Indian court should not poke its nose into matters of faith

In my growing up years, we trekked kilometres to the school, crisscrossing vast paddy fields and coconut plantations. We sauntered through lush tapioca groves and played Tarzan on low-hanging cashew boughs. We passed by a roofless temple where my friends threw down small coins as bribe, hoping for good marks in exams. I offered a handful of shingle and shells collected on my way. The priest smiled at my offering of rubbish. A few metres away, there was a mount covered with overgrown mango trees, some of which were cut down one day to make way for a small mosque, a oneroom madrasa and a pigeonhole living quarter for the maulvi, whose daughter was as beautiful as the full moon. I was head over heels for the girl of my age and was quick to strike a friendship. Waiting for her madrasa classes to get over, I splashed around in the water for ablution. The maulvi smiled and freed up his daughter to be with me. As I grabbed her copy of the Holy Quran, she whispered into my ears, “Non-Muslims should not open the kitab.”

“Why?” I asked, throwing a green mango at Ayisha.

“You will lose your eyesight. How will you see me then?” Her eyes crinkled as she bit into the mango and joked. I obeyed her. Not for the fear of losing my eyesight. I stopped dirtying the water for ablution. She also asked me to stop throwing shingle and shells into the temple. I agreed. Reads like a silly childhood love story? Maybe. But Ayisha was my madrasa where I learned my first lessons in religious tolerance and harmony, despite the trait of rebellion in my DNA. What Ayisha taught me was not just to respect religions, but never to disrupt traditions that are not harmful to society. The little lessons a constitution bench in India’s apex court, which allowed menstruating women into Sabarimala temple, failed to remember.

All right-thinking people welcome the Sabarimala verdict as historic, honourable and path-breaking. As a citizen of progressive India, I salute the five judges for their liberal outlook. The judgment was dulcified with pompous language that could hit the right note with the liberals — women are not lesser or inferior to men; patriarchy of religion cannot be permitted to trump over faith; and prohibition of menstruating women is a form of untouchability. Now that the celebrations are over, it’s time to sit back and take stock of the consequences and study if India would buckle under the weight of the judgment.

The Sabarimala verdict was expected to be in line with the Haji Ali Dargah case. In a victory for equal right to worship for women, the Supreme Court in 2016 allowed women to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the famed shrine in Mumbai. But the crux of the Sabarimala issue is not the women’s right to bleed, but Lord Ayyappa’s right to stay celibate. The executive or the judiciary can intervene if a religion messes with society. They can take actions on issues such as triple talaq or sati because such practices devastated lives.

But Sabarimala was not a religious issue. It’s a matter of faith, and the judiciary cannot mess with a citizen’s right to faith. I have been to many Ayyappa temples, where women are not restricted because the deity there is not in the form of celibate. Mythology and traditions tell us the Sabarimala Ayyappa is a Naishtika Brahmachari practising the severest form of celibacy. In that state, he is restricted from being in the presence of women. It’s this age-long belief that the court has demolished with its judgment, which arises the question — who decides the celibacy of a deity: The executive, the judiciary or the tradition. It’s a question of whether blood is thicker than faith. For male pilgrims, ascending Sabarimala is the climax of 41-day abstinence from material life, including alcohol, non-vegetarian food, and intimate relationships. During the abstinence, they keep away from menstruating members in the household, including wife and mother, and cook outside of the family kitchen. It’s a show of solidarity with their celibate lord. Hence male pilgrims themselves are referred to as Ayyappas. Will the judiciary also trample with the domestic practice in the name of discrimination against women?

Justice Malhotra, the only woman on the bench, voiced her dissent, arguing that it is not for the courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down except in issues of social evil. “Religious practices can’t solely be tested on the basis of the right to equality. It’s up to the worshippers, not the courts, to decide what’s religion’s essential practice.”

The judgment is certain to open a can of worms. India is an old civilisation with myriad traditions and practices that the faithful hold close to their hearts. Sabarimala is not the only religious place that excludes women. There are scores of them, including mosques. There are also a couple of temples in southern India that exclude men. What about them?

There is a mosque in the foothills of Sabarimala dedicated to Vavar, a Muslim saint who was one of Lord Ayyappa’s closest aides. Devotees visit the mosque before starting their trek to the Sabarimala temple. Will the Supreme Court order open up the mosque to women devotees?

Across India, the verdict has been greeted with mixed emotions, but majority women across different religions, believe the faith should have been left untouched. Political parties, which have been caught in the divine quagmire, find solace in the argument that no genuine female devotee would defy the tradition, fearful of attracting the wrath of God.

Still the local government is not taking any chances. Sabarimala is the single largest pilgrim centre in the world with 45 million devotees thronging the shrine during the December-January season. The state machinery is stretched beyond imagination to cater to the sea of humanity. Sabarimala does not have enough toilets and thousands of pilgrims resort to open defecation. The police force, mostly tasked with averting any deadly stampede, will now have to deal with the protection of young female pilgrims. The state has already drawn up a plan to build exclusive accommodations, toilets and bathing zones for women.

So welcome to a new Sabarimala. The jungle shrine wouldn’t be the same again with the aura of celibacy around Lord Ayyappa put out by the Supreme Court judgment. The trek to Sabarimala wouldn’t be a pilgrimage anymore. It could be re-branded as a honeymoon or eco-tourism destination. Catch you there!

Justice Malhotra, the only woman on the bench, voiced her dissent, arguing that it is not for the courts to determine which religious practices are to be struck down