So the contentious Sabarimala rule has reached the apex court of the country for arbritation. Being a malayali Hindu, I have grown up hearing about the 41 days vratham or abstention period men have to undertake before going to Sabarimala and why women between the age of 10 and 50 are not allowed to enter the temple because of their menstruation. I have always wondered why this age old custom has not been challenged by women till now. But Kerala society has been evolving and women are probably feeling empowered enough now to question the custom.
My understanding about the situation is, the contention here is between the 41 days abstention undertaken by men and the menstruation of women. Lets take the case of the abstention. As per ancient Indian texts, everyone’s life has 4 stages. Brahmacharya (student), Grihasta (householder), Vanaprastha (retired) and Sanyasa (renunciation). During my growing up years, I had heard from my grandmother about how people till 100 to 150 years back used to walk to Sabarimala from far off places because there was no other mode of transport. In addition to the package of offerings they were going to give at the temple, they would also carry a hurricane lantern and a machete and knives with them because they had to cut their way through jungles and thick bushes. So when these people start their journey, oil lamps in their names would be lit at their homes and ensured that it keeps on burning till they return. If they did not return in a certain period of time they would be assumed as attained the abode of the Lord of Sabarimala. Here, my understanding is that in olden times, only someone during the Brahmacharya, Vanaprastha or Sanyasa stages would have undertaken such a journey. A student who undertakes such a difficult abstention and journey would have most likely taken Sanyasa. At the Grihasta stage, it would have been difficult for both men and women to undertake such a difficult abstention and hazardous journey because of family responsibilities.
So what is it about the 41 days vratha or abstention? It is meant to cleanse our chakras and thus our spiritual self in the physical world by controlling our thoughts and actions. It is similar to a detoxification program. Now why does it run into conflict with menstruation? Enough and more has been mentioned about menstruation in this blog (https://mythrispeaks.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/unearthing-menstrual-wisdom-why-we-dont-go-to-the-temple/) and in many articles. My interpretation is, during menstruation, the changes that happens to a woman’s body during ovulation are discarded and her body functions are reversed. So what gets discarded by our body becomes waste and the waste from ovulation is being released from her body during menstruation. Question is, everyone releases waste from their body through excretion and through vomiting. So what is different with menstruation? I believe it has got to do with the blood which is going out of the woman’s body during menstruation.
Now, what has changed for the women to ask for the right to visit the temple? Fundamentally societal values have changed and eroded. In ancient times, Grihasta was supposed to be between 24 and 48 years. Now men and women are getting married irrespective of their age. Men are drinking alcohol and watching adult movies from their high school days itself. There is no Brahmacharya associated with students now. Men of both the Brahmacharya and Grihasta categories are visiting Sabarimala. They do the abstention for 41 days, visit Sabarimala and then get back to their old lifestyle. People who visited Sabarimala have told me that near the temple, restaurants and eateries lined up on the way all have the names of deities on their name boards and serve vegetarian food for people going to the temple and also serve meat and alcohol at the backside for people returning from the temple.
So if men of all ages can visit Sabarimala, why can’t women of all ages visit as well? I believe the Supreme Court should not consider commonsense, tradition or gender equality here. The Court should look at history, the reasons why such traditions have come into existence and if those traditions are still relevant in the present times. I believe a fair judgement does not lie in allowing all women to enter the temple. Rather, like women, men from the age of 10-50 should also be not allowed to enter the temple. Women in the households have had to suffer for decades and centuries because of the 41 days abstention period men undertake. They are still made to go away from their husbands and kids during menstruation and are literally treated as untouchables. The Court should follow the rules of ancient Indian texts and instruct men to abstain from such cruelty towards their women. If they want to undertake such a rigorous abstention ritual, they should wait till their family responsibilities are over and then embark on their spiritual journey. Then husbands and wives can journey together to Sabarimala. Till then, there are thousands of other temples to visit in Kerala where such rituals are not necessary. This, I believe is the way the Court should take to strike the balance.