KOCHI:
P R V Raja, Pandalam
Some undertake the pilgrimage through the route, with attire and requirements prescribed by the Lord, some to comply with the ‘nityabrahmachari’ idol in the temple, some to re-enact His journey with ‘irumudi’ and weapons to fetch leopards, others to commemorate His trip to kill Udayanan and yet others in yet different mindsets. No belief expects women to undertake the trip. If women are permitted in the name of equality, Constitution or human rights, we have to recreate new stories and fictions. There is also need to consider limitations on Pandalam Palace, restrictions in other temples, rights of other devotees, what is expected from a secular democratic government, drift of pilgrimage into tourism, hidden interests of petitioners and most importantly security of women and the Constitutional sanction of customs. Doing away with the restrictions on section of women devotees would be a matter of dissatisfaction to Pandalam Palace which, along with many others, including women, feel it would not fetch God’s pleasure and blessings.
Ajay S Kumar, Plavode
Most of the Ayyappa temples in the state other than the Sabarimala temple allow women to enter inside it without any restrictions. If beliefs and customs are to be followed, it should be followed at all the Ayyappa temples in the same way. Following one kind of belief in one place and other in another place is not acceptable. Also the Supreme Court’s intervention into this issue is welcome. Sabarimala temple is one of the few temples that welcomes men and women of every caste. Devotees dress uniformly in black. The colour signifies that everyone is equal before Ayyappa, irrespective of caste, creed, colour or religion. But it is unconstitutional that even in this 21st century without showing any valid proof why women are being banned to enter into the temple.
Dr T D Radhakrishnan Nair, Kozhikode
There is no gender discrimination at Sabarimala temple. However, there have been some restrictions for women in the age group of 10 to 50. This rule, being followed from time immemorial, is there only to protect people. Devotees visit this temple to experience the grace of the higher soul which manifests as individual souls associated with each and every mind. Anything that can cause disturbance to peace of mind will be harmful to the very purpose of experiencing the divine grace. People going to this hill shrine observe 41-day ‘penance’ to condition their mind for equanimity. One can imagine the situation if anything untoward happens when young women are also there in such a big crowd. Hence legal interference to change customs and traditions established to maintain peace and tranquility in the hill shrine is unwelcome until sufficient arrangements are made.
T V Venkateswaran, Edappally
It is just unthinkable of SC’s decision to allow entry of young women to worship at the Sabarimala temple flouting the centuries old traditions. In fact, this tradition has been in vogue in many temples in Kerala, in which they follow the rich and customary rituals prescribed by no another person than Adi Shankaracharya of Kalady. I don’t know why courts intervene only in Hindu temples and not any other religion of our country. Once the entry is allowed, one can expect other nefarious activities taking place in the temple surroundings infested in heavy forests. Tomorrow, no one needs to wonder that people may approach courts to allow pilgrims to wear footwears inside the temples. No doubt, violation of vedic rituals and practices, will lead to natural calamities.
Sunny Joseph, Mala
It is not the courts that should take decisions on matters relating to religious beliefs and customs. A few years ago the general consensus was that justices were like umpires, objectively presiding over the nation’s legal system. But religion will not fall under that category. Now, religions have a prominent role and they have their own religious scholars and priests to decide what should be followed and what not. They don’t fall under the IPC. I am not suggesting that it is inappropriate, but there used to be a studied effort to avoid bringing one’s own religious values into court decisions. The Supreme Court’s decision on the issue of women’s entry to Sabarimala is premature.
S Rajasekharan Nair, Kowdiar
The ban on women in the age bracket of 10 to 50 to worship in the Sabarimala temple is an unfair practice, whatever be the arguments in favour of it. Allowing it to continue in the name of belief is against the constitutional tenets as rightly pointed out by the SC. It was belief which prohibited Dalits from entering temples, but that discrimination could not stand the test of time thanks to an executive order. The same belief again is the reason behind the abominable custom of the Dalits rolling over the leaves in which the Brahmins take their food in a Karnataka temple. Judiciary has to intervene in such matters, be it religious, social or racial when pleas for redressal are brought before it. It is natural that age-old customs get reformed and refined with the passage of time and the present bar also has to succumb to this rule sooner or later.
Usha Haridas, Kochi
To abruptly abolish a custom which is being followed since 1,500 years or more needs to be debated. An order by law or a government in this regard makes it very obvious its hidden agenda. There is a sentimental belief in restricting women aged below 50 from entering Sabarimala. Women do visit Ayyappa temples situated elsewhere. Entry of women is restricted only to Sabarimala due to the sanctity of the place where Lord Ayyappa decided to stay immortal. Till date, female devotees of Lord Ayyappa had been following this restriction and intend to continue with all respect. The ideal way to deal with such issues is to give a deaf ear by law, government and the leaders of Hinduism.
