Regressive elements of various religious hues have sought to justify bans on the entry of women into certain religious shrines, by invoking scriptures and tradition. It’s a brazen attempt to deny rights to women that have been guaranteed by the Constitution. The farce must end
The debate over the entry of women in certain religious shrines has assumed fiery proportions in recent months. From indications, those who support restricted entry or non-entry for women on grounds of religious sensitivities, are fast losing the battle. First it was the Shani Shingnapur temple in Ahmednagar district, Maharashtra, then the Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai, where women activists, with the help of courts, managed to reverse the old practice and allow for as unrestricted an entry for women as for men. Now the battle has shifted to the famed Sabarimala temple in Kerala, where women rights activists and the temple management have locked horns over the demand to allow women enter the shrine.
The argument against the entry of women of a certain age group in all of these has been similar: Religious tradition. It has been said that the issue has nothing to do with gender equality but is rooted in a deeply-held convention bound by the nature of the deity and the shrine. Whether it is the Muslim clerics or the Hindu religious heads, they have all relied on religion and tradition to deny equality to women. The idea behind invoking religion is to raise passion, complicate matters and garner support within the community, regardless of class, caste or political affiliation. For years, these tactics worked, but are now being challenged with some success. The challenge is coming, encouragingly, from within progressive sections of the communities concerned. They are not atheists, nor are they baiters of one religious belief or other. But they are unwilling to accept the argument of age-old traditions being supreme to the fundamental rights women have as equal citizens of India.
Sensing the direction in which the wind has begun to blow, politicians too have either sought to do a balancing act (in principle backing the women’s right to enter any temple or other religious shrine in unrestricted manner but wanting this to happen through convincing the religious authorities) or have come out in unambiguous support of women (by saying that nothing, not even religious convention, can come in the way of the Constitution). Few politicians are ready to take hard positions as religious leaders, still rooted to old notions, are doing.
Congress leader Manish Tewari, who hailed the Bombay High Court’s decision of allowing women into the Haji Ali Dargah as “progressive”, said that the ban “contravenes the fundamental rights of a person”. Kerala BJP general secretary K Surendran too came out in support of entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala shrine, saying that the presiding deity, lord Ayyappa, is not a “misogynist” and menstruation cycle is a “law of the nature” and should be viewed as “sacred”.
What is surprising is the left Democratic Front Government’s recent move to back women’s entry into the Sabrimala temple. The Kerala Government’s decision is in confirmation with its stand on this issue earlier and in sharp contrast to the views held by pervious Congress Government.
Initially, the lDF Government had taken a progressive stand in 2007, when it favoured woman’s entry into the temple, which was overturned by the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) later. The lDF Government had filed an affidavit in 2007, stating that “it is not fair to deny a section of women entry into Sabarimala”. However, when the UDF Government came to power, it was of the view that the restriction on women had been in place from “time immemorial” and was a part of the temple’s “unique idol concept.”
When the Assembly election due in Kerala, the Congress had made its stand clear: It would not interfere in the customs and traditions of the hill shrine. Amidst a heated debate on the issue, the then Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, had said, “The Government doesn’t interfere beyond a point on matters with regard to (religious) customs and faith. There are persons who have the right to deal with matters related to faith and customs... let them take decisions on such issues. We don’t want to get into that controversy. This is a matter related to customs and faith. Our stand is that women of all ages should, and I say should, be allowed to enter the temple and worship. There should be no bar”. This was balancing of the worst kind.
Clearly, the issue of women’s entry has taken three forms: Religious, legal and political. Religiously, institutions and temple authorities have for long used tradition, which are shaped by hegemonistic attitudes, as a tool to emphasise orthodoxy and patriarchy. Some, like in the case of Sabrimala temple, have also invoked women’s ‘impurity’ to justify their point. However, women are now increasingly becoming conscious about the dichotomy between equality and progressive values, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and regressive traditions, which have continued in the garb of religion.
legally, the issue is being contested in the court vis-à-vis the Constitution. The first victory for women came in March this year, when the Bombay High Court ruled that it was incumbent upon the State Government to ensure that the Maharashtra Hindu Places of Worship (Entry Authorisation) Act, 1956, was properly enforced at the Shani Shingnapur temple in Maharashtra. This put an end to the 400-year-old custom of disallowing woman from entering the temple premises. The temple trust finally permitted women to enter the temple on April 8.
In yet another landmark judgement, the Bombay High Court, while upholding the constitutional right of women, allowed them to enter the sanctum sanctorum of Haji Ali dargah. The Haji Ali Dargah Trust had until now barred women from getting close to the Sufi saint’s mazaar because they thought that it was “an essential and integral part of Islam” and was, therefore, entitled to protection under Article 25 (Right to freedom of religion) and Article 26(b) (Freedom of every religious denomination or any section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters of religion). The court verdict came as a constitutional victory over religious dogmas that had until now prevented women from entering many such shrines. The ruling became a case point for others, like tripletalaq, involving rights of Muslim women. Meanwhile, the Sabrimala temple issue is now being argued in the Supreme Court.
Politically, our netas are playing their games. In the Sabarimala case, for instance, left leaders who now rule Kerala, are backing women’s right to entry in the temple, but most of them were not as clear when it came to the Haji Ali issue. Remember, they have also remained ambiguous over polygamy and triple talaq in Muslim society because they do not want to antagonise the community voters. Here, they advocate discussion with community leaders, but in other cases they see no reason to do so.
Women’s rights activists needn’t forever remain in battle mode and refuse to talk with the other side. But the ‘other side’ must also stop trying to browbeat the activists by throwing scriptures at them. The demand for women’s entry is not an insult to religious sensibilities. It furthers the spirit of every religion, which deems all its adherents as equal in the eyes of god.
(The writer is Assistant Editor, The Pioneer)