Jump to content
Malcolm Merlyn

Should Allow All Women In Sabarimala Temple, Kerala Tells Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

Quote

New Delhi:  Women of all age groups should be allowed in the famous Sabarimala shrine of Kerala, the state government today told the Supreme Court, reversing the stand of the previous Congress-led government.

Young women are traditionally not allowed in the Sabarimala temple. Some say they are not allowed since they are considered "unclean" during menstruation but other scholars say that they are not allowed because Ayyappa- to whom the temple is dedicated -  is considered a celibate yogi.

Last year, there was outrage when the chief of the Sabarimala Devasom Board, Prayar Gopalakrishnan, had said women will be allowed into the temple the day a machine is invented to detect if they are menstruating.

 


"The day there will be a machine to detect if it's the 'right time' for women to enter temples, that day they will be allowed in Sabarimala," Mr Gopalakrishnan was reported as saying.

The Left-led LDF government had in 2007 said that women should not be stopped from entering the shrine but that stand changed when the Congress-led UDF was in power.

http://www.ndtv.com/kerala-news/women-of-all-ages-should-be-allowed-into-sabarimala-temple-kerala-tells-supreme-court-1622291?pfrom=home-lateststories

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer Sai Deepak fighting for Sabarimala in the SC. @beetle FYI. See this video before claiming victimhood for discrimination against women in the case of Sabarimala issue. In case of Haji Ali, the fight was that the Darga belived that Women are impure and hence banned from entering. In case of Sabarimala, only women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed as per the celibate deity's beliefs. Follw #ReadyToWait hastag where women are coming out in support of the tradition 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/guest-column/sabarimala-in-defence-of-tradition

 

Quote

Tradition has it that just hearing about Lord Rama had made Sabari one of his ardent devotees. As was a dream come true for most Bhaktas, Sabari was able to assuage Rama and Lakshmana's hunger, as they went on their way in search of Sita who had been abducted by Ravana. Sabari bit into the fruits she served Lord Rama, from the ones she used to collect daily, in the hope of feeding Rama, were He to suddenly manifest. This was a gross violation of traditional Indian etiquette. It took the sagacity of Rama to explain to Lakshmana, that far from being unhygienic and spittle spattered, Sabari was ensuring that He would get only the sweetest of fruit. Sabarimala, the place where this lady used to live had become a divine place, its very name celebrates the power of woman.

Lord Ayyappa had an unusual genesis. He was born out of Shiva and Vishnu, in His female Mohini form. There are two notable instances in this mystic birth. Attributing qualities like masculinity and femininity to Supreme Powers is totally a human trait. To have a Deity that was the synthesis of both Shaivite and Vaishnavite powers brought together the warring factions.

Traditionally, it was only the pre and post puberty females who were allowed into this Temple. One of the reasons was the sheer physical rigorousness of journey. Before hormone pills were discovered, it was impossible for a menstruating woman to take an unbroken "Mandala" vow for 41 days. The rank smell of menstrual blood would have been a liability then, in attracting the attention of wild animals in the now sadly depleting and once almost impenetrable jungle of this mountain shrine.

With thirty-three Crores of Divinities to choose from, a Hindu is spoilt for choice. Ayyappa, the God of Sabarimala, does not hate women. To suggest that this bachelor God will lose His Head if female devotees throng to see Him is ridiculous.

Malikapurathamma, a lady in love with Lord Ayyappa, has been yearning for Him since centuries. Ayyappa had promised to wed Her, the year there are no new devotees ( or Kanni Ayyappans as they are called ). As part of their visit to the temple, first time devotees are required to make their mark at the Sharam-Kuthi-Aal. Kerala folk songs abound with an eager Malikapurathamma setting out to the Sharam-Kuthi-Aal, hoping to find it bare and Her wedding to Ayyappa finally taking place, only to return dejected at the ever increasing deluge of first time Sabarimala goers.

