Constitutional morality and values has emerged as the new religion of emancipated India making ancient religious practices anathema to women and the youth. That is why when the Supreme Court opened the doors of the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala to all women, whether menstruating or not, patriarchal priests were outraged.
But sometimes a woman can be women’s greatest enemy as it turned out when Justice Indu Malhotra who was the lone woman judge in the five-member Constitution bench, dissented, saying the apex court should not venture into religion and questions of faith. But if that were so, then homosexuals and lesbians would still be pariahs and adulterers would still go to jail while a consenting wife to adultery would escape punishment. There is no doubt that the Constitution should override obnoxious customs and traditions which abnegate equality of the sexes and human dignity.
For Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to discriminate between men and women while Article 25 guarantees the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of choice. So, it means that whether male or female, every woman has the right to enter a temple, church or mosque and offer prayers to the Almighty. This become all the more imperative when the temple, church or mosque is managed by a public charitable trust and so comes under the aegis of the State.
Male chauvinists like Rahul Easwar, the president of the Ayyappa Dharma Sena, said he wanted to file a review of the judgment. He is the grandson of a former Sabarimala priest, the late Kandararu Maheswararu. He said, “We will defintely go ahead with the fight. Until October 16, the Sabarimala temple is closed. So, we have time.”
The Kerala government announced it did not intend to file a review petition against the Supreme Court order allowing women of all age groups into the Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala. Ayyappa is a celibate deity whose meditation gets easily distracted by menstruating women. It defies logic that when no machine has been invented to identify who is menstruating and who is not, Lord Ayyappa alone can sense this.
And there is more to this story. A female deity in the temple called ‘Malikappuram Devi’, is given place within the temple and as per the centuries-old belief, Lord Ayyappa will marry Malikappuram Devi the year in which there are no ‘kanni’ ayyappans (first-time visitors to the temple). But, such a scenario doesn’t happen in reality since every year there are thousands of new devotees thronging Sabarimala.
The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), which manages the hill shrine, has decided not to seek review of this landmark judgment of the Supreme Court. “We have no hesitation in saying that such exclusionary practices violate the rights of a woman to freely practice the Hindu religion and exhibit her devotion to Lord Ayyappa,” a bench led by former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar and R F Nariman declared.
Chandrachud went a step further by declaring that the ancient practice was a form of untouchability which could not be allowed under the Indian Constitution. “Article 17 certainly applies to untouchability as practiced towards the lower castes but equally applies to systematic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation of women,” he declared.
“Prejudices against women based on notions of impurity and pollution based on menstruation is a symbol of exclusion. The exclusion of women based on menstrual status is a form of social exclusion which is anathema to constitutional values,” he said. Although the story of Lord Ayyappa may sound silly to those seeking social reform, the fact is the very existence of the hill-temple and its relevance is based on this. Sabarimala wasn’t created by an Act of the Kerala state Assembly, Parliament or by an order of court, but on faith which is what justice Indu Malhotra is talking about.
Sabarimala doesn’t differentiate between different religions or those belonging to the upper or lower castes. Sabarimala is on the verge of turning into another tourist-pilgrim site. There is no resolution either to the question pertaining to what extent the government and judiciary should intervene in matters of faith, unless there is an angle involving social injustice, oppression or denial or natural justice.
A few years ago, a Bihar court had heard a case against Lord Rama on the alleged cruelty towards his wife Sita. The petitioner wondered how a king, known to be just and merciful could be unjust to his own wife and that too based on hearsay (there wasn’t any proof of Sita’s alleged infidelity when she was sent on vanvaas). But, finally when the judge heard the case, the case was dismissed on account of the absence of eyewitnesses and the confusion surrounding who should be punished even if Rama was found guilty.
So, those who oppose social and religious reform argue that modern day ideas of gender equality are anathema to religion. Going to other religions, the Muslim community cannot insist that women should not be allowed in mosques or that priesthood is the exclusive domain for men only in Catholicism. These again are matters of faith and religious interpretation of the holy texts revered by millions.
And so, although the Supreme Court judgment has freed millions of Hindu women from a life of blind faith in what is perhaps irrational religious beliefs, the hold of custom and tradition overrides logical thinking so that thousands of emancipated women do not believe in emancipation because their faith in Lord Ayyappa overrides modern values of equality of the sexes and women’s emancipation.
Olav Albuquerque holds a PhD in law and is a lawyer-cum-journalist of the Bombay high court.