(This story was first published on 4 January, 2019. It has been reposted from The Quint’s archives ahead of the Supreme Court judgment on review petitions challenging the apex court’s decision to allow women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.)
On Wednesday, 2 January, two women created history by entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
The entry of Bindu (42) from Koilandy and Kanakadurga (44) from Angadipuram in Malappuram district of Kerala sparked state-wide protests. A 55-year-old Sabarimala Karma Samiti worker, who was injured in the clashes, succumbed to his injuries, news agency ANI reported.
Meanwhile, hours after the two women entered the shrine, the temple was closed for “purification rituals.”
On 28 September, the Supreme Court had lifted the ban on the entry of women of menstruating age (between 10-50) at Kerala’s Sabarimala temple. However, the verdict that was hailed by activists has become a point of contention. Moreover, how does the civil society take to “purification” rituals in this day and age?
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Indira Jaising, who fought for the right to pray, said that it was predictable that there would be a purification ceremony.
“This is a form of untouchability – based on menstruation. It is a form of discrimination based on sex. I wasn’t surprised when the temple performed the purification ceremony but I am saddened by it,” said Jaising.
She added that it was “sad that women are being cast out of homes, cast out of temples, and cast out of everywhere.”
Activist Rahul Easwar, however, argued that even Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who “represented the citizens of India”, had backed Justice Indu Malhotra’s view in the televised interview.
Justice Malhotra, the lone dissent voice in the Sabarimala verdict, said that it was not for the courts to “determine which religious practices are to be struck down.”
Easwar added that those opposing the entry of women into Sabarimala will not “relent even an inch” and that they will ensure that the apex court reverses the verdict.
“It will be cheap and unbecoming of the Kerala government to let the two women enter the temple when everyone else was asleep. I respect the Women’s Wall movement even if I disagree with it. I respect Indira Jaising who raised valid points; because these are ideological debates. But letting women enter in the middle of the night was undemocratic,” said Easwar.
He claimed that the women were “completely covered” and when someone asked, they were “identified as transgender people.”
It remains to be seen what view the SC will take on the contention that the entry of women into Sabarimala is an “emotional issue”, when the review petitions come up on 22 January.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)