In the traditions enshrined in Hinduism, women who fell in love with deities themselves became deified and worshipped. Parvathi, was the daughter of Himavan as well as a rebirth of Sati, Shiva's first wife, became a Goddess Herself, as did Aandaal who married Her beloved Vadapathrasaayi, or reclining Vishnu. Isolating a male God from His possible human lovers was never a tenet of Hinduism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

In case of Haji Ali, the fight was that the Darga belived that Women are impure and hence banned from entering. In case of Sabarimala, only women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed as per the celibate deity's beliefs.

Same  same.

If a small girl and an old women can climb...so can menstruating women. Menstruation is not a sickness. Not all women even have discomfort during the periods.

Women do not menstruate 365 days a year....so the keeping women out for their health goes out of the window.

 

That said, it seems to be more symbolic .

Personally I would never go to a temple or pray a God who doesn't care and wants me out.

 

I would advise my daughter to never make the effort to go to a place or God where she will not be welcome in some years. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Lawyer Sai Deepak fighting for Sabarimala in the SC. @beetle FYI. See this video before claiming victimhood for discrimination against women in the case of Sabarimala issue. In case of Haji Ali, the fight was that the Darga belived that Women are impure and hence banned from entering. In case of Sabarimala, only women who are capable of giving birth are not allowed as per the celibate deity's beliefs. Follw #ReadyToWait hastag where women are coming out in support of the tradition 

 

 

I read about it yesterday. Good argument but not convinced.

Personally...I don't care much . Not interested in going to insecure temples. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, motomaverick said:

Lord Ayyappa is worshipped as the "bachelor god" as much as I know. Allowing women just violates that very faith of the devotees for which they go there. Their entire purpose of the visit is defeated.

 

What next? Let's allow non Muslims to perform Hajj as well.

So women who can reproduce are in the same category as  non hindus now.

Even non hindu guys are allowed but a majority of hindu women are not.

 

If it is about celibacy of god....then why girls and old women are allowed?

They also have the same reproductive organs. 

 

If it is a men's only temple ...then do so.

Why discriminate only against women in the reproductive age ....

 

Why not accept that the temple discriminates against women who are young and can reproduce?

 

Why make silly excuses of ' for their good only ' ?Why not just accept that people don't want to accept that their mentality has not changed .

 

 

As for being a bachelor God.....that is fine. Just declare it as such and banish all women. Why scared of being anti women completely?

 

Or just accept the temple does not want women  because women are either 'dirty or seductresses only 'in a certain age group.

 

Besides what are the women  going to do in the temple besides praying?

Why so insecure?

 

And one  thought temples were for praying .

 

 

 

 

Edited by beetle
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://swarajyamag.com/politics/sabarimala-case-people-for-dharma-leaves-court-spellbound-here-are-his-arguments

Quote

 

The petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking entry of women of all ages in the Sabarimala Temple is in the final stages of its hearing.

The petitioners have argued that not allowing all women inside the temple amounts to discrimination based on gender and is thus violating of the Indian Constitution. A series of respondents has contested the claims of the petitioners in the case.

On 26 July, lawyer J Sai Deepak appeared on behalf of a non-profit organisation called ‘People for Dharma’, one of the respondents in the case. His forceful arguments in the court took social media by storm, where he was hailed for greatly strengthening the case of the defence.

Sai said that from the language of Article 25(1), it is evident that the rights of any worshipper under the said Article are subject to the rights of religious institutions under Article 26 and, therefore, the former cannot claim to have better rights than the latter.

The lawyer submitted that while the petitioner, temple, and devotees have been asserting their rights under Articles 25(1), 26, and 25(1) respectively, no one has pointed out that deity also has rights under Articles 25 (1), 21, and 26.

Sai then referred to various judgments of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of India establishing that a deity has juristic character and is thus a legal person and, therefore, can enjoy rights under Articles 21, 25(1), and 26.

Sai submitted that the deity has rights to practise and preserve its Dharma, including its vow of Naishtika Brahmacharya under Article 25(1) and has the right to expect the privacy of that character under Article 21. He further stated that it is the vow of the deity that is implemented as the tradition of the Sabarimala Temple, which, therefore, brings into the picture rights under Article 26(b).

