sabarimala-temple-women-entry-ban-supreme-court-verdict-live-updates
2.https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-hear-48-pleas-seeking-review-of-sabarimala-temple-verdict/1380086/
3.https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-allows-women-to-enter-sabarimala-temple/articleshow/65989807.cms
4.https://www.civilserviceindia.com/subject/Essay/the-supreme-court-verdict-on-sabarimala-temple-case.html
5.https://feminisminindia.com/2018/10/01/supreme-court-sabarimala-verdict/
6.https://thediplomat.com/2018/10/indias-sabarimala-temple-and-the-issue-of-womens-entry/
7.https://www.openthemagazine.com/article/essay/sabarimala-god-and-citizen
8.https://www.lawyerscollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Final-WS-Sabarimala-I.A-10-2016-to-TAJ.pdf
9.http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/77961/9/09_chapter%2004.pdf
10.https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/94v3a2.htm
Picture Source :