1. September 2018 has been a month of one after another landmark judgements by the Supreme Court of India. Chief Justice, Dipak Misra, who is set to retire on October 2nd, has so far headed several benches, giving out judgements on some of the highly crucial, not to mention, controversial cases. 2. In the latest installment of verdicts, the apex court has lifted the ban on women entering the Sabarimala temple of Kerala. While one side of the population has welcomed the decision, calling it an important milestone for equal rights, the other side sees is as a breach by the court into the religion and the faith of its devotees.
Opinion
30/09/2018
1430.
Sub :-
1. September 2018 has been a month of one after another landmark judgements by the Supreme Court of India. Chief Justice, Dipak Misra, who is set to retire on October 2nd, has so far headed several benches, giving out judgements on some of the highly crucial, not to mention, controversial cases.
2. In the latest installment of verdicts, the apex court has lifted the ban on women entering the Sabarimala temple of Kerala. While one side of the population has welcomed the decision, calling it an important milestone for equal rights, the other side sees is as a breach by the court into the religion and the faith of its devotees.
Ref :
SABARIMALA TEMPLE VERDICT : A step for women empowerment? : Apeksha Duhan
1. The history of Sabarimala issue :
While the ban on women from the age group of 10-50, barring their entry into the temple is age-old, the matter wasn’t brought to court till the 1990s. Following a plea in 1990, the High Court of Kerala in 1991 upheld the ban on women’s entry inside the temple.
In 2006, the Sabarimala Temple went into the limelight again, when a Kannada actress-politician claimed she had entered the temple, even touching the feet of the deity in 1987. An official inquiry was also conducted by the crime branch of Kerala government, but was dropped later. So, after 1991, it was 15 years later, in 2006 that the issue reached the doorsteps of our judiciary again. Shortly after, a Public Interest Litigations(PIL) was filed by a group of women’s lawyers, demanding to remove the ban on entry, citing discrimination. This was also supported by the then government of Kerala, LDF.
In 2016, again, a PIL was filed by The India Young Lawyers Association, against the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules(1965), which states that “Women who are not by custom and usage allowed to enter a place of public worship shall not be entitled to enter or offer worship in any place of public worship”. The rules were said to be violating the constitutional rights of equality, religious freedom as well as non-discrimination.
2. What is the verdict?
In a verdict by the five judges bench, led by CJI Dipak Misra, the Supreme Court lifted the ban on women of the said age-group, that earlier forbid them from entering the temple premises. In the 4:1 majority verdict, the ban was seen as an act of gender-discrimination. While the temple authorities were unhappy with the judgement, they said they will be following it.
With the rolling out of this landmark judgement, the Supreme Court made clear in another statement that “biological reasons should not be considered for the continuation of an age-old tradition”. Ironically, however, the only voice of dissent in this verdict came from the only women justice in the panel, Indu Malhotra. According to Malhotra, there is a difference between diversity and discrimination, and hence, the court should not intervene.'
3. Contrasting opinions
The fight for women gaining entry into the Sabarimala temple was going on for decades, before finally coming to an end with the SC judgement. Several people have reacted to the decision with happiness and warm welcome, calling it a victory of women’s rights. However, there are many others who stand on the other side of the boat. Surprisingly, like Justice Malhotra, many of these people protesting the verdict are women themselves.
The women from ‘Ready to wait’ campaign, for example, have come forward with the statement that the ‘SC ignored Ayappan’s rights’. The campaign was started in 2016, with its members declaring that they will wait to turn the ‘right’ age to visit the temple, upholding the religious beliefs. According to the religion, the deity in consideration was a practicing celibate, and accordingly, the entry of women of the age-group 10-50 was forbidden.
4. Conclusion
As the debate on this topic gets heated up, it is important to look at the arguments that have been put up. According to some people who oppose the judgement, lifting the entry ban will necessarily turn the sacred temple into yet another tourist spot, stripping it off of the sanctity it holds. However, the same people also take pride in the temple’s ‘liberal’ practices that allow people, or rather, males of any social class, caste, or religion to enter the temple. Given their own logic, technically, this ‘liberty’ must also be leading to some sort of an erosion of their faith. However, that is not the case.