The lawyer then argued that the petitioner cannot claim that its rights under Article 25(1) must prevail over the rights of the deity along with the rights of devotees, men and women, who observe the tradition. He also submitted that a worshipper cannot claim to have a greater right to worship than the rights of the deity whom he or she claims to worship and whose traditions he or she has no respect for.

Sai argued that the issue in the petition was not about “temple vs women” or “men vs women”, but “men v men” and “women vs women”. If the petitioner’s contention were allowed, then men who don't observe the 41-day vow can also claim right of entry into Sabarimala Temple citing Article 25(1). A Hindu might say that he wants to offer chicken to Lord Ganesha citing Article 25(1) and so on.

While arguing for the temple’s right to preserve its denomination under Article 26, Sai was asked by the Chief Justice how Ayyappa devotees constituted a religious denomination when there was no specific “Ayyappa sect”. Sai pointed out to the Chief Justice’s observation that the status of a religious denomination is not bestowed by the court but is something that comes from within the community. Since Ayyappa devotees share a common faith in Lord Ayyappa, and respect the practices associated with the worship of Lord Ayyappa, they would qualify as a religious denomination.

The Chief Justice then asked that since Ayyappa devotees come from other faiths, would it still be possible to call them a religious denomination. To this, Sai responded that Hinduism differs from other faiths on this aspect and Anglican/Christian definition or understanding of religious denomination cannot be applied to Hinduism.

On the charge of discriminating against menstruating women, Sai submitted that the primary object of the religious practice was to preserve the celibate form of the deity and not exclusion of menstruating women. The latter follows from the former. Sai put evidence from the religious texts before the bench, establishing the celibate nature of the deity.

Sai stated that the discrimination charge would’ve been justified had the entire focus of the temple and its practices was to keep “all women” out, but that’s not the case. All exclusion is not discrimination, especially when the object of the rule has nothing to do with misogyny or impurity of menstruation, he said.

On the issue of whether the Sabarimala Temple was being maintained out of the funds drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India, Sai placed before the court the 1922 proclamation of the erstwhile Maharaja of Travancore, where, in return for taking over the lands of the temples in Travancore, he had declared to pay an annuity of Rs 16 lakh for the running of the temples in the Travancore Devaswom. This obligation was inherited by the Indian state since it took over the temple lands from the Princely State. Therefore, it’s incorrect to state that the Sabarimala Temple was being run by state funds and, therefore, were state bodies.

Sai was granted 10-15 minutes’ time in the forenoon to put forth his submissions. However, he argued for more than one and a half hours without being asked by any of the judges to stop. This is a testament to the quality of his argument and rhetoric.

Justice Nariman observed that Sai Deepak’s submission was instructive. The Chief Justice commented that not only was it instructive but was an impressive articulation with both rhetoric and logic. “Your arguments are impressive, I must admit that”, he said.

 

Imo, the petitioners just came easy and under prepared with just the equality card, while the defense clearly prepared well, did their research, and have all the facts, and evidence based on our constitution.

Edited by someone
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, someone said:

On the charge of discriminating against menstruating women, Sai submitted that the primary object of the religious practice was to preserve the celibate form of the deity and not exclusion of menstruating women. The latter follows from the former. Sai put evidence from the religious texts before the bench, establishing the celibate nature of the deity

They would have better success if they had gone with this argument from the begining.....not just in the court case but also in public.

 

But that is not really the case.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332227/Hindu-temple-declares-allow-women-enter-scanning-machine-designed-check-going-menstruating.html

 

Sabarimala, in Kerala, India, currently does not let any women of a certain age group through its doors, because of the risk they might be menstruating - making them 'impure'. 

Its new leader Prayar Gopalakrishnan said there may come a day when all women would be allowed through the door. However, that will only when they could be checked to ensure it was not their time of the month.

 

This stand probably turned most neutrals to supporter . The guy single handedly offended most women and many men.

He probably was born out of his father's clean womb.

Dumb guy probably did not realise how offensive his statement was for women. 

Way to score a self goal stupid man.

