To us
Hinduism is a way of life ~ it is with
deep sense of anguish that we received the verdict which contravenes the beliefs and conventions followed for thousands
of years in Sabarimala overruled by a Court judgement ….this is no comment on
the judicial position or questioning the verdict, yet – I like many millions of
others believe, that such beliefs are supreme and are outside the purview of
Courts (as has been held many a times, when it comes to questioning of practices
of others religious beliefs.)
The
argument that women are barred from entering the Sabarimala shrine is farcical
and untrue. The absolute truth is that lakhs of women come to Sabarimala every
year. That itself goes to prove that this whole debate is misplaced and based
on a wrong premise. Restrictions are in place only for those women aged between
10 and 50 and this is primarily due to “Naishtika Brahmacharya Pratishta”
wherein the reigning deity of the Sabarimala shrine is an absolute celibate.
Sanathana
dharma ~ our religious protocol is well defined. We worship idols (Archavatharam for
Srivaishanvaites) – Our deities are present in both physical/
temporal and philosophical form. Our beloved deities are capable of having different physical and
spiritual forms or manifestations. Worship of each of these forms is unique,
and not all forms are worshipped by all persons. The form of the deity in any
temple is of paramount importance. For instance, Lord Krishna in the temple at
Nathdwara, at Mathura, Guruvayur is infant ~ at Thiruvallikkeni divaydesam, He
is the Supreme avatar – charioteer of Arjun hence, Sri Parthasarathi.
The
holy Sabarimala draws millions of people – Lord Ayyappa, the presiding deity of Sabarimala had his
human sojourn at Pandalam as the son of the King of Pandalam, known by the name
of Manikandan, who found him as a radiant faced infant on the banks of the
river Pampa, wearing a bead (‘mani’) around his neck. Manikandan’s feats and
achievements convinced the King and others of his divine origin. Few facts need to
be understood even by people who are God believers but still support SC
decision. Lord Iyappa is the Lord of masses - the cult of Sabarimala broke the ‘divide’
created internally within the Hinduism and also created by ‘’divide and rule’’
model of invaders. During the Sabarimala season, you can see millions of people
wearing coloured dhotis, wearing the mala and sandal paste on their foreheads.
They observe strict ‘’brahmacharya’’,strictly follow food restrictions, live a
dharmic path. These *Iyappa samis* mingle freely with each other without any
discrimination based on caste, age, social status etc etc.. address each other
‘Sami’. Faith has been deeply rooted in society's political and moral behaviour. Any challenge to that faith, offends followers and believers, seriously threatens the very fabric of religious
beliefs.
Sabarimala
Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, is the most famous and
prominent among all the Sastha temples in Kerala. The temple is situated on a
hilltop (about 3000 feet above sea level) named Sabarimala in Pathanamthitta
district, which is unique. One of the unique aspects of this temple is that it is
not open throughout the year. It is open for worship only during the days of
Mandalapooja, Makaravilakku and Vishu.
Till a few decades, the path was strewn with all difficulties – pilgrims
would encounter difficult weather, forest animals and more – they would endure
everything for their Lord – to have darshan of that deity. Devotees observe celibacy for 41 days before
going to Sabarimala. Most devotees take
the traditional forest routes as well as the one from Pamba and reach the
sannidhan, the place where Lord Ayyappa meditated soon after killing the demon,
Mahishi. Before His darshan, pilgrims
elatedly walk through the Holy 18 steps figuratively called *Ponnu
Pathinettampadi*, 'Ponnu' being an
epithet to denote the holy touch of lord's feet. Only those who observe 41
day's of austerity as ritual can only carry ‘Irumudi’ are allowed to pass
through these steps.
Now comes the
present judgment that threaten to put an end to centuries-old tradition. Apex Court on Friday ruled that women, irrespective
of age, can enter Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. A five-judge Constitution bench, stated
that the rules of 1965, which authorised the restriction,
violated the right of Hindu women to practice religion. It also said that
patriarchy in religion cannot be allowed to trump the right to pray. Justice Indu Malhotra, who penned a dissenting
verdict, said the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
The
whole thing became a political debate, a matter before Court, because of some
specious arguments put forward
deliberately by left-leaning feminists, with the sole purpose of misleading the
masses. Every temple has a unique "pratishta sankalpa" i.e. the
choice of a particular aspect of a particular deity for worship. The rules
& regulations of a particular temple or pilgrimage are based on who the
reigning deity is and the sampradhaya followed in that specific temple. We see God everywhere and worship our God in
various forms in temples, which have significance of their timeline, who built,
who worshipped, and many other religious aspects. There are hundreds of Ayyappa temples which
allow all women - age no bar - because those temples have a different
“pratishta” concept. Just take a look at the Attukal Pongala – the female
version of the Sabarimala pilgrimage. It has even found mention in the Guinness
book of World records for being the largest congregation of women on earth with
over 30 lakh women offering pongala to the Attukal Devi, a goddess worshipped
in Kerala. Here, women enjoy a privilege that is given to no male.