V S UNNITHAN, KAYAMKULAM
It has to be acknowledged that in the secular fabric of India, religious undercurrents are very much alive. There is no denying the fact that like most societies of the world, our culture cherishes to incorporate in itself faiths, beliefs, customs as well as superstitions. It is seen that every religion functions on certain dos and don’ts. Logic, reason and rights have no place in religious affairs. The entry of all women regardless of their age to temples and shrines is one such question to be decided by the temple authorities concerned. Although, the prevalent ban on women’s pilgrimage to Sabarimala does not make any sense, religious sentiments and customs should take precedence over judicial observations or executive directions.
Suvarna Vijayachandran, email
In my opinion, this is yet not time to permit unrestricted entry of women into Sabarimala temple. I suggest girls be taken to the hill shrine until the age of 10 and women choose to go there after 50. Does the petitioner in the Supreme Court strongly believe that any woman from the section he represents would gain God’s blessings or any other benefit from a worship at Sabarimala? How many of them, he expects, would make, at least, a casual trek to the hilltop? Interestingly, a well-known rationalist was seen speaking on a TV channel, the other day, supporting the petitioner’s cause but at the same time advising women viewers not to go to Sabarimala. Or, is the worry all about ‘equality before law’? In that case, I think, the petitioner will be long remembered if he fights and wins a case demanding elimination of discrimination between VIPs and common men on public roads.
Dr Dolly Thomas, Kochi
There is no need for the court to intervene in matters of belief and custom unless something violent or life threatening for any citizen irrespective of religion or gender occurs. Basically, many religions might be practising different kinds of rituals, many of which might not be including women. Even if such rituals have been existing from the time immemorial, they might have been made, keeping in mind, the inconveniences which, may be caused to women. Most of the religions have certain rituals, which are not allowed by women during this phase, as such rituals have been attached to preservation of the sanctity. This idea may have been highlighted by different religions as they might have kept in mind, the inconveniences which maybe caused to women (during this phase), regarding maintenance of strict standards of hygiene in all places of worship as well as a fit body while fasting. This only might have been a more refined way of highlighting a practical problem.
Shaj Koodathil, Mahe
Every religion has its own beliefs and customs. It is a fact that some of which are logical and some illogical. But beliefs are beliefs. The sceptic and rationalist ones have the right to question them. But, I personally feel that it is a wild goose chase. Since the multitude have no problem with regard to the matter, I think the courts will approach the matter giving due consideration to the sentiments of the religion.
Soman Shekhar, email
Let’s visit some 60 odd years back, this was the time that devotees to the Ayyappa temple had to trek days together in the deep forest. Those were the days when they went in a group of 10 to15 and nobody could guarantee the return of a devotee back home as it was quite dangerous trekking through the deep forest, as a lot of wild animals roamed around close to these devotees. Those were the days when the devotees were true to their fasting and remained a true Brahmachari for 41 days. Today it is much easier to go on pilgrimage to Sabarimala as there are good roads leading right up to Pampa. Moreover unlike the yesteryear a percentage of devotees do not observe 41-day fasting. When changes like these have come up in favour of man then why not consider lifting the ban on women devotees?
O Gangadharan, Angamaly
“Those who believe in tradition can only be truly modern,” so said an eminent thinker. Rituals and religious practices/customs in Hindu temples vary from temple to temple, even from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Centuries old customs and religious practices being observed in Sabarimala Ayyappa temple should be protected and preserved. There is no gender discrimination because womenfolk are not entirely denied permission to visit the temple. Only certain age-related restrictions are put in place for obvious reasons. Courts should not be dragged unnecessarily into taking a decision on religious beliefs and customs. In a secular country, this approach will create a dangerous precedent. Even in many Hindu households, womenfolk during their monthly periods refrain themselves from performing religious rituals and poojas, out of age-old belief and faith. Treat the said restriction as a religious disciplinary code and not as a gender discrimination.
NARAYANASWAMY RAMAN, PARALI
In the garb of interpreting the Constitution, if courts start taking decisions on matters of belief and custom it will portend grave danger to the healthy survival of religious places. Judicial over-activism in religious matters will only complicate things further instead of settling disputes amicably. Having said that, the Travancore Devaswom Board should, on its part, soft pedal on the matter and accept the fact that customs are man-made and can therefore be subjected to change. The super-flexibility of Hindu religion allows that. The Board should rather consider allowing girls and women belonging to the menstruating age group to select a date of their choice to wear the mala and start the holy yatra the same day without observing the prescribed fast, in which case the question of these potential ‘sinners’ desecrating the sanctum sanctorum will not rise.
Dr M Haneef, Kottayam
Decisions on matters of belief and customs do not come under the jurisdiction of courts. It is up to the communities concerned to discuss and take appropriate actions based on the changed circumstances. Courts should not entertain such cases as long as they do not adversely affect people of other faiths. Even while other temples did not permit people of the so-called lower castes to enter and worship, Sabarimala did not discriminate the Hindus. They may have some reasons to keep away women of certain age groups. It is up to them to decide whether to change the present system or not. Muslim women are permitted to enter their most sacred places of worship in Mecca and Medina in spite of a tough Saudi administration. Now a lot of mosques allow women to get inside and pray. These slow changes did not occur due to any court verdict. The community corrected the mistakes itself.
