#Hinduism: Supreme Court's Verdict on Sabarimala Temple Case

Recently, Supreme Court has given a verdict in Sabarimala Temple Case asking temple management to allow entry of all women into it which was being prohibited due to an old custom. As per the custom, the temple did not allow menstruating women an entry into the temple. The deity of the temple is Lord Ayyapan - he is the son of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati. Lord Ayyapan is a celibate warrior god. 

Out of the judges who gave this verdict, one was a female judge and she was the lone dissenting voice. She said that court should not interfere in matters of religious faiths unless absolutely necessary.  

“In a secular polity issues that are matters of deep religious faith must not be interfered with by courts,” Justice Mrs. Indu Malhotra said. “The right to practice is a fundamental right. religious practices are protected.” She also underlined that courts normally do not interfere with religious practices. “Equality in matters of religion must be viewed in the context of the worshippers of the same faith. It is not for the court to determine which practices of faith are to be struck down except when they are evil, for example sati,” Justice Malhotra said. She said that the issue of what constitutes is an essential practice is for religious committees to decide. Reference: HT

Many people thought that this decision to overturn temple's rule was an attack on Hinduism. They also pointed out that only Hinduism was subjected to such scrutiny and often forced by law while other religions most of the time were left to decide on their own practices. 

I believe Hinduism has tolerated and survived a lot of atrocities in the past like being taxed by Mughals to being massacred in cold blood by Afghan terrorists for not converting to Islam to being forced to keep caste surnames by the British to being denied equal facilities by democratic govts. The recent changes in law are just small pebbles and would also be tolerated well. For court's decision - I can say that something legally right does not mean morally right or practically right. 

There are several 'Indias' living inside India. It is foolish to lawfully enforce India as lived by people who spend 2 hours on TV and 3 hours on Smartphones every day; over India where people do manual work for 10 hours a day and do not get to watch viral videos before sleeping every night.

I think we need to make it mandatory for all judges to go and volunteer via some social organization in rural India (minimum 4 states with different languages for Supreme Court judges) for minimum 2 years; before they get to sit on a chair from where they would make or change rules for fellow Indians; claiming to "know" what India means.

For this case, I believe this custom should have been respected for the sake of an exception. Women in certain age group not getting access rights into a particular temple does not violate their fundamental rights. Since they are not losing anything by not getting entry into that particular temple. They can certainly enter the temple after reaching a certain age. And till then they can go to other temples. It is not necessary for them to visit only this particular temple. 

Personally I support women's rights and also their right to worship and enter temple. But if in any particular ancient temple a custom has been running for centuries, we can allow those to run as exceptions just for the sake of tradition. If we start breaking customs and traditions even if they are harmless; it will become a trend and we shall forget a lot of our ancient traditions which in a way keep us grounded and humble. 

It is also important to understand why such customs came into being. Women face problems during the menstruation period and are not comfortable going long distances. In the past when there were no proper means of transportation and people had to walk long distances; it was particularly more uncomfortable for them. Therefore, in order to protect them from inconvenience and to allow them to rest safely inside their homes, women were asked not to visit temples when they were menstruating. This custom was not made to degrade women in any way.

Some similar customs were also made to protect certain sections of society. For example, you would notice that Hindus consider some days of the week as not the right days on which they can get a hair-cut. This was made to ensure a weekly day off for the barbers! Since barbers were poor, rich people could call them for service on all days of the week and they would have to comply. Hence such customs were made to allow them some rest. Also, it is considered improper to get a haircut after sunset. This would allow barbers some rest and safety (since nights were not that safe in old times due to wild animals and bandits etc). Similar customs are made to protect washer men and a lot of other sections. I won't be surprised if it were the barbers and washer-men who themselves started this custom. Similarly, I won't be surprised if it were the women themselves who made such customs where they were not allowed to do certain tasks during their menstruating days in order to ensure proper care and rest. 

Btw, the lady judge Indu Malhotra should be remembered in the history of feminism as an example of real empowerment. It would have taken a lot of courage for her to speak her mind instead of following the populist line.

- Rahul Tiwary