We are a complex society where countless faiths, beliefs and customs co-exist. The reason we are able to co-exist, mostly peacefully, is that we let our neighbours be. And as a state, by and large, we have been minimally invasive (so far) on issues of faith.

Sabarimala is a lesson in how unintended consequences can follow an intervention by an all-powerful institution which clinically applies principles of law and Constitution—or as it interprets them—on issues of faith.

The danger with an unconventional view on any contentious issue, is bound to be misconstrued. Whether women should be allowed in Sabarimala, or Sikh women go around on motorcycles without helmets or Triple talaq, an awful injustice to Muslim women, or the practice of Female genital mutilation is an abomination? All these need to go. But should we not leave it to social and political reformers from within to form the opinion before interpreting legally or making it a law. Some might compare ‘sati’ with these… but I totally disagree……??

Thiruvathira Thirunal Lakshmi Bayi, the XII Princess of the erstwhile state of Travancore, within which is situated the Sabarimala temple, narrates her impressions in her article in Sunday gaurdian:

There is an interesting legend that the local feminine deity, Malikapurathamma, leads the queue of prospective female wooers of the deity. Lord Ayyappa, so goes the belief among the believers, has promised to marry Her if there were no first time Sabarimala pilgrims in any year, something yet to happen.

The story apart, What makes a piece of stone divine are the esoteric rituals going back millennia that have been designed by the ancients to energise it into Godhead, to infuse the divine power of the universe within its form. To this is over time added the faith of millions of devotees who experience in themselves the energy and power of God in the vigraham sculpted by an artisan. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala has been worshipped for ages within the rules and rites of tradition that are particular and exclusive to Him. 

A show of “devotion” to the deity sans respect for the unique, societally benign and age-old traditions and practices created around Him and for Him seems to many to be a sham. To behold Shri Ayyappa without devotion in the heart and veneration in the mind, as though gazing upon a portrait in a museum, would indeed be a travesty of the spirit of the worshipper who seeks to enter the temple.

In the absence of a separate statute in the Indian constitution for Hindu religion with polytheistic deities, inferences are drawn by the Indian judiciary, from cases in international courts where disputes on monotheistic religions are settled. SC rested its Sabarimala verdict on essential practices doctrine devised by US SC in Davis v Beason founded on Monotheism, imported into Indian jurisprudence thro Sirur Mutt case. Davis rule will not apply to polytheistic faiths. Unfortunately these interpretations are grossly inadequate representations of  ground realities calling for either education on these matters for better appreciation to those who decide the matters or suitable enactments by the supreme parliament, if the millinium old religion has to be preserved with it’s sanctity. 

The women activists who entered surreptitiously might consider taking up another cause of women devotees after securing successful verdicts to gain entry into shani and Ayyappa temples from the honourable courts:

The little known Kongalli Mallikarjuna Swamy temple, on the Chamarajanagar-Erode border, which is 98km from Mysuru city, does not allow any female devotees as it is believed it would disturb the celibacy of the deity. Some claims that as the shrine is located in the middle of the thick forest, known for tigers, leopards, elephants, bears, etc. the ban may have been put in place keeping in mind the safety of women. According to the temple priest, this temple has a 1,200-year-old history and till now neither any woman has been allowed nor any woman tried to enter ‘forcibly’ inside the shrine!

Has the stage been very appropriately set for getting the much wanted media glare apart from gaining entry? or the temple is not that worth for the game?

There may be a sigh of relief in the devout followers of Ayyappan, with Subramaniam Swamy having softened his stance on the issue of permission to women devotees! He has requested to be briefed on agamas based on which certain rituals are followed in Sabarimala; it remains to be seen whether he would pick up the (cause) cherry. If anyone can ‘unsettle’ the settled issue in Indian judiciary, the inimitable maverick  ‘Swamy’ is the last and the only one. He is capable of articulating in his own way to prove ‘his’ point! After all he is the one, who won the (weak) case for the Dhikshidars in chidambaram for the ‘ownership’ of Nataraja Temple! 

Unfortunately it is a painful fact of modern civilisation that arguments only can win a case in courts, not necessarily the truth!

The arguments put forwarded by Senior Advocate Shri K.Parasaran in Sabarimala case were also outstanding:

The Supreme Court continued its hearing on a petition seeking the removal of ban on women entering into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala on Wednesday (25 July). Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the Nair Service Society, argued that Lord Ayyappa’s avatar as “Naishtika Brahmachari” is protected by the Constitution.

Stating that democracies must protect religion, the senior counsel said and argued that the basis for the practice of barring women is due to the celibate nature of the deity and not misogyny. Parasaran says that there are several other famous Ayyappa Temples in Kerala which allow entry of women without age restrictions. Therefore, the Sabarimala Temple is not a case of discrimination. Hindu shastras do not support misogyny and chastity is a greater obligation on men, he said, adding that Article 25 (2) applies to only social reform and not matters of religion.

During the hearing, Justice Rohinton Nariman, in his observation, agreed with Parasaran that Articles 25 (2) and 17 of the Constitution deal with caste-based untouchability and not gender. Even if it were to apply to women, it would be based on caste, he argued.

Even if Article 25(2) applies to women, it is only with respect to social issues and not religious issues, he says. Article 25(2)(b) is at best an enabling provision for the legislature, it doesn’t enable the judiciary.