Long post alert: But I request you to read through.
I have been seeing a lot of discussions around the latest verdict on sabarimala case. ( Side note: Try searching for the mythological reason for the name "Sabari" mala). The underline of this case is this: women of menstruating age cannot enter the temple, as per the law enacted by Kerala government sometime by mid 60' s. The Kerala HC upheld it in early 90's on a petition by some activists. The SC turned it down and ruled it unconstitutional. And these are my concerns/questions about it:
1) The law, created by an elected government, discriminates against women. Traditions put aside, should a goverment be doing this?
2) It specifically mentions "menstruating" women, another extention of a rampant and equally traditional practice of shaming a regular biological thing. ( You can argue about Lord Iyappa's celibacy, the viradha, purity of the pilgrimage and stuff, but ain't it equally absurd? I mean, how many of the male "devotees" follow the brahmracharya viradha perfectly? Are we hearing equally loud voices on traditions in these cases?)
3) Even if we agree that the tradition is centuries old, shouldn't we ask "Is it fair?" We have asked this question and went against tradition before: Sati, Widow remarriage, polygyny etc. For instance, it is forbidden for a hindu to cross a sea or ocean, if I remember correctly. Didn't we break all this traditions at some point? And what did those " defenders of traditions" saying by then? The same thing they're saying right now.
To top all of that, some are asking if the apex Court has the guts to rule that women be allowed into Islamic places of worship. Pulling an irrelevant hindu-muslim conflict in this scenario itself tells what their agenda is. (Just reminds me of an old tamil movie comedy, involving cycles and dynamo lights.) And, as far as I know, they already are allowed to pray in mosques. If anyone knows better, they can clarify.
My even lengthier replies, in two parts :)
ReplyDelete#1: Your statement is presumptive about discrimination against women. I say it was only upholding the deity's rights (yes, that's an actual thing. It was upheld in other cases as well) and temple's traditions.
#2: The tradition refuses entries to women of menstruating age (as given in ur blog's 1st para). Its not specifically to women who are on their periods, at the time. In other words, a girl who has attained puberty cannot visit the temple until her menopause - not just during the 3-4 days of her menstruation cycle. So I fail to see how this can be categorised as a shaming practice. Isn't it a tradition in southern India to celebrate a girl attaining puberty, as a social event? Like a Quinceañera? So what social shaming are we talking abt here?
I know that there were restrictions placed on a girl/woman who was on her periods. I'm sure most of them were aimed at reducing the burden of household chores and other responsibilities on the girl/woman who was probably not at her physical best during those days. She also needed rest and recuperation. She was also much more vulnerable to infections during those days and needed a higher level of care since hygiene facilities were not as great back then (read lack of sanitary pads, disposal methods for used rags, etc.). Those were the basis for most of the customs. Of course, like most customs, some were distorted by ignorant folks and taken to a level of absurdity. But the Shabarimala tradition isn't related to menstruation per se and so its pointless to argue about social shaming in this context.
As far as not allowing menstruating women to partake in rituals and festivities, its just an extension of what was done to other bodily functions. For example, a man had to bathe before performing a ritual, or even entering a temple. If he had to answer nature's call after bathing, he had to bathe again. Now, if this was not strictly enforced, blame it on the society. The traditions did not discriminate.
Part 2...
ReplyDeleteTerming a whole bunch of things which are the fundamental basis of the tradition "absurd" pretty much makes it closed to discussion. So I won't go into it much. I'd only like to say this.
They are absurdity in your opinion and not in many others' - highlight here is that its an opinion. Religion, deity worship, and theism in general, are absurd to an atheist. That does not give an atheist rights to step on those things. Likewise, a believer cannot persecute an atheist. That is what the law upholds.
Point here is, it was the temple's traditions and the deity's rights to allow entries to only certain group. That should not be taken away just because some people find it absurd or do not agree with it.
Since you mentioned viridham, I'd like to give this analogy. If a person undertakes mouna vritam and hence does not take to anyone, wouldn't it be illogical if someone asked the legal system to make that person talk claiming its their fundamental right to get an aural response?
Likewise, if a husband has undertaken the Shabarimala pilgrimage and has to stay away for 48+ days, wouldn't it be illogical for his wife to invoke the conjugal rights clause?
#3: I agree with you about having broken traditions before, especially Hindus. However, the striking difference between those and this one is who the stakeholder is. By stakeholder, I mean the entity who stands to gain or lose by changing/breaking the tradition.
In all the ones you have listed, the stakeholder is the individual who is breaking the tradition. So the impact is limited to that individual.
Sati - the individual gets to live. Society can only crib
Widow remarriage - widow gets to remarry. Society can only crib
Polygamy - Unsure where you were going with this. Its still forbidden for Hindus
Crossing a sea or ocean - the individual gets to cross a sea or ocean
In all these cases, the enforcer was the society, who was not a stakeholder. And that's what made it possible to break/change all these traditions. In the Shabarimala case, the stakeholder is the temple/deity, not the woman who wants to enter the temple. I'm assuming you've done your homework about the tradition's origins and so I don't have to explain why the stakeholder is just the temple/deity.
Lastly, questioning how the SC will rule in cases pertaining to other religions is not totally irrelevant. If you are too naive to see the true reasons behind the Shabarimala PIL, then so be it. But its not just a conspiracy theory to be dismissed as such. There are other powers at play, like in every other cases with political mileage. Just a word of caution, living under a rock is never a good thing.
Have a nice day!
Mr/ Ms Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing. Let me clarify some things.
To Start with, how and why did you assume that I am an atheist? Can't a hindu theist have such a difference in opinion?
#1: I understand it ts claimed as the deity's rights, and I know deities, rivers, other natural resources are often considered a lawful individual in legal proceedings. But, the temple is public property as of now, as per the same legal view.
#2: About your claim on there is no shaming of cwomen regarding menstruation - Seriously, do you actually live here, at present? I dont want to go into the details of the so called celebration of puberty. But, tell me, how many hindu women are allowed to enter and do pooja even in their home's pooja room during those days? How many meet are comfortable enough to buy sanitary napkins for their wives and carry them without draping multiple layers of bags around it?
#3: Same as #1. Also, I should clarify two things:
The court said women CAN go, not should. If you don't want to, don't do.
And, if God doesn't want me somewhere, I Cannot be there. Human laws are nothing. Don't undermine His abilities. He doesn't need your protection. If God doesn't want a subset of people around Him, let them feel his Wrath. Don't interfere between them. You don't have any business there.
Finally, I know who is living under a rock and who trys to put other people there as well. Thanks.
Would have been nice if you weren't anonymous.