The Supreme Court gave a historic verdict by lifting the ban on the entry of menstruating women in the Sabarimala temple. The court observed that it’s a form of gender discrimination and it is wrong to impose restrictions due to biological reasons.
Sabarimala is considered the temple of Lord Ayyappa, located in Periyar area of Kerala. The entry of menstruating women in this temple has been banned for ages. All quarters of the society have welcomed the verdict. But, some people had a dissenting view, and they took to Twitter to express their views:
There was a targetted and organised social media campaign to make the verdict look like an attack on the Hindu religion. These people were bringing up restrictions of a woman entering the Kabristan (Muslims’ burial ground), Haji Ali Dargah and other religious places as counter-arguments, but they failed to understand that this judgement might pave the way for removal of the ban on such restrictions.
The court has also heard petitions against ‘other religions’.The case – Ajmer Sharif vs State (1961), where the petitioner challenged the rights to perform religious rites is one such example. The court had ruled in favour of the petitioner.
The sad part is that some women are also opposing the judgement saying – ‘I am a feminist, I don’t support it.’
Some men are afraid that women will start questioning things and they will lose their ‘power’.
People who are opposing it by playing the ‘gender equality’ card should go through the judgement carefully. It clearly says that no discrimination based on gender can restrict a devotee.
I never knew that we could call the Supreme Court ‘leftist’ for making a judgement which doesn’t fit one’s perception.