Sacred Sabarimala: ‘Right To Destroy A Tradition’ versus ‘Ready to Wait’
With the #ReadyToWait movement, a group of Hindu women are standing up against the judicial encroachment of their traditions.
The debate on the so-called #RightToPray at Sabrimala has heated up once again.
There is no evidence that forces behind #RightToPray have any belief in Hindu traditions for reform nor any interest to secure any “right” for “Hindu women.”
With the #ReadyToWait movement, a group of
Hindu women standing up against the judicial encroachment of their traditions,
the debate on the so-called #RightToPray at Sabrimala has heated up once again.
A lot of the impetus of the so-called “Right to Pray” or rather to forcibly violate
the traditions of particular temples, is coming from many people who would
otherwise not step into any Hindu
temple at all. Some of the “feminists”
advocating this, such as Ranjana Kumari,
run NGOs heavily funded
by Church groups from abroad. Whatever
the motivations of assorted proxies in this campaign, there are also a
number of well-meaning dharma-parayana Hindus who are confused about the
restrictions on women in certain temples. This essay is to address that.
Temples are linked to energy, not congregation.
Let us start with a higher seeing. Sadhguru
Jaggi Vasudeva’s note on the Shani Shingnapur controversy brings
unique clarity to this matter.
needs to be understood that these temples are not places of prayer – they are
different types of energies. Since we are aware that the planets in the solar
system have an impact upon our physiology, our psychological structure, and the
context of our lives, we have created temples for the different planets.
Hindu temples are not congregational halls
like a Church or a Mosque. What does
that mean? A church or mosque are places for believers to assemble and pray
together. For instance, if a mosque no
longer suits a congregation, it is permissible to break it, or sell it and move
to a bigger place. Similarly a cathedral is a larger congregational building
that is associated with a specific rank, a bishop, in the Catholic Church.
Famous, popular Cathedrals are those known for their size, majesty or
In contrast, a temple is not primarily a
place where people “gather for prayer.” Some of the most powerful and highly
visited temples are actually very tiny, with barely space for dozens of people
to stand near the murti before they must move on, nor do they have any
architectural magnificence. These popular temples are loci of energy which lend
them their importance. Whether or not
one “believes” in this is unimportant; certainly those without faith should
have little interest in being allowed into a temple in any case.
Continuing about the Shani Shingnapur
temple, Jaggi Vasudeva says:
there is this controversy about allowing women to enter a certain temple in
Maharashtra, the Shani Shingnapur temple. Very powerful processes are conducted
at this temple. Shani temples are mainly used for occult purposes and exorcism.
People come there mainly to ward off occult influences or because they feel
they are possessed. Because occult processes are conducted there, the energies
are not conducive for women. As a woman is entrusted with the significant
responsibility of manufacturing the next generation, her body is far more
receptive and vulnerable to certain types of energies – especially during
pregnancy and menstrual cycles.
So restrictions on women are based on
certain energetic particularities associated with a temple not because of some
kind of “anti-woman” bias that needs to be erased. In fact, women and the
feminine principle are highly honoured in Hindu traditions. Most puja
ceremonies require women for their completion.
There is also no notion of menstruation being “shameful” though there
are certain energetic restrictions around it.
Unlike Christianity or Islam, Hindu traditions have rituals and
ceremonies to honour girls on the onset
of menstruation and certain Tantric rituals even use menstrual blood.
By temples not being congregational, it
also means that this issue is quite separate from whether or not women may be
allowed into mosques, for instance. While
many Islamic scholars argue against any such restriction, some favour
restrictions based on Hadith, emphasising modesty, mixing of the sexes or of
men being “distracted.” These are quite different issues from women not being
allowed in a few temples.
This brings us to a second contrast with monotheisms.
Monotheism looks to “God’s Word” to tell human beings what to do. Moses brought
the Law, Jesus fulfilled the Law, but human beings are simply stuck to
following “God’s Word” in religious matters. Similarly, in Islam, the Quran is
supposed to be Allah’s immutable word; and the Quran, together with the Hadith,
a collection of Prophet Mohammad’s life and sayings, circumscribe what to do.
In contrast, Hindu traditions are diverse.
