Table of Contents
Why in NEWS?
- Millions of Indian women joined hand-in-hand along the 620 km long stretch from the northern tip to the southern end of Kerala, to form a ‘women’s wall’ against the religious conservatives who have been opposing the Supreme Court verdict that allowed the entry of menstruating women in the Lord Ayyappa
New Year’s Day
- 30 lakh women stood shoulder to shoulder along national highways to form a “women’s wall” that ran the length of Kerala.
- Wall stretched nearly 620 km from Kasaragod in the north to Thiruvananthapuram in the south, symbolised the participants’ resolve to uphold the values of Kerala’s renaissance, ensure gender justice, and counter “moves to turn the state into a lunatic asylum”.
- The wall comprised women from all walks of life – social activists, filmstars, theatre personalities, writers, sportspersons, nuns, farmers – and was bookended by Health Minister KK Shylaja in Kasaragod and the senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat in Thiruvananthapuram
- The participants took a pledge “to protect the values of social reformation movement, to support the idea of gender equality as conceived by the Constitution and to oppose any efforts to turn Kerala into “a lunatic asylum”
- . The Supreme Court ruled in September last year that the Sabarimala temple cannot discriminate against women of menstruating age by prohibiting their entry into the sanctum sanctorum. “The country has not accepted women as partners in seeking divinity,” the court observed. “Subversion of women on biological factors cannot be given legitimacy.
- Three days earlier, thousands of women and men mobilised by the Sangh had lit Ayyappa Jyothi, or Ayyappa’s lamps, vowing to save “Sabarimala’s traditions and rituals.” Ayyappa is Sabarimala’s presiding deity.
Why is Sabarimala case unique?
- Ayyappan of Sabarimala is worshipped as a celibate god.
- Pilgrims are expected to practice celibacy and abstinence during the 41-day vratam (pious observances).
- Sabarimala stands out among Kerala’s temples spaces for its accommodation of all devotees irrespective of religion and caste.
- Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is one of the most famous Hindu temples in India, located in the Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. The temple is managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
- Main stakeholders of Sabarimala Temple are Travancore Devasom Board, Tantri (head priest) family, Pandalam Royal Family, Ayyappa Seva Sangam etc.
What is the SC’s rationale?
- Religious Rights
- The Sabarimala temple case represented a conflict between 2 sets.
- Social notions
- In a 4-1 majority, the court struck down provisions of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
What was the dissenting Judge’s remark?
- Justice Malhotra was the lone woman on the bench who had a dissenting view.
- She noted that what constitutes essential religious practice is for the religious community to decide and not the court.
- Balance needs to be struck between religious beliefs on one hand and Constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality on the other.
- She also stated that the present judgment would not be limited to Sabarimala but will have wide ramifications.
- So issues of deep religious sentiments should not be ordinarily interfered into by the Court.
What are the various Articles guaranteeing religious and gender equality?
- Article 15 of the Indian Constitution
- Article 25 of the Indian Constitution
- Violation of Article 25
- Constitutional Rights to Women
- Article 26 in The Constitution of India 1949
Views of Those Who Support Women Entry
- Constitutional articles
- violated their fundamental right under Article 25(1) to freely practice their religion.
- Right to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26(1) cannot “override the right to practice religion itself
- patriarchy.
- subverts the idea of everyone being equal to God.
Views of Those Who Oppose Women Entry
- to preserve ‘purity’
- deity Lord Ayyappa as a Naishtika Bramhachari,
- separate religious cult with its own rules
- Article 15 of the Constitution does not apply to religious institutions
- Article 25(2) pertains to only secular aspects and it is only pertaining to social issues
In summary
- The recent issues of restriction on entry of women in places of worship like Sabarimala, Shani Shingnapur, and Haji Ali have once again brought the focus on the debate ‘religious tradition versus gender equality’.
- Excluding women from access to the shrine is a clear violation of their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and freedom of religion (Article 25).
- The main issue is not an entry, but equality. The religious exclusion has a public character, and that it is not just an issue of a sacred tradition but one of the civil rights and material and symbolic equality.
- It is unfortunate that the courts have become the arbiter of what constitutes true religion. This situation has arisen because the Indian state is the agent for the reform and management of Hinduism and its institutions.
- Beliefs and customs of devotees cannot be changed through a judicial process. The reforms should come from within the society. So long as that does not happen, we are likely to see religious issues being repeatedly taken to court.
Latest Burning Issues | Free PDF
WhatsApp