In the recent directive by the Supreme Court to allow women in the age range of 10 to 50 years to enter Sabarimala temple, the question it raises is whether the Supreme Court has the right to interfere in the religious affairs and sentiment of the people. But the Court mostly never interferes in every aspect of people, except a few cases where the Court voluntarily takes action by filing complaints. Some other women who thought their right to enter the Sabarimala for any age group, which was once practiced, but now banned is the violation of their fundamental religious right, which they want to claim back. But those who-oppose this entry issue argue that those who now fight for their rights are those who never have any personal faith, but the so-called social activists who in the name of conventional women’s rights unnecessarily create issues which hurt the religious sentiment of those who have faith in that particular religious ritual. When those who claimed their right back approached the Court, then it gave its verdict based on its own reasoning which is beyond the understanding of common people like me.
The following extracts from Deepa Das Acevedo, ‘Celibate Gods and ‘Essential Practices’ Jurisprudence at Sabarimala, 1991-2011, in Daniela Berti, Gilles Tarabout, and Raphael Voix (eds.) Filing Religion: State, Hinduism, And courts of Law, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 101-123 will help us to understand the issue in perspective:
Meanwhile, a group of young lawyers in Delhi filed a public interest litigation (PLI) in the Supreme Court against the state of Kerala for letting Sabarimala enforce a prohibition that discriminated on the basis of gender {Indian Young Lawyers’ Association and Others v. The State of Kerala and Others, WP© of 2006 (India) (on file with author). Their choice of defendant reflected the close relationship between Sabarimala and the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDP), a quasi-autonomous regulatory Board whose members are appointed by the legislature and are loosely accountable to the executive and judicial branches. (p.102)
…The Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1950, and the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, were part of a flood of temple entry statutes enacted across India during the first half of the twentieth century in order to open up temples where entrances was restricted on the basis of caste. Both of the Keralite acts contained limiting clauses that specified that access was subject to ‘prevailing customs and usages’. The issue in Mahendran, {S. Mahendran v. Secretary, {S. Chandrika, a former Devaswom commissioner} Travancore Devaswom Board, AIR 1993 Ker 42. (notes 7, p.104) of course, was how to determine whether those customs and usages indicated that the ban was an essential part of Ayyappan worship.
The TDP, Chandrika, and other respondents contended that customary practice regarding women’s entry had changed. On the one hand-on the theory that the old practice was to allow access—they noted that several ‘customs’ had been transformed or simply invented in the period since 1950, and argued that the old customs should take precedence over the later accretions. Most of the post-1950 changes were renovations conducted after Sabarimala experienced a major fire—for instance, the tantric had a new image of Ayyappan and a flagstaff bearing an image of Sastha’s mount installed. But not all of them were prompted by the renovations: Changes were mandated (p.112) regarding the location of certain rituals within the temple complex, and the chief tantric inaugurated a new ritual honouring the eighteen sacred steps leading up to the sanctum. The respondents claimed that before the fire and the changes it prompted, ‘women used to visit the temple though very rarely’ and the ‘Maharaja of Travancore accompanied by the Maharni and the Divan [prime minister] had visited the temple in 1115 M.E. [1950]’ (Mahendran:**3).28—pp. 112-13
28. Records also show that Sreemathi Pottayil Ammukutty Amma, the Maharaja of Cochins’ daughter, also visited Sabarimala in early August, 1947. General Department, Bundle 430: File u65 (1946-49) and Bundle 425: File 688 (1946-49) Kerala State Archives (India).—p. 113
…The TDB and Chandrika argued that women in the prohibited age range were banned during Sabarimala’s winter pilgrimage season as well as during the New Year’s (Vishu) celebrations in April. They maintained that during the rest of the year, when Sabarimala was open for a few days each month, women of any age could visit the temple. Conversely, the Minister for Devaswom Affairs declared that the ban was inappropriate year-round, and that the government favoured removing it altogether….—p. 113
For the complete details of this case read the entire chapter by Deepa Das Acevedo in this book. So based on this information women of all ages were not allowed only a few pilgrim seasons and not all the time. Now can we blame the Supreme Court interfering in the religious sentiment of Hindus? Those who want to keep a balance to find out the truth have to consider all these issues based on media reports and trials.
Of course, personally I am not in favour of allowing women in prohibited age in order to respect the religious sentiment of others who want to uphold it. And personally I feel that those who raised the issue want to parade their pseudo-Secular credentials and all the political parties are playing dangerous political games. In the past, the menstruating women were kept outside the house for three days (when they need not do any work and take complete rest). Then as women also began to work, many -not entering only in the kitchen- continue to remain in the house and go to the office and other workplace. After that also a change came as there were no substitutes for them to work in the kitchen. Then they began to cook but only stopped going to the puja room or lighting the lamp before the family shrine in that period. But according to my knowledge, no woman dared to violate that ritual and began to do puja or light lamps in their family shrine. So this change and continuity inside the home should also reflect in the outer society. But those who do not have much religious orientation now in the name of women’s rights take this issue and fight for it.
I think those women who take their religious activities a bit seriously keeping the welfare of their family, as the violation will bring problems, won’t go to Sabarimala temple during their prohibited age, as they don’t want to take the risk. So, respecting their religious sentiment, it is better to continue this prohibition, though it was later introduced in the temple. As change and continuity is the mark of Hinduism, there is no point in saying that it was not in the past. So many deities, rituals, doctrines, sects etc. etc. are introduced which were not in the past. So, neither to uphold the so-called past tradition nor to oppose any new introduction, we should leave the religious and ritual issues to the adherents of a particular faith, till it does not affect the peace and order in public life at large.