E SETHURAMALINGAM, Kollam
Whatever be the abodes of worship, all are equal. The main thing to be followed there should be ‘gender equality’ and both genders, fine creation of nature, should be treated alike. It is absurd and meaningless to argue that if female devotees between 10 and 50 are permitted to worship at Sabarimala shrine, sanctity and celibacy of the hill deity would be at stake and that it is akin to sin. Anjaneya is the God of not only strength but also celibacy being worshipped more by women than male devotees. Women would themselves avoid visiting the shrine on those forbidden days of ‘outing.’ For abodes of law, there is no sin; only crime counts. Unless the statute book has it otherwise, a court can interfere in, and decide on, any matter of dispute. Belief or custom, nothing would come in its way. The SC’s balance of convenience is, therefore, in fair sex’s favour.
Pious Alummoottil, Udayamperoor
It is a fact that courts cannot take decision on matters of belief and faith. But the courts have the right to make observations on any point during the hearing of a case. In the Sabarimala issue also, the court has raised a valid point on the constitutional and human rights of an individual whether man or woman irrespective of their age. But the entry of woman has to be decided by the responsible persons based on the traditions there. If women of all age group are allowed the heavy rush at Sabarimala will become uncontrollable. If women are allowed, it will transform Sabarimala into a tourist place, and the sanctity may be affected. Therefore, if women are allowed to enter, it will be better to have a separate time schedule exclusively for them.
V N Mukundarajan, T’Puram
The SC’s poser on the alleged discrimination against women from worshipping at the Sabarimala appears to have been borne out of misplaced reformist zeal and betrays lack of a nuanced understanding of essential traditions that vary from one place of worship to another. For instance, the restriction on entry to women outside the age group 10-50 at Sabarimala does not apply to other temples dedicated to the same deity located in different parts of the country. The restrictions placed on women at Sabarimala cannot be interpreted either as an illegality or as an act of blatant discrimination just as for example barring entry to certain sections of society based on caste. Just as the state cannot interfere in the essential practices of a community, the judiciary is also expected to desist from tampering with the rights of the Hindu community to manage its own affairs.
SUNDARAM GOVIND, Aluva
A query posed by the Supreme Court whether it is possible to allow entry to all women in Sabarimala is misconstrued as a tacit approval for such entry. It is a well settled principle of law that a reasonable classification stands scrutiny even among women on the basis of health, belief and convenience. There is no question of discrimination on the basis of sex as all women are not banned. The difficult terrain of this hillock temple poses problems to the women pilgrims in the matter of keeping privacy. It is an age-old custom that women of 10 to 50 years do not visit Sabarimala observing 41 days of penance. This custom has the force of law.
O B Nair, Poonithura
It seems some people take pride in creating hassles when everything goes smooth. The subject here is about not permitting women within some age group to undertake pilgrimage to ‘Sabarimala’. The deity of this hill shrine is a celibate by belief and the custom of women in reproductive age group not visiting this temple is very old. Moreover, before this, mechanised travel up to Pampa got introduced it was only the traditional hill track through dense forests which the women folk could have found difficult to negotiate. It is the religious sentiments and age old customs which matter and not a legal issue or gender discrimination against the rights of equality. The Constitution guarantees the protection of rituals and customs and the mortals have no right to undermine this. Moreover, even if the women entry is forcibly implemented, the number of believers adhering to the new custom will be low.
Dr Asok Sanker, Kollam
Customs and traditions practised for centuries could be changed according to the changing times. The temple entry proclamation was a revolution in allowing entry of scheduled castes and other backward communities into the Hindu temples. But the sanctity of the temple has to be preserved for want of hygiene and health. Women of the reproductive age group are unable to maintain hygiene for 41 days at a stretch and so it is better for those women not to try for an entry but wait till they attain menopause or 50 years of age, whichever is earlier. As of now, hundreds and thousands of people throng the hilly shrine after taking bath in the Pampa which is polluted to the core at least during the season. Sanitation and hygiene are not maintained though volunteers in large numbers are deputed to clean it.
Suman G Pai,Kanhangad
The recent query of the SC whether to allow women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple will go against the thousands of followers who strictly follow the tradition since ages. The ban on entry to women between the age group of 10 and 50 is certainly won’t affect women or their kin in any way. The Constitution can be amended in such a way to include the holy places of other religions also. It will be a meaningful move if a uniform law can be passed on the customs of all religions practised in India! Aiming at Hinduism will surely go against the very grain of truth and it is blatant discrimination which must be avoided to respect all religions equally! But it is pure vote bank politics to appease voters to assure seat in polls.