Modernity versus Tradition
Modernity often clashes with tradition and religion. It rationalizes all the traditions on the touchstone of equality, liberty, individualism and humanism. Scientific temperament questions the existence of God. Writing for Free Enquiry , a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism , columnist Katha Politt suggested religion to be the original rule book for patriarchy, subordination of women historically being its main purpose. Such rationalism and scientific temperament which helps the enlightened connect all dots to call out the misogyny and inequalities in religion hold virtue. No doubt it is essential to reform the society, but it would be irrational to rationalise religious practices to the extent of upending it in its totality. In the zeal of revolution, we must not lose our balance.
Lord Ayyappa and his Celibacy
Many legends are attached to Manikandan, a boy who was found by a childless King and Queen of Pandalam dynasty by the side of a river. The Prince Manikandan renounced his throne and acquired the divine form to become Lord Ayyappa when his father built a shrine for him on the hill known as Sabrimala today. Lord Ayyappa is worshiped as a celibate and pilgrims assume his identity when they take the vows on initiation of the 41-day vratam, of practicing abstinence and celibacy for the period. Legend describes the relations of Lord Ayyappa with a female called Malikapurathamma, a minor deity residing close to his shrine. She wanted to marry him but Ayyappa was a brahamachari. He promised her to marry in the year no first-time pilgrim will visit him. On the advent of Makaravilakku festival, she leaves her shrine on three successive nights to check if the time has come for Ayyappa to observe his promise. To remember this legend, a procession goes from Malikapurathammas shrine to a banyan tree near Ayyappan shrine, where the first-time pilgrims leave an arrow. Every year a disappointed and heartbroken Malikapurathamma returns to wait for her union till eternity. Probably, this too is one reason which restricts the presence of women apart from the restriction on women aged 10-50 years to enter the Sabrimala Temple in Kerala.
Freedom of Religion versus Right to Equality
The Sabrimala Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala) is an epic battle between the Fundamental Right of Equality (Article 14, Constitution of India) versus Right of Freedom of Religion (Article 25). On one side, there is the cause of individual’s right to freedom of religion and discrimination based on their gender and on the other, there is the right of a group to hold a belief collectively (across genders) and manage their institutions. Moreover, as the majority of SC judges noted that excluding women in the age group of 10-50(menstruating age) is an arbitrary practice since it deprives the Hindu women of the said age from their right to worship on the basis of a biological characteristic. It was criticised as a denial of dignity to women and as it was based on the traditional medieval notions of impurity attached to menstruation, it had a tinge of untouchability in it. Untouchability is prohibited by the Constitution under Article 17. Thus, denying that the Sabrimala devotees are a separate religious denomination and the prohibition of women from the temple is not an essential practice of religion, the majority bench gave a leverage to individual freedom over the group rights, even in the matters of religion.
Dissenting Judges Appeal to the Future Intelligence
In her dissent, Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone female judge on the bench, regarded the Ayyappans as a separate religious denomination. According to her, in a diverse country like India (where religion is important), it is not for the court to decide what constitutes an essential practice of a religion, but the group of believers. A group of believers decide the characteristic of their God to be celibate based on a story of Lord Ayappa. So, changing the character of their God (even if he is patriarchal) is not for the court to decide. It is akin to upending the entire religious belief and re writing from the point of modernity. Justice Chandrachud, by denying the rights of the deity put the burden of his avowed celibacy on itself, absolving the female worshippers. Did the honourable judges just use their rational frame to burden a deity who in rational space has no possibility? It’s an irony that the women worshippers were absolved by the learned judges from preserving their Gods celibacy. Who are the worshippers preaching, after the court has just recasted and metamorphosed their very old God by their modern logic. Is he the same Lord Ayyappa? Certainly, the worshippers are in a fix. In her dissent, Justice Malhotra seems to address this confusion. According to her, it was not for the court to review religious practices on the touchstone of gender equality and individual freedom. For her, the court should not impose its morality or constitutionality on the form of worship of a deity, in this case being Lord Ayyappa and preserving his celibate character as the self-accorded duty of his followers. The practice sounds very illogical but to dictate the followers on their God defeats logic as well. It is a paradox for a female judge to dissent on such a subject going against her senior peers but it enforces Justice Malhotras’s empowered and independent jurisprudence. Her dissent is based on two arguments. One, those people who don’t have a locus standi (Indian Young Lawyers Association), who have never been to Sabrimala or even care about the details of the religion are fighting for this cause, and two, educated liberal judges are trying to rationalise religion which is not their forte. The Judges seem to don the robes of priests, giving a new rule book on religious beliefs. Going by modernity, idea of God (who is of course patriarchal) is farcical, so would it mean shutting down all mosques and temples, leaving the priests in vain, with the doctrines of faith coming from enlightened and rational judiciary. Justice Malhotra even indicated that we need to draw a line somewhere to decide how much unequal and abominable a tradition is. Traditions like Sati and Triple Talaq needed the intervention of court since it is very harmful for women and for the larger society but the court cannot judge all beliefs in the name of constitutional morality. In a secular nation, secularism is a part of constitutional morality and believers should have the right to hold their belief.
Equality is not desirable every time
Hindu religion holds many myths. There are so many temples in India which restrict the entry of men based on their own legends. Some being the Attukal temple, Chakkulathukavu temple and Bhagati Ma temple in Kerala itself. Men are not barred for their moustaches but for a biological difference. Rationalising this belief can reveal an inequality against men though it is just another legend.
One thing is equality, the other is justice and fairness. In the name of establishing equality (which might not be desirable every time), does it imply we should open all temples for all genders disregarding their myths on which they have been based? This love for equality will enforce injustice to the diversity in religion. Re writing legends or rationalising faith for the cherished ideal of equality at any cost and every time is not sensible. Surely there seems to be absence of a balance here. The idea of God is not rational but modernity is. Well, whatever happens to Sabrimala, it is the final nail in the coffin of communism in India.
By Syed Shaarif Akhtar
Post Graduate in Applied Statistics and Informatics, IIT Bombay