Db
10-10-2018
In the recent directive by the Supreme Court to allow women in the age range of 10 to 50 years to enter Sabarimala temple, the question it raises is whether the Supreme Court has the right to interfere in the religious affairs and sentiment of the people. But the Court mostly never interferes in every aspect of people, except a few cases where the Court voluntarily takes action by filing complaints. Some other women who thought their right to enter the Sabarimala for any age group, which was once practiced, but now banned is the violation of their fundamental religious right, which they want to claim back. But those who-oppose this entry issue argue that those who now fight for their rights are those who never have any personal faith, but the so-called social activists who in the name of conventional women’s rights unnecessarily create issues which hurt the religious sentiment of those who have faith in that particular religious ritual. When those who claimed their right back approached the Court, then it gave its verdict based on its own reasoning which is beyond the understanding of common people like me.
The following extracts from Deepa Das Acevedo, ‘Celibate Gods and ‘Essential Practices’ Jurisprudence at Sabarimala, 1991-2011, in Daniela Berti, Gilles Tarabout, and Raphael Voix (eds.) Filing Religion: State, Hinduism, And courts of Law, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 101-123 will help us to understand the issue in perspective:
Meanwhile, a group of young lawyers in Delhi filed a public interest litigation (PLI) in the Supreme Court against the state of Kerala for letting Sabarimala enforce a prohibition that discriminated on the basis of gender {Indian Young Lawyers’ Association and Others v. The State of Kerala and Others, WP© of 2006 (India) (on file with author). Their choice of defendant reflected the close relationship between Sabarimala and the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDP), a quasi-autonomous regulatory Board whose members are appointed by the legislature and are loosely accountable to the executive and judicial branches. (p.102)
…The Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1950, and the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965, were part of a flood of temple entry statutes enacted across India during the first half of the twentieth century in order to open up temples where entrances was restricted on the basis of caste. Both of the Keralite acts contained limiting clauses that specified that access was subject to ‘prevailing customs and usages’. The issue in Mahendran, {S. Mahendran v. Secretary, {S. Chandrika, a former Devaswom commissioner} Travancore Devaswom Board, AIR 1993 Ker 42. (notes 7, p.104) of course, was how to determine whether those customs and usages indicated that the ban was an essential part of Ayyappan worship.
The TDP, Chandrika, and other respondents contended that customary practice regarding women’s entry had changed. On the one hand-on the theory that the old practice was to allow access—they noted that several ‘customs’ had been transformed or simply invented in the period since 1950, and argued that the old customs should take precedence over the later accretions. Most of the post-1950 changes were renovations conducted after Sabarimala experienced a major fire—for instance, the tantric had a new image of Ayyappan and a flagstaff bearing an image of Sastha’s mount installed. But not all of them were prompted by the renovations: Changes were mandated (p.112) regarding the location of certain rituals within the temple complex, and the chief tantric inaugurated a new ritual honouring the eighteen sacred steps leading up to the sanctum. The respondents claimed that before the fire and the changes it prompted, ‘women used to visit the temple though very rarely’ and the ‘Maharaja of Travancore accompanied by the Maharni and the Divan [prime minister] had visited the temple in 1115 M.E. [1950]’ (Mahendran:**3).28—pp. 112-13
28. Records also show that Sreemathi Pottayil Ammukutty Amma, the Maharaja of Cochins’ daughter, also visited Sabarimala in early August, 1947. General Department, Bundle 430: File u65 (1946-49) and Bundle 425: File 688 (1946-49) Kerala State Archives (India).—p. 113
…The TDB and Chandrika argued that women in the prohibited age range were banned during Sabarimala’s winter pilgrimage season as well as during the New Year’s (Vishu) celebrations in April. They maintained that during the rest of the year, when Sabarimala was open for a few days each month, women of any age could visit the temple. Conversely, the Minister for Devaswom Affairs declared that the ban was inappropriate year-round, and that the government favoured removing it altogether….—p. 113
For the complete details of this case read the entire chapter by Deepa Das Acevedo in this book. So based on this information women of all ages were not allowed only a few pilgrim seasons and not all the time. Now can we blame the Supreme Court interfering in the religious sentiment of Hindus? Those who want to keep a balance to find out the truth have to consider all these issues based on media reports and trials.
Of course, personally I am not in favour of allowing women in prohibited age in order to respect the religious sentiment of others who want to uphold it. And personally I feel that those who raised the issue want to parade their pseudo-Secular credentials and all the political parties are playing dangerous political games. In the past, the menstruating women were kept outside the house for three days (when they need not do any work and take complete rest). Then as women also began to work, many -not entering only in the kitchen- continue to remain in the house and go to the office and other workplace. After that also a change came as there were no substitutes for them to work in the kitchen. Then they began to cook but only stopped going to the puja room or lighting the lamp before the family shrine in that period. But according to my knowledge, no woman dared to violate that ritual and began to do puja or light lamps in their family shrine. So this change and continuity inside the home should also reflect in the outer society. But those who do not have much religious orientation now in the name of women’s rights take this issue and fight for it.
I think those women who take their religious activities a bit seriously keeping the welfare of their family, as the violation will bring problems, won’t go to Sabarimala temple during their prohibited age, as they don’t want to take the risk. So, respecting their religious sentiment, it is better to continue this prohibition, though it was later introduced in the temple. As change and continuity is the mark of Hinduism, there is no point in saying that it was not in the past. So many deities, rituals, doctrines, sects etc. etc. are introduced which were not in the past. So, neither to uphold the so-called past tradition nor to oppose any new introduction, we should leave the religious and ritual issues to the adherents of a particular faith, till it does not affect the peace and order in public life at large.
Db
10-10-2018
Leave a Reply