The Sabarimala Stigma Role

Though I am a Hindu by birth, I am an Indian first. As a citizen of India, I respect my constitution. Hence, I believe the Supreme Court’s verdict on September 28, 2018 regarding Sabarimala, to be just and progressive. There might be many who would disagree with me for lots of reasons.  The most argued reason being the so-called religious traditions of the temple. The ban on the entry of women aged between 10 and 50 is claimed to be an age-old practise. However, there are documents which show that the entry was strictly banned only after a 1991 Kerala High Court order.  In olden days, women used to visit the temple but not in large numbers as compared to men. What if the ban on entry of women had nothing to do with tradition and religious practise? What if women considered the pilgrimage to be hectic or what if it got developed as a practise with the passage of time? What if it was never obligatory? As we all know, history could be misleading many times.

Let us consider the present scenario – the women arrange everything for the men to be able to go and worship the lord. Even if women are allowed to go to the temple, how many men will be willing to prepare for a comfortable journey for the ladies.

Yet, these could be ignored as illogical assumptions.

Okay, so even if it was a practise of an obligatory nature followed from ancient times, how could the SC’s verdict hurt the sentiments of a religion/group? Well, what harm could the women do by entering the temple? There were traditions in temples that allowed only people belonging to certain castes to enter the shrine. The ones who dissent with North Indian temples that do not allow lower caste people to enter inside the temple, simultaneously supports the temple customs of Sabarimala.

The question is not whether women should enter the temple or not, the question is when the taboos and stigma linked with menstruation ends. The first time when my aunt told me not to go to temple with my sisters I was confused. (Though she explained, I didn’t understand what my menstrual cycle had to do with the purity of a place). There are thousands of other girls like me who, clearly having no idea of such a rule, aren’t permitted to visit temples. Yet, this belief that the sanctity of a shrine will be shattered if a woman on period enters the temple will remain to exist unless a change be brought. And, I believe that the uplifting of the ban on entry of women (within the age group 10 and 50) to Sabarimala proves to be a Magna Carta of gender equality.

Justice D.Y Chandrachud, one of the five judges of the constitution bench said that “The stigma around menstruation has been built up around traditional beliefs in the impurity of menstruating women. The menstrual process of a woman cannot be a valid constitutional basis to deny her the dignity of being and autonomy of personhood. The constitutional values stand above everything else as a principle which brooks no exceptions, even when confronted with a claim of religious belief.”

When such an explanation is given, they would bring in the instances of religious practises by other communities which are discriminative and oppressive. They would bring up the question – Why at Sabarimala? Gandhi says “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. Well, let the change begin from here. Let Hinduism prove to be an all-inclusive religion. Rather than creating havoc over this verdict, the Hindus must be proud and happy to welcome the Supreme Court’s judgement.  We can hope to see further changes in such practises of other religions too, because we live in a country called India.

All this being said, there will still be many people bringing their most powerful argument that it will destroy the sanctity of the Sanctum Sanctorum with the entry of women of all age groups. If the intention is pure devotion and if it is out of total faith then it should never be discriminated on the basis of caste, class, gender or even religion. Many (including the former president of Travancore Devaswom Board) fear that this would turn the shrine of Lord Ayyappa into a  tourism spot. I don’t understand how these same people didn’t bring such a similar concern to the proposal of an airport project for the holy place. Well, I guess increased levels of oestrogen makes a better tourism destination than an effective transportation network (a strategy other tourism spots could adopt).

Finally, to those who would only go by the holy books and scripts and would never let down their stand on the age-old custom, I just have got one thing to say. Just because it is written, it doesn’t have to be followed; and just because it is followed it doesn’t have to be right.

This is the most daring judgement of SC and it will lead to hammer out such ugly prejudices in many religions and help to achieve progressive democracy in society. The pilgrims should visit the shrine following the system of the holy place, men and women alike. They should preserve the true sense of worship.