It is often witnessed that when a woman could intervene and come to the rescue of other women something contrary happens to make the situation even worse for the womenfolk. The latest Supreme Court judgement on the Sabarimala temple row in Kerala that bans the entry of women in the menstrual age group of 10-50 years is a case in point. In the 5-judge bench of the top court that was hearing the case there was a lone woman judge.
When the verdict was delivered by the 4-1 majority favouring the entry of women in the temple irrespective of age group, the primacy of equality and elimination of gender bias was considered on priority. It was opined that prohibiting women on the basis of the natural cycle like menstruation which is essentially a biological and physiological characteristic in a woman, that forms the basis for procreation, is entirely unfounded and cannot pass the constitutional validity. It was also remarked that segregating and banning women based on this irrational and archaic notion of polluting the shrine is a form of untouchability that is unacceptable.
The lone woman judge in her dissenting note felt it pertinent to attract freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution and observed that religious customs and practices cannot be questioned on the principle of rationality and opined that the religious community and not the court should decide what constitutes essential religious practice.
In that case the very spirit of inquiry enshrined in the Constitution gets challenged, for quite often what one community feels is irrational and superstitious, the other one defends and reveres as all pervading. As per her views, people can still defend the Devadasi system, where young women were offered to please gods, to be only ravaged upon by voracious men, as an accepted religious practice.
Religionists have argued that there are over a thousand temples devoted to Lord Ayappa but only in Sabarimala the deity is manifestly celibate and that is the reason for imposing the ban on the women of specified age group. But it is only a patriarchal derivation nurtured over the centuries merely to downgrade the matriarchy. Further the apprehension raised by the woman judge that the judgement can have wide ramifications on other faiths should not be taken seriously as each issue can be examined on its merit to arrive at its logical end.
