It is sad to see the Travancore Devaswom Board, which utilises public money, changing its stand in the Supreme Court, in line with the Kerala government’s stand (“TDB changes stand, supports SC judgment on Sabarimala”, Feb. 7). It has let down believers. How can the TDB support something that is against custom and why has it suddenly changed its stand?
B. Veerakumaran,
Thiruvananthapuram
The centuries-old belief that Lord Ayyappa is a ‘naishtika brahmachari’ is an amusing argument to be put forth in the Supreme Court (“Bench reserves orders on Sabarimala review petitions”, Feb. 7). Has the Lord ever claimed that he is a ‘naishtika brahmachari’? Temple idols are treated as legal entities so that legal issues associated with the administration of temple property can be settled. No human being has any legal right to declare what an idol in a temple, in its human manifestation, likes or dislikes. So the argument above is not valid legally. In the matter of right to worship in a temple, the only arguments that are relevant are those pertaining to customs and traditions that are followed in that temple with the general consensus of its devotees. But in the case of any conflict between customary practices and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.
S.P. Asokan,
Chennai