Sabarimala — My perspective.
When the issue on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Sabarimala temple started, the media said that there was a practice of discrimination based on gender which was abolished finally. Then came the supporters of the temple, giving reasons as to why the temple had this weird rule, of not allowing women of reproductive age to enter.
Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, in one of her acclaimed articles “Why the Sabarimala entry issue is personal?”, talked of her experience with gender discrimination since childhood, more so with menstruation. This was a reasonable issue which I agreed with, and probably thought so that the Sabarimala issue truly links with mindless gender discrimination.
Then came J Sai Deepak,who is a lawyer in the Supreme Court, and who fought against the ruling, citing the “naishtika bramhacharya” tradition followed by the deity of the temple, Lord Ayyappa.
Hariprasad N also has written an article explaining the “naishtika bramhacharya” tradition. (https://link.medium.com/lvjmHNH0JV)
I was wondering….
Why were these two thoughts so conflicting? What makes a vow so justifiable for this practice?….. What if a human had the same vow? Would he also be questioned by the Supreme Court for this?
I was approaching this case logically, always wondering about this phrase — “Exclusion is not discrimination”.
Then I decided to take a hypothetical situation, and presented it as a question on Quora.
If today I put a sign outside my home saying "No women allowed", will this be gender discrimination if I am not harming anyone?
Sindhu Mahadevan had written a beautiful answer to this question —
I find there to be a general misunderstanding about what discrimination is, from a legal standpoint.
Discrimination is said to have occurred, when the rights of a person are violated or, when people’s reasonable expectation of equal treatment are contravened.
No one has the legal right to access your property.
The owners have complete autonomy on who is permitted entry into their property.
So, you could go about your merry way and place any outlandish sign you wanted-
Men, individuals over 150 lb in weight, exclusively those with straight hair, even exclusions based on race, religion and sexual orientation would be legal.
There would be no legal consequences, because you did not infringe on anyone’s rights.
However, this brings us to a second widely held misconception on Quora.
Social consequences of your behavior are different from legal consequences.
You can behave in reprehensible ways, that are entirely legal but bitterly socially condemned.
Such a board would rightly, be considered terribly hateful, regressive and utterly unacceptable by all your neighbours and you should be prepared to be criticized for such behavior.
Don’t be confused if neighbours refuse to interact with you, allow their children to play with yours or stop involving you in events where you were previously invited.
You see, just like people have no right to your home, interaction with neighbours, invitation to community events and company of other people’s children isn’t a right, either.
Likewise, there exists no right to not be challenged, condemned or criticized.
People on Quora like to scream “But…but…Freedom of Speech!??!”
If you aren’t in jail over your expression, you do have freedom of speech.
What you don’t have is freedom from being called out for actions that are indicative of hate, lack of inclusion and bigotry.
What happened in the Sabarimala issue? Many people did talk about the reprehensible rule of the temple, said slurs against the temple, but it didn’t matter. The bone of contention was bringing in legalities in between.
And why was that? Because every Hindu temple is considered to have a Living Deity, and the temple itself is considered to be the home of the deity.
And this issue was akin to forcing yourself into the home of a guy who put the notice board “No women allowed”, just because it is a revolting signboard. True, it is socially disgusting, but legally it is okay, since his home is his private property, and he has to right to allow or disallow any person from entering his home, based on whatever reason he has. Here it is exclusion, but as he is not harming anyone (and nobody has the legal right to access his property), it is not discrimination.
I feel the Supreme Court should revisit the case, and its judges should have a sincere discourse with the religious authorities related to the Sabarimala temple, as to the validity of this vow of celibacy and also the validity of the temple’s deity being alive, so as to provide a reasonable judgement that can be accepted by all. This perspective depends on the god being alive, and I believe that to arrive at a proper decision, the Supreme Court should have a rehearing of the case, and should invite religious authorities to debate and discuss on this.
Because if this is proved beyond reasonable doubt that this deity is actually alive, then this case would be a blatant disregard of the fundamental rights of a living person.
Thank you.
UPDATE (9th April 2019)—
I didn’t expect the Election Commission to interfere in the discourse and debate on the Sabarimala issue during the elections, which is an emotional matter to many Hindus of Kerala.
I too hold the same opinion as was expressed in this video, quoting hence —
“….the Election Commission telling candidates which issues they should discuss and which they should avoid during campaigning is absurd. If Sabarimala is an important issue for Hindus in Kerala, so be it. The Commission would be wrong to put a pin in it. The Representation of People’s Act, which looks into matters of speech during elections, says that hate speeches and calls for violence are no-go areas. But Sabarimala falls into neither category. That’s why the Sabarimala diktat by the Commission can only be seen as stifling free speech. Meddling with a candidate’s campaign by trying to determine what sounds sectarian and what doesn’t, should not be the concern of the Election Commission, which is a constitutional body with a larger mandate….”
“So here’s what we should remember: freedom of speech is integral to elections the voters and candidates have the right to talk about what’s important to the electorate that is the essence of a healthy democracy. Preventing debate on issues, on the other hand, would be the wrong way to go about elections. If you ask me, the Election Commission’s time would be better used in trying to conduct free and fair elections which is its mandate instead of deciding how the electorate must think or who to vote for.”
