Parsi woman awaits verdict

Thursday’s Supreme Court judgment which referred the Sabrimala review petition to a larger bench raised the issue of Parsi women’s entry to places of worship and sacred sites of ritual, raking up a matter that has caused much debate within the 61,000-strong Zoroastrian community in India.

A five-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi delivered a split verdict over the entry of women between the ages of 10-50 years inside Kerala’s Hindu shrine of Sabarimala.

The majority judgment stated: “The debate about the constitutional validity of practices entailing to restriction of women generally in the place of worship is not limited to this case, but also arises in respect of entry of Muslim women in a Durgah/mosque as also in relation to Parsi women married to a non-parsi into the holy fire place of an Agiyari.”

In 2017, the Supreme Court overruled a 2010 Gujarat high court verdict that found in favour of a customary law which prevented Mumbaibased plaintiff Goolrukh Gupta from visiting the Tower of Silence — a sacred space for death rituals — to perform her father’s last rites, as she had married a non-zoroastrian. The Supreme Court, however, directed the fire temple in Valsad, Gujarat, to allow her entry and stated, “DNA does not evaporate” after marrying outside a religion.

However, the 2017 order was an interim one, and the practice of denying entry in sacred spaces in Valsad continues.

The trustee of Valsad’s Anjuman refused to comment, saying the matter is subjudice. An Anjuman is a caretaker body for all Parsi properties in an area.

Jehangir R Patel, editor of community magazine Parsiana, said that a resolution was passed by Valsad’s Anjuman, in the early 2000s which restricted the entry of women inside fire temples if they married outside the Zoroastrian community.

“It is only in Valsad that women who have married nonzoroastrians are denied entry,” said Patel.

“In Mumbai or Delhi, there are no restrictions on entry of women inside the fire temple just because they have married outside the community. During our case, Anjumans of Vapi and Parbhi gave an affidavit stating that they would allow women to enter fire temples,” Gupta added.

Ramiyar Karanjia, principal, Dadar Athornan Institute, the oldest Zoroastrian seminary, recalled a 100-year-old case in which a prominent industrialist married to a French woman, performed her Navjote ceremony — initiation to Zoroastrian religion — so that she could participate in ceremonies.

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the Sabarimala issue to a larger bench on Thursday was welcomed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological fount of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The RSS had opposed the apex court’s ruling last year which allowed women of all ages to enter the shrine dedicated to Lord Ayyappa.

The seven-member bench will re-examine the Sabarimala issue as well as those related to the entry of women into mosques, and the denial of access to fire temples for Parsi women who marry outside the community. It will also deliberate the practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohras, ruled the Court.

“We were expecting relief in today’s judgment; but so far, so good. There has been some relief for the devotees and the court has seen the issue from the correct perspective by noting the rights of Parsi women as well,” J Nandakumar, a senior functionary of the RSS said.

Traditionalists in Kerala violently opposed the September 28, 2018 judgment that allowed even girls and women aged between 10 and 50 years to enter the shrine. They believe that the deity is celibate and that the entry of female worshippers of reproductive age amounts to sacrilege.

“Matters related to traditions and customs are issues of faith and belief,” RSS spokesperson Arun Kumar said. “Restriction of women belonging to a particular age group to the Sabarimala shrine has nothing to with gender inequality or discrimination, and that is strictly based on the speciality of the deity.”

The RSS opposed the Supreme Court’s verdict last year on the grounds that it “violates the customs and traditions of the temple” and are in contravention of the “deity’s own rules.”

The Supreme Court said in its ruling that courts should tread cautiously on matters of religious beliefs.