The Relevance of the Sabarimala Temple Ban Lift
On 28th
September 2018, the Indian Supreme Court upheld the secular laws of the land.
In a 4:1 majority verdict, the ban on entry of women of menstruating age into
the Sabarimala
temple was lifted. In the wake of this contentious decision, the reach of
the law into matters of faith is being repeatedly questioned in various forms.
The
traditional Sabarimala ban has been justified based on notion of impurity
attached to the menstrual cycle; menstruating women are assigned a range of
derogatory terms from “temptresses” to “impure”, all possessing the ability to
threaten the celibacy of the deity, Ayappa. In actuality, the
myths of Ayappa have no such stipulation attached to them, so it
seems that our patriarchal culture has simply used religion as a vehicle to
discriminate against women. But even if the content of the myths and legends
surrounding Ayappa had expressed prejudice against menstruating women, it is
not the role of the secular court to set store by these notions and allow the
continuation of a discriminatory practice. There is also the context of
well-documented and ongoing discrimination and ill-treatment
of menstruating women in India to be considered. Prejudice against
menstruating women has been maintained by lack of education and patriarchal
control, resulting in exclusion of women from key social activities, from
disallowing entrance into a kitchen to a temple. The court’s verdict likely
acknowledged this cultural prejudice and is a move to lessen the stigma around
menstruation.
People
protesting against the verdict are accusing the judiciary of unfairly
interfering in native traditions and disrespecting Hindu religious sentiment.
This attitude represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the
judiciary. The Supreme Court ruled upon the subject based on pleas brought
forth by petitioners, and not as a deliberate attempt to target the Hindu
community, as some dissenting voices are suggesting. To say something along the
lines of: “What about that practice X, why is that still acceptable?” forgets
the crucial detail that the Sabarimala issue came to the Supreme Court to be
evaluated, whilst other issues may not have been. Therefore, judgement can only
be passed on the issue at hand and cannot be applied to other situations. This ruling
does set a precedent for other such issues of religion that can be
seen as conflicting with personal liberties, but each case will be evaluated on
its own merit. So, to accuse the Supreme Court of targeting and interfering in
a particular religion’s affairs is unfair. The secularity of the judiciary
means that the law is given precedent over all other interests and sentiment,
and this results in liberal verdicts such as this one and the Section
377 and Triple
Talaq ruling – among others – earlier in the year.
Interestingly,
Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole objector in the judging panel believed that the
anti-ban ruling was ill-fitting because “notions
of rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion”. This
separation of the state and religion is a fundamental tenant of a secular
state. To those like Justice Malhotra, the judiciary’s deliberate detachment
from religion has resulted in a culturally-insensitive ruling; a defect of the
secular system. The secularity is considered positive or negative based on the
convenience of the issue, simply revealing our own ideological inconsistencies.
If the judiciary were to behave in such an inconsistent manner, it would be
difficult to establish a common set of values that hold the nation together due
to their universal applicability. As much as we value the religious and
cultural diversity of our nation, we must also acknowledge that our
constitutional code is what attempts to maintain harmony between these varying
interests. Thus, occasionally, the state is compelled to invoke rationality in
matters of religion, and verdicts should be judged on how they are in keeping
with the laws. Whilst Indu Malhotra may have disagreed with her counterparts’
voting and the resulting verdict she ultimately respects the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
The strangest
aspect of the backlash is the number of women that are protesting the Supreme
Court’s verdict. Some people
wrongfully conclude from the female opposition that the verdict must
be unfeminist, and therefore misguided in its attempt to liberate women. Their
ire is considered grounds for criticising the lifting of the ban, using the
classic line of “You’re doing this for women’s liberation? Clearly, it’s not
liberating to these women”. The premise of this verdict is not to appease
women, it is to uphold the constitutional rights of freedom of religious
practise and equality under the law, based upon which the barring of entry to a
temple on grounds of menstruation is classed as discrimination.
Whilst people
are quick to notice the women protesting the verdict, the women
who fought for roughly 30 years to end this ban are being
conveniently being ignored. Is it worth comparing the number of women on each
side of the aisle? Short answer: No. Long answer: The judiciary doesn’t
function based on majority rule. The amount of support/opposition for the
Sabarimala ban is completely irrelevant to the decision-making process which is
focused on upholding the law and thus chose to end a discriminatory practice.
Even in a hypothetical scenario where this ban only affected a single person of
the population, the judiciary is honour bound to rule against such a practice. At
the end of the day, the protesting women the verdict have the option of
following their beliefs and not entering Sabarimala, whilst women with opposing
beliefs have had their right to practice freely restored by the Indian
judiciary. This is the true value of a secular state and religious pluralism.
In an ideal
world, conflicts between positions taken by various religious groups would
resolve themselves through some kind of consensus. However, in the real world,
the interests of religious groups can often clash with individual liberties,
and when this conflict cannot be resolved then state intervention is vital in
resolving the conflict through application of the law.
“Law
is order in liberty, and without order liberty is social chaos.”
~ Archbishop Ireland
