The Sabarimala Supreme court verdict to allow entry of women
of age 10-50 has triggered violent rift between devotees (including women) backed by the right wing and the communist led left wing who are incidentally the ruling party of Kerala. While devotees backed by RSS,
BJP are adamant that they will not allow women of age 10-50 (categorized as
child bearing age) into the temple at any cost, the state government are mandated (on the basis of the Supreme court verdict) that security is
ensured to women of the restricted age if they chose to enter the temple. Interestingly the left wing, who are
ideologically atheists, and who submitted affidavit in favor of unrestricted entry
for women, were delighted to welcome the Supreme court verdict. They argue that
there is no place for age old traditions to continue in the modern age. After
the recent Kerala flood, a new religious flood gate has opened and the Supreme
court verdict has set a perfect backdrop for the believers and law makers which ironically consists of non-believers to clash.
Right after the Supreme court verdict, In October 2018, the
temple was open for 5 days and attempt by several women of restricted age 10-50
to enter the temple was met with violent protest from the devotees and none of
the women in the 10-50 age group were able to make it to the temple. Despite
police escort all the way(6 km trek) from Pampa to the Sannidhanam, the women were
stopped by devotees within the temple premises. Fearing statewide backlash from
believers, the police and government decided to avoid a face-off with the devotees
in a holy place and the women who attempted to enter the temple had to return without fulfilling their wish for darshan
with the deity.
Is Judiciary the right entity to direct the change in traditions
believed to be age old in religious places?
In 2016 the Bombay High Court issued a directive allowing entry of women
into the inner sanctum of the sacred Haji Ali Daragh. Now women are entering
there without restrictions. Article 25(1) of the constitution of India guarantees
the right to freedom to profess, propagate and practice religion. Article 26(b)
guarantees the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in
matters of religion and article 26(d) guarantees these denominations to
administer property in accordance with law which demands the equality of all persons.
Certainly, there is a grey area when we try to connect Article 25(1) and 26(d) which
guarantees equality with 26(b) which guarantees the religious denomination to
manage their own affairs.
While the Supreme court is to hear review petitions on 13th
November, the temple is due to re-open again on 16th November, and the
agitation by devotees (who has vowed to fight until the ban is reinstated) is
likely to continue. It will be an arduous
task for the state government to maintain law and order if the review petitions
are turned down by the Supreme court.
As for opposition political parties in the state such as Congress and
BJP, the whole commotion gives a perfect
opportunity for diverting the vote banks.