While passing on a personal opinion on the issue, one must keep in mind a simple thing. Many women from the faith have already declared that despite the judgement, they will wait till the right age to finally pray inside the temple. The Supreme Court has not taken their right of belief away, it has merely granted it to the other section of the female population. One that perhaps, is equally religious, but has a contrasting opinion. Taking away their right to practice their religion- wouldn’t that be a threat to the faith instead? Just a food for thought.
NOTE :-
SWAMIYE SHARANAM AYYAPPA
The Supreme Court has pronounced its judgment on the centuries-old prohibition on women entry to Sabarimala Temple in Kerala.
Earlier women in the menstrual age group were banned from entering the temple as its deity, Lord Ayyappa is believed to be a staunch Celibate.
The verdict states that women can visit the temple irrespective of their age.
It is only one woman Judge in the constitutional bench, Indu Malhotra, who authoritatively stated that Supreme Court cannot challenge age old customs and beliefs.
Judges should not overlook customs which were followed prior to framing of the constitution.
Every temple has its own customs and rules based on ancient and revered beliefs.
Over ruling these on the grounds that they are against constitutional values will hurt the sentiments of millions of devotees.
Hence the court should not interfere in these matters of belief.
"In Sabrimala, no Hindu woman ever demanded their right in visiting the temple during the ages from puberty until menopause."
Those who filed this petition do not seem to be true devotees of Lord Ayyappa, they are in to play with the emotions of Hindus.
There does not seem to be any complaint for equal freedom of worship in the mosque for women along with men.
Secondly our politicians never cared for the Christian nuns during their recent struggle for justice in Kerala.
Their intention here seems to be very clear.
Supreme Court has looked into the constitution, the same court has not regarded the customs and beliefs which may have been there for some special reason.
There is no kind of discrimination and rejection of women devotees in Sabarimala.
Before puberty and after menopause every women can visit this temple. We need to remain together and follow our old traditions and customs. In case of constant questioning of our customs, let us grow from rituals to scriptures.
We have to appreciate our judges for their Verdict, which in turn shows how tolerant Hindus are in accepting these changes.
It is credit worthy and a lesson that all can learn from Hindus which show their broad-mindedness and boldness in accepting major changes brought about by Higher Authorities.
We Hindus Respect our Scriptures more than Rituals.
This is what Lord Ayyappa too teaches us through Upanishads – “TATVAMASI”
***
OPINION :
1. WOMEN IN KERALA NEVER ARGUED FOR THE ENTRY IN SABARIMALA TEMPLE FOR WORSHIP;
2. THEY STRICTLY FOLLOWED THE SYSTEM OF TEMPLE PROCEDURES SINCE ANCIENT DAYS;
3. HERE SOME STUPID HAS INTERFERED TO TARNISH SANATANA DHARMAM, WHICH IS EXISTING IN BHARATHAM BEFORE THE INDEPENDENCE OF BHARATHAM;
4. MANY SO CALLED INTELLECTUALS MEN OR WOMEN MORE ACTIVE TO INSULT/ABUSE SANATANA DHARMAM;
5. IT IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY TO MAKE A TEMPLE SYSTEM A CONTROVERSY, THIS DONE BY HINDUS THEMSELVES;
6. ABUSING HINDUISM IS TODAY'S PASSION OF INDIANS ESPECIALLY STUPID SO CALLED OVER SMARTY INTELLECTUALS;
7. IT IS EQUAL OF ABUSING OUR OWN PARENTS, ESPECIALLY MOTHER;
8. REALITY : SABARIMALA TEMPLE : PRESENT DAY PILGRIMAGE IS VERY HARD AND RUSH IS TOO LARGE, VERY DIFFICULT FOR SMALL KIDS, SENIOR CITIZENS, UNHEALTHY PERSONS AND WOMEN;
9. ANOTHER THING THE PRIVACY;
10. LASTLY, TODAY WORSHIP IS ALTOGETHER AN EXTERNAL SHOW, WHAT NEEDED IS MEDITATION ON SELF AND REALISATION, FOR THIS : FOR A MENTALLY BALANCED, MENTALLY UPLIFTED PERSON, NO TEMPLE, CHURCH OR MOSQUE REQUIRED.
JAIHIND
VANDEMATHARAM
Comments
Post a Comment