Sabarimala Temple: Women discrimination still persists

The controversy linked with Kerala’s Sabarimala temple has once again caught fire with the state government filling and affidavit in the Supreme Court urging that women of all ages be allowed into the Ayyappa temple. The affidavit said that it was keen to give equal status to women in the matter, which favours their entry into the temple.

Simultaneously Kerala`s LDF government has moot a separate pilgrimage season for women at Sabarimala Ayyappa temple to end the controversy. However it said it was not in favour of gender-discrimination.

As per the tradition, women aged between 10 and 50 years are not allowed entry into the temple, as Lord Ayyappa is believed to have taken a vow of celibacy.

True, no one has right to interfere in practicing one’s religion and traditions. But at the same time it is also true that if any tradition or custom unduly hampers the progress of community on a large scale or talks about discrimination towards them, we must get rid of them. Customs might be justified the period, in which it was made, but the people should consider it in new modern perspective with open mind.

We were still be inhibited with the evil practices of sati, polygamy and child marriage etc, if the crusader like Raja Ram Mohan Roy would not have effort to abolish the practice. Think the practice of sati-a Hindu funeral practice, in which the widow sacrificed herself on her husband’s funeral pyre, was once a well reputable practice among rajputs. But with the time they had to do away the evil practice, howsoever.

Once Jawahar Lal Nehru had said “you can tell the condition of a nation by looking at the status of its women.” It is unfair that at this age-when we feel proud on being termed “modern and civilized”-women still be treated with discrimination.

Women are not the property of anyone and why they are treated unequally is because back on day one men felt they were superior for some reason.

Controversy surrounding women’s entry to Sabarimal is not new.

The debate over the entry of women into the Ayyappa temple was rekindled in 2006 when Kannada actress Jayamala said she had touched the idol in the temple 20 years ago.

The temple was cleansed after Jayamala’s claim that she once entered the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and touched the idol of Lord Ayyappa, when she was pushed by the crowd and caught the idol’s feet to keep her stable.

Although she later regretted for her act and had sent apology to the concerned authorities, and said she did not know about the custom that her touch would make the idol impure.

PIL filed by women A group of women lawyers had filed a PIL against Sabarimala’s ban on women in 2006. The women were taking on the Travancore Devaswom Board that had held that woman between the age of 10 and 50 years were impure and hence could not enter the temple.

An unending controversy It seems that there is no end to controversies at Kerala’s famous Sabarimala temple. Now the latest is the discovery of spiders and cockroaches in ghee that is used to prepare prasadam or offerings distributed to devotees.

Why ban on woman As per the temple laws / scriptures, women having their periods are considered 'impure' to the sanctity of the temple. If this is predicament, then why not other temple bans women during their periods? One can say, women are supposed to refrain from all temples during their periods and a vast majority of them do so.

According to the norms or scriptures at Sabarimala, anybody who wants to go there should take the 41-day 'vratha' (penance). And, obviously, if a woman having periods is considered impure, then 41 days course will definitely be broken.

One can also say in support of the ban that women would find it difficult in the hustle and bustle of Sabarimala, where thousands congregate in the pilgrim season. Secondly, it can be argued that it was a matter of faith for millions.

Pragmatic approach In present context, where women are considering equal to men in every sphere of life, these baseless arguments do not have any justifiable ground. The ban in my view is nothing more than unnecessary bans enforced for male hegemony.

Once former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had stated, “Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.”

Perhaps, the will to reform religious a Hindu practice is there, but its scope needs to be widened and expedited. It can hardly be emphasised that religions that are seen to be reluctant to move with the times tend to attract an adverse publicity all over the world.