A visit to Sabarimala is not like a visit to many other temples, say, like Guruvayur. One makes a ‘pilgrimage’ to Sabarimala. Over time, the importance of vruthams has only grown. Even the judges, who delivered the 4:1 majority judgment in the matter of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple, would agree their order is sure to shatter the hopes and prayers of millions of devotees. Do we feel disappointed? The truth is the arguments, for and against, have reduced the litigation to a simple ‘women’s entry’ issue.
One fails to digest the observation by the Chief Justice “the devotees of Lord Ayyappa are exclusively Hindus”, because the fact is people, cutting across religions, states and countries, visit the forest temple. Even accepting all pilgrims are Hindus, to worship God in different forms and the same form under different concepts is a fact in Hinduism and so also are the devotees’ religious right.
It is based on this different temples with variations in installed idols and connected practices were/are built. It would be a conflict of belief if some believers/non-believers demand to change the form/concept around an existing temple on any ground. It is for the law to maintain the status quo. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court order has negated the centuries-old right and practice of a section of devotees to pay obeisance to Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala as naishtika brahmachari. If nothing else, it is the practice.
Legal intricacies
Common souls also fail to understand the legal intricacies in the observation that “a deity can sue and be sued but has no constitutional rights”.One really expected the practice would be protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution which is justified by the minority judgment. Article 14 came into the picture only because the question was reduced to discrimination against women. Nobody fears the Hindu religion will be fundamentally altered if women are allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple.
One makes a ‘pilgrimage’ to Sabarimala. There are certain strong beliefs about why it should be undertaken and how. The trek through the dense forests is in commemoration of Lord Ayyappa’s journey to kill forest thug Udayanan. While on his mission, he wore particular costumes, carried weapons and was accompanied by his army. Subsequently, the pilgrimage was intended to pray to him at his abode and was logically restricted to healthy males.
Rewriting beliefs
The participants followed strict vruthams (lifestyle). Over time, the importance of vruthams only gained but probably it was decided all who can follow them (vruthams) could make it to him, permitting girls below 10 and women above 50. If vrutham is dispensed with, the legends and beliefs on Ayyappa have to be rewritten to match the Supreme Court order.
The genuineness of the restrictions on women, though now interpreted as discrimination against women, in the menstruation age, is evident. How can any social or religious practice be abandoned for the reason that a few men or women felt it a smear on their dignity?
The Pandalam royal family which constructed around 40 temples and allowed unrestricted entry of women in all, except in Sabarimala, cannot be described as male chauvinists. Women, during menstrual periods, are subject to various restrictions, though not excluded from ‘everything’, might be of varying degrees from individual to individual. It is a strong belief menstruation is a very inauspicious period to visit temples and spiritual functions.
Biological factors like birth and death disallow the entry of men, women and children into temples and its precincts. If some men or women bypass the customs, other devotees cannot be blamed for it.
As for Sabarimala, the state government and the Travancore Devaswom Board are bound to ensure adherence to the rituals and practices. One thing is for sure: Once vrutham is given a go-by, the Sabarimala pilgrimage would reduce the visit to a ‘tourism’ project.
(The author is chairman of the Pandalam Kottaram Nirvahaka Sanghom)