When the Supreme Court announced its judgment in the case pertaining to entry of women in Sabarimala temple, reactions came in a million different shades. Four judgments were delivered, with Chief Justice Dipak Misra writing on behalf of himself and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar. Justices R.F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud penned separate, though concurring, judgments. Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole woman judge on the bench, however, gave a dissenting judgment favouring the ban, and even said that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. There were those who said the judgment was a laudable strike for gender equality, while others claimed the judgment did not take into account the special customs and traditions surrounding the deity. “For one Sabarimala, there are a million other temples that offer entry irrespective of gender”, was the common argument to go around social media. Here, THE WEEK speaks to some activists and personalities who have expressed their wish to “protect the temple traditions”.
Rahul Easwar, an outspoken activist against plans to “dilute the temple traditions”, expressed his disappointment with the verdict. He said that they (a coalition of groups) would file a review petition. “Sadly, the judiciary has not been sensitive to the cultural demands, just like in the Jallikkattu case. It is a very dangerous verdict that will go against the very grain of temples and destabilise the temple structure. Article 25 will be diluted. We will continue our fight against it.”
Padma Pillai, the spokesperson for #ReadyToWait movement, a collective that supported the age-old practice of not allowing women in the menstruating age to enter the shrine, said that the Supreme Court verdict was not the end, but the beginning of a battle. “This is definitely just the beginning of a huge battle we are going to take forward; a battle to free Hindu temples in the country from non-believing, secular establishments which are now interfering in our matters.” The #ReadyToWait social media campaign was launched in August 2016. For her, and for other woman devotees, the verdict does not change anything, she said. “We will wait for our time to visit Sabarimala. Because a devotee will respect the desires of Lord Ayyappa and the basic belief of naishtika brahmacharya.”
Pillai reiterated the need to look at the deity as a person and respect his rights. “A Hindu temple is not a public space. It is the abode of the deity and the battle is to re-establish the rights of the deity as a living person who has rights as given in the Constitution. We need more clarifications if the deities in Hindu temples will continue to be considered as legal individuals. That is the legal part of the fight,” she said.
The other part of the fight is towards the democratic establishment itself, she added. “People's representatives will have to answer why something which does not disrupt any social harmony or physical and day-to-day life of a woman is being arbitrated upon. The rights of thousands of women Ayyappa devotees are being infringed upon.”
“At this point of time, we would like to believe that the deity has a right to privacy and set of rules that need to be followed, and only those people who are interested in sticking to those rules should be allowed. A temple is not a place you visit for fun; we go there because we have a certain affection for the deity. So, if you are going to look at it like a tourist or a customer, the judgment destroys the very sanctity of the place of worship.”
While the judgment is being hailed as another milestone for womens' rights, Pillai choses to differ. “I am always for feminism and equality outcome. But, what is the equality that comes out from this verdict? There may be a sense of satisfaction, but it no way improves a woman's life. Overreach of feminism, and such concepts do not work in Hindutva because Hindutva has different paths for men and women,” she said.
Renowned athlete P.T. Usha agrees with the verdict, but says that, in her opinion, women (of any age group), should not go to Sabarimala. "But the Supreme Court verdict is right in its own respect. Those who wish to honour tradition can keep away from the shrine [till it is time], and I don't think women who are not devotees will visit the shrine either. Had we sustained the forest ecology around Sabarimala, it would not have been so easy even for the men to visit the temple so frequently. These days, the allegiance to the deity and pilgrimage wows have also been lost. New provisions like 'dolis' [palanquin-type structures used to carry devotees] will further make it difficult to regulate the inflow of pilgrims into the shrine."
