Those Who Welcomed Verdict On Haji Ali Are Silent Over Sabarimala

Video Editor: Sandeep Suman

On one side there is Haji Ali and on the other is Sabarimala. Two courts, two judgments, one intention. But the fight for rights often leads to protests.

When women try to enter Sabarimala, they are prevented from doing so by a fierce mob that gathers around the temple. Even with police protection, women are being forced to stay away from the temple. And all this despite the order coming directly from the Supreme Court.

It’s the same government and it’s the same Supreme Court that gave historic verdicts. So why are those who were ecstatic over the court’s decision on Haji Ali, fearful of women entering Sabarimala ? Why are they crying in the name of faith?

The Two-Faced Attitude of BJP and RSS

The BJP and RSS, which hailed the court’s verdict on Haji Ali, are now finding fault with its verdict on Sabarimala. When the Bombay High Court allowed the entry of women inside the Haji Ali dargah, it was hailed as a historic judgment. But when it comes to Sabarimala, the verdict becomes an attack on traditions, history and faith.

If Not the Constitution, Then What?

Attempts are being made to erase the equality between men and women that is guaranteed by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court has permitted the entry of women of menstrual age inside the Sabarimala temple, then why is there a problem in accepting that decision?

On the issue of triple talaq, the verdict was in favour of women, an end of a malpractice. But why the sudden change when it comes to Sabarimala?

Hue Over Triple Talaq, Silence Over Sabarimala

You might remember Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking of getting justice for women with respect to triple talaq from the Red Fort on 15 August.

PM Modi said, “I want to assure my Muslim sisters from the Red Fort. The evils of triple talaq have destroyed the lives of our Muslim sisters. But I want to assure our Muslim daughters and mothers that I will get justice for you.”

Now pit this against his silence on Sabarimala.

In case of one faith, the intervention of the court is 100 percent welcome. But in matters of another faith, it isn’t. When the prime minister remains silent, the message trickles down to the roots. By roots, I mean his ministers. Smriti Irani is a woman herself, so it seemed like she would speak for women’s rights. But no.

“I am nobody to speak on the Supreme Court’s verdict because I am a current serving Cabinet minister. But just plain common sense. Would you take sanitary napkins drenched in menstrual blood to a friend’s home? You would not. Do you think it is respectful to  do the same in the house of god? So, that is the difference. I have the right to pray, but not the right to desecrate.”

Smriti Irani, Union Minister

RSS Chief Against Court’s Verdict on Sabarimala

The prime minister, union ministers and the RSS chief, all have the same stance on Sabarimala. A stance which exposes the evils of another religion but sticks to old traditions in their own religion.

RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat said that, “Men and women are equal. Rightly so. Even we agree with it. But you could have discussed it first. Built a consensus. There is a centuries old tradition in place. There are many reasons behind it.”

Let’s consider that in the Sabarimala row, the court’s verdict violated religious traditions. But there is a way out for that as well. A review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court. If that gets rejected, there is another way out. The government can make new laws to reverse the Supreme Court’s verdict. The same way it was done in the case of the SC/ST law. But those who talk about law and the Constitution must remember that a civil society cannot allow the country’s biggest court’s verdict to be violated while the government looks on.

When the court’s verdict allowed the entry of women into religious places like Maharashtra’s Shani Shinganapur Mandir and the Haji Ali dargah, then in the case of Sabarimala, why is the court’s verdict being chained by religious beliefs?