A clutch of
petitions had challenged the ban at Sabarimala, which was upheld by the Kerala
High Court. The HC had ruled that only the “tantri (priest)” was empowered to
decide on traditions. The petitioners, argued in court that the tradition is
discriminatory in nature and stigmatised women, and that women should be
allowed to pray at the place of their choice.
Four judges on the bench ruled in favour of lifting the ban on women
entering Sabarimala temple. CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Khanwilkar, Nariman
and Chandrachud found the practice discriminatory in nature and that it
violates Hindu women's right to pray. Here are top quotes from the majority
judgment: CJI said devotion cannot be
subjected to discrimination. "Patriarchal rules have to change. Patriarchy
in religion cannot be allowed to trump right to pray and practise
religion", he said. Justice Khanwilkar concurred with the CJI's verdict.
All judges ruled that devotees of
Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination. Hon’ble Justice Indu Malhotra, the only woman on the bench,
said that the petition does not deserve to be entertained. She was of the view
that it is not for courts to determine which religious practices are to be
struck down except in issues of social evil like ‘Sati’. Adding that the issue is critical to various
religions, she said, “Issues of deep religious sentiments should not be
ordinarily be interfered by the court. The Sabarimala shrine and the deity is
protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India and the religious
practices cannot be solely tested on the basis of Article 14.” “Notions of
rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion,” said Justice Malhotra,
adding: “What constitutes essential religious practice is for the religious
community to decide, not for the court. India is a diverse country.
Constitutional morality would allow all to practise their beliefs. The court
should not interfere unless if there is any aggrieved person from that section
or religion.” “Present judgment won’t be limited to Sabarimala, it will have
wide ramifications. Issues of deep religious sentiments shouldn’t be ordinarily
interfered into,” said Justice Malhotra further.
She also said that
“Religious practices can’t solely be tested on the basis of the right to
equality. It’s up to the worshippers, not the court to decide what’s religion’s
essential practice.” .. .. Court perhaps
should not have intervened in this purely religious affair, however, even with
this judgement in place, it seems unlikely that women believers will now
suddenly break religious norms, and automatically break out of years of social
conditioning, in order to enter Sabarimala temple. As evinced by the now-resurgent #ReadyToWait
campaign on social media, this judgement doesn’t grant the present generation
of religious believers a right they themselves were actively asking for, nor
does it say that women must now enter the temple. It merely intervenes to
remove a religious ban in accordance with the Constitutional law of the land,
allowing believers who choose to enter the temple to now do so. But will they?
Elsewhere, article 9 of the European Convention on Human
Rights safeguards freedom of religion. This freedom is not confined to freedom
to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one's
beliefs. In our Country, Article 26 in
The Constitution Of India states :
26. Freedom
to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every
religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right: (a) to
establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;(b)
to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire
movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in
accordance with law.
Religious beliefs
are held to be sacred by those who have faith.
Religion does not merely lay down a code of ethical rules for its
followers to accept, but also includes rituals and observances, ceremonies and
modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of the religion In matters of religion and religious practises,
Article 14 can be invoked only by persons who are similarly situated, that is,
persons belonging to the same faith, creed, or sect. The Petitioners in the
impugned case did not claim to be devotees of Lord Ayyappa, who are aggrieved by
the practises followed in the Sabarimala Temple. The right to equality under
Article 14 in matters of religion and religious beliefs has to be viewed
differently. In deciding the question as to whether a
given religious practise is an integral part of the religion or not, the test
always would be whether it is regarded as such by the community following the
religion or not.
So, this verdict
has deeply anguished followers.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
29th
Sept. 2018.
Pic credit : //sabarimala.tdb.org.in/
No comments:
Post a Comment