Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are of the author and does not reflect TheRelato’s.
The Sabarimala case which is heated debate for a while is getting ugly day by day with gross violation of human rights and the right to pray by the Kerala government in a rush to implement the judgement. Many in the mainstream media and intellectuals are always looking it from gender discrimination point of view without knowing the real history. Let us see some of the arguments and counterarguments of the case.
The Sabarimala case where some argue i.e. gender inequality, discrimination of women, but they missed the point i.e. the temple doesn’t allow women of reproductive capability only because of history & origin of the temple where the lord Ayyapa has taken a Naishtika Brahmachari vow similar to sadhus who cannot come in contact with women of reproductive age, people misunderstood as Brahmachari not having sex, many may bring the argument of Hanuman into this saying Hanuman too Brahmachari but women are allowed into his temple,as far as Hanuman is considered he never took any vow and also he just simply follows 8 principles of brahmacharya but in Ayyapa case it goes beyond those 8 principles, as deity is legal person he has the right to control proceedings in his temple if you see another lord ayyapa temples, their they allow people of all gender.
If you see there are many temples in Hinduism where only men are allowed where some only women are allowed, even women-only festivals are more, like Attukal Pongal festival etc, it is a culture, not gender discrimination, these feminists are bringing the argument that Hinduism is discriminating mensurating women, for kind information there are temples in Hinduism like Kamakheya temple in Guwahati one of shakti petam is a mensuration temple, the discrimination in Sabarimala is also there between people who took Diksha of 41 days & those who did not, someone may bring argument saying” I will offer chicken to god as my way of worship “, if we allow everything in name of equality, even some may bring the argument that diety is above everything unlike sadhus who are humans and it doesn’t effect diety, in Hinduism we have Vedic,tantric tradition according to tantric tradition these places of worship cause negative energy to reproductive women, even if we see ayyapa was born when Vishnu seduced shiva in Mohini form and if they are gods how the hell is this happened? you may strike it down as superstition but it is religious belief & in some Hindu traditions god is closely associated with human & prone to mistakes like a human.
Some may bring the argument your god is Brahmachari ok, why he attracts only to women why not to men? yes, it is a valid question but as per Sthala Purana and other documents ayyapa was never homosexual god, unlike other Hinduism gods, even if u see other temples of ayyapa in Sabarimala, one he is in child form other married, other in old age one is brahmacharya there they allow women of all gender, in the same Hinduism in one temple they give meet to god like Kali temples in Calcutta and same god, is vegetarian in other temples, it is culture, out of lakhs of temples in Hinduism only a few less than 10 does not allow women in some case and men in some case.
Even if Supreme Court allows women those who follow traditions won’t go only those who want to mock traditions will go if they really believe the god and his history they will respect it and no one tries to override it, if they did not believe in the god why in the first place you want to go to that temple? one should know history before saying everything as caste, gender discrimination. I do not understand why Kerala government is so serious about implementation of the judgement when the same Kerala government did not do anything until today to implement Kerala Malankara church case siting law and order issue. sabarimala acted as a breakwater to religious conversions in south India, Sabarimala helped poor and lower caste a lot, they earned respect because everyone has to call the person who took Diksha as Swamy and riksha puller earned respect by it from people after he took the oath,it helped women a lot because the husband cannot take alcohol and cannot do other illicit affairs because of the Diksha which changed the behaviour of many people, by breaking the belief and traditions people breaking the whole system behind it ,it may help for easy religious conversions also.
Let us assume it is gender inequality for a moment, and Supreme Court is serious about gender equality will they allow men into women-only festivals, temples? will they allow women into mosques, will they allow women to become mullas, church priests? if they r so serious about gender equality what about Nikah halal, Nikah mut’ah, polygamy, child marriages, female genital mutilation? What about the misuse of 498a the same court agreed its misuse but did not do anything, sexual harassment? will they ever make domestic violence, sexual harassment, maintenance laws gender neutral?