By the time the Supreme Court was beginning to decide the fate of Triple Talaq in 2017, as many as 19 Muslim-majority countries including typical Islamic states of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan had banned the discriminatory practice in their countries. Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen had trashed the inhuman, male-chauvinistic divorce practice quite when modern times had set in. In the Southeast Asia too, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines had banned this anti-women practice since long. Point being driven here is that even hardcore Muslim countries are fair to women as they constitute half the mankind.
Women in India have always occupied high positions in family and society. Since ancient times until the mediaeval period, young women in aristocratic families chose their grooms from among aspirants in full public glare in a tradition called ‘Swayambar'. The commoner too enjoyed being parents to a grown girl as the suitors had to pay a fat fee to take a girl for bride. The practice is still prevalent in all the tribal communities of India like elsewhere in the world.
Vedanta and Upanishad pundits have invariably said Hinduism has flourished over centuries on logic rather than blind practices. ‘Sanatana Dharma', now called Hinduism, has been rated as one of the most human as well nature-friendly faiths for being unsuperstitious and fair to all in all its religious practices and prescriptions. Traditionally, Hindus engage in goddess-worshipping rituals when they need to gain power. Even in the most famous Jagannath Temple, food offerings assume sublime status only after the dishes are offered to Goddess Bimala.
Unfortunately, the women became weakest during the mediaeval age when the Brahmin hegemony led to subjugation of monarchs to the priestly class which had the last word in all critical matters of the state. Muslim invaders had settled down earlier in the 11th century with their glaring male-dominating traditions.The Indian priestly community perhaps had been influenced by Muslims. The British came later with their male-chauvinistic lifestyle; and the Indian priestly fraternity may have been further inspired to put women-domestication practices in place. Even in the West, after successful industrialisation, women were treated as second class. They were deprived of voting rights and pursuing higher education.
The Sabarimala matter is specific to equal rights of women. It was once for all settled by the Supreme Court in 2018. As is customary, several review petitions were filed. The apex court, strangely, at the outset, said the five-judge Bench was inadequate to decide the enormously-sensitive matter and ruled that a nine-judge Bench would review the verdict.
“Hinduism is based on logic; Sabarimala shrine must allow entry of women” emphasises Swami Bhoomananda Theertha, a Sannyasi and a social reformer. He is known for his talks and discourses on Vedanta, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Srimad Bhagavatam, and their practical application in daily life.
The whole of the Hindu world is famous for the Shakti cult, which places the female entity above the male for the simplest reason of we being stronger in all human attributes, the best example of which is bearing, delivering and rearing children. Nowhere in any of the ancient scriptures, including the Bhagwat Gita, Vedas or Upanishads, is it mentioned that women and men are not equal. Now, women are excelling in all hitherto male domains like fighting as soldiers and flying planes with the same expertise as men.
The Kamakshya temple near Guwahati is one of the principal Shakti shrines where the genital of Goddess Sati had fallen the same way as the naval did to become Goddess Biraja at Jaipur in Odisha. Interestingly, the genital-shrine does not forbid men to visit the temple. But Lord Ayappa at Sabarimala, a god symbolising an absolutely celibate status, projected as a deity dreadful of women in the sexually-active age. Gods and goddesses behaving fallibly like errant human creatures is the strangest phenomenon in any religion.
When the pro-woman verdict came, there was a great deal of hue and cry by fundamentalist Hindus, who kept screaming that Muslim groups conspired to get this court order. The Sabarimala shrine is open to all devotees, no matter what faith. People may not know that in 2006, a group of five women lawyers, Bhakti Pasrija, Prerna Kumari, Laxmi Shastri, Sudha Pal and Alka Sharmhad, filed the petition demanding women of all age groups be allowed to enter the Sabarimala temple.
Now, the Supreme Court seems to be keen on deciding which Constitutional provision between ‘Right to Equality' and Freedom of Religion' is more primary and non-negotiable as both are Fundamental Rights. These rights appear to be competing for precedence in view of controversies surrounding entry of women at certain places of worship including fire temples of Parsis and mosques as well as the issue of genital mutilation among Bohra Muslims. Hence, the hearing has commenced like in a fast-track court after putting away other urgent matters like review of scrapping of Article 370 and CAA.
The Chief Justice of India set up the nine-judge Bench instead of a seven-judge one set up by the previous CJI obviously because at the back of his mind, there seems to be a ‘clash' between fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 and religious rights under Articles 25 and 26, more so Article 26.
However, in recent times, the courts seem to have given the right to equality more weight. In 2016, a Bombay High Court Bench opened the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah to women, prohibited until then on the ground of religious freedom under Article 26. The court held that rights under Articles 14 and 15 were superior. In 2017, the Supreme Court declared Triple Talaq as unconstitutional. The argument that Muslim personal law enjoyed protection of the rights to religious freedom did not hold against the right to gender equality.
Though religions have given birth to ethics which developed into rules over time eventually to be part of the constitution of respective countries, religious freedom is only basic in historical context, never in the principle of equality.
Many cases similar to the Sabarimala issue are pending before the Supreme Court. Genital mutilation of women belonging to the Bohra Muslim community, entry of Muslim women into mosques for prayer and similar unfettered access to women into the fire temples of Parsis are a few which are equally sensitive and critical in a secular democracy with freedom for religious practices.
Hopefully, the apex court will have the right to equality established in a manner as shall never be challenged ever again when weird religious practices without scriptural endorsement or any acceptable logic come up in conflict with the non-negotiable right to equality before law.