 

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.scoopwhoop.com/amp/inothernews/prayar-gopalakrishnan-periods-taboo/

 

 

 

Edited by beetle
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, surajmal said:

What are you even blabbering about? There are women specific temples all over india. These arent god(s), these are dieties. Know the difference, before popping a vein. 

 

 

Women only temples don't discriminate against men because they are always carrying sperms. 

Why discriminate against people for how nature made them?

Edited by beetle
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, surajmal said:

This shouldn't even be a debate but because majority of "hindus" are mahachewts and the Supreme court is an arm of the desert death cults, hindus have to fight tooth and nail for every little bit. 

Keep supporting discrimination against people of your own religion  and when sane , thinking people move away from religion.....then scream..."hindus don't have balls".

 

Hindus discriminated against dalits in most inhumane ways and expect them to stand by the 'hindus' when ' hindus' need them .

 

The SC is giving rights to hindu women and the response of most hindu men is outrage and ' what about muslims' what about mecca' 'what about this and that'.

Like hindu women are not  their  people , like hindu women are enemies , like hindu women are  not hindus.:((

 

Then these hindu men will expect these women to stand by them .

Why? ....to be treated like dirty people because they reproduce .

 

Hindu men are the biggest enemy of hinduism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith  or  tradition has to be protected  in the constitution and it is as well. The law says a temple should not rule out entry to a caste or gender of a particularb faith. It is not case here. The temple also believes that women who can give birth (and hence mensurate) are not allowed for a tradition of being a celibate or any other reason. The  path to temple is a treacherous trek in jungles. In olden days, it would attract wild beasts who can  smell blood. Whatever be the reason, faith is supreme here.  If they can let kids being thrown from top of a mosque, as part of a belief system, this comes under the  same umbrella.  

 

IMO, feminists fighting this for equality , shouldn't bother. There are bigger fights than mere entry to a  temple or place of worship . It  is trivial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, beetle said:

Keep supporting discrimination against people of your own religion  and when sane , thinking people move away from religion.....then scream..."hindus don't have balls".

 

Hindus discriminated against dalits in most inhumane ways and expect them to stand by the 'hindus' when ' hindus' need them .

 

The SC is giving rights to hindu women and the response of most hindu men is outrage and ' what about muslims' what about mecca' 'what about this and that'.

Like hindu women are not  their  people , like hindu women are enemies , like hindu women are  not hindus.:((

 

Then these hindu men will expect these women to stand by them .

Why? ....to be treated like dirty people because they reproduce .

 

Hindu men are the biggest enemy of hinduism.

Why does it bother you ? Are you going to visit this temple or for that matter any temple .If they allowed women into this temple would you then have become very religious in your outlook ? come on .


I had never heard of this temple till this controversy .Of what ever little i know they claim that visiting this temple is harmful for menstrual age and pregnant  women ,as an atheist it doesn't make any sense to me but then thats their narrative and tradition and i dont see what hindu women  are missing out ,on not being able to visit this place ,it's not as if visiting this temple or any temple is a must if you want to be a hindu .In fact many religious women defend these temple rituals much better than i have .


Secular are just using women's right as an excuse to show off their dominance on hindus ,they will tell us what traditions are acceptable and what aren't . They will dictate and we must obey.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MultiB48 said:

Why does it bother you ? Are you going to visit this temple or for that matter any temple .If they allowed women into this temple would you then have become very religious in your outlook ? come on

Why does it bother you that SC has allowed women ? 

 

As a woman , it does bother me that women are treated this way because they menstruate .It may not be my life but millions of women are made to feel impure, degraded even in this day and time.

 

I would not go to such a temple because I do not either believe in this God or belong to the region but I do feel if some women do feel like going, they should have the right to, specially if the law is on their side.

 

I am also appalled that hindu men are treating women like swown enemies because the SC is giving them a right.

 

I am also amused that these guys who are opposing think they need to protect God or his temple. If their God is offended, he will find a way to punish these bad women ....why not have faith ?

Why show false concern for their safety and health.

 

Personally,I do visit temples but mostly small ones because I do not like crowds and controlfreak pujaris.

I regularly visit one these days near our village . The priest is respectful to all irrespective of age and gender.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...