There is not “one book” to follow though the Vedas and the Agamas form a major
corpus of traditional authority. A
number of articles and social media commentary replicate the monotheist
question, “does God ban the entry, or did humans?” This is a nonsensical
argument in the Hindu tradition which is not based on interpreting the “Word of
God.” It is another example of trying to force-fit Hindu diversity into a
For instance, the Supreme Court reportedly
asked on the Sabarimala case:
“If God does not discriminate between
men and women and even the Hindu scriptures, Vedas and Upanishads, do not
discriminate against them, why should the discrimination exist in
With due respect to the Court, these
questions are utterly ignorant. Every
temple has a story and tradition associated with it. The idea of what “God does” based on
determining the “Will of God” through a “Holy Book” is a nonsensical projection
of Abrahamic monotheistic book-based religion onto Hindu traditions.
Yes, this them is found repeatedly in
social media and in commentaries of those advocating “Right to Pray.”
This theme, repeated in @VindoBhattu’s
Tweet is commonly bandied about to invalidate specific temple traditions. “Traditions
are made by a human, not God.” What is this really saying?
According to the Protestant critique of
Catholicism, they’d added man-made traditions to the ones God made (a charge
the Catholic Church denies). Only the
latter are legitimate. Thus all the charges of doing not “what God wants” and
“made by humans, not God” simply replicate Christian theology or a Protestant
critique of Catholicism.
In trying to argue over “God’s Will” which
is universal, in arguing that all temples must operate in the same way, follow
the same restrictions, adhere to the same “Holy Book”, the Court and the “Right
to Pray” activists are trying to force the immense diversity of Hindu
traditions to be a bad replica of Christianity.
Of course, Christianity has a terrible track
record of misogyny, from the Witch Hunts to the contemporary denial of
women to be Priests in the Catholic Church (since per “God’s Word”, “I suffer
not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in
silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
Hindu traditions are not based on
interpreting “God’s word.” Nor do they have to be based on the Vedas. There is a rich body of agama that governs
temples and rituals. Much of the transmission is also through ritual and oral
traditions, through stories and practices.
The tremendous diversity in India has
survived precisely because it does not need to force-fit everyone into one
mould. There are plenty of women-only
temples in India. There are even at temples where
thousands of rats run free (the associated belief is that these are
children born as rats), which have luckily seen no protests yet from the
musophobic. All these temples are associated with different stories and
Savitri temple on the Ratnagiri hills in Rajasthan’s Pushkar… men are barred
entry as the temple marks the rage of its deity, Goddess Savitri. “According to
religious beliefs, Savitri, the wife of Lord Brahma, was enraged when Brahma
married for the second time. She cursed Brahma and started staying at the
Ratnagiri hills. This temple is devoted to her and is maintained by women. Men
are strictly not allowed to enter here…”.
These different stories, just as the story
of Lord Ayyappa, the Brahmachari deity at Sabarimala, and traditions add a
richness and beauty to Hindu traditions unlike any other.
The Hindu tradition is one in which each
can find one’s own path based on one’s own inclinations and nature, your pravritti and prakriti. As Madhu Kishwar
argues, if you don’t like the practice at a particular temple, you can always
go to another.
Kerala also hosts Pongal, the largest
women-only festival in the world. In light of this, the Supreme Courts
comments regarding the Sabarimala temple border on an abusive disregard for the
rich diversity of Hinduism when it asks.
“Is spirituality a domain of only men? Are
women incapable of attaining spirituality?’
Is the Court seeking a right to pray or
enabling a right to destroy?
For it should be clear that the forced
entry into Sabarimala has practically nothing to do with women devotees of
Kerala wanting to visit the temple. The petition in the Supreme Court is filed
by Delhi-based Indian Young Lawyer’s association and its President
Naushad Ahmed Khan. We have already documented the large Christian funding
for “feminist” NGOs demanding entry. It is a complete travesty that this
forcible overturning of Hindu tradition is being sought by those that have no
locus standii in the case and can show no harm to themselves from the
continuation of the tradition.
Those demanding this “right to pray” have
no interest in going to the temple. A temple is not a congregational place. Its
faith aspects are not divorced from its story. If you have no faith in the
story, the temple is just a tourist spot for you. And there is no reason that a
place that is sacred to the devotees needs to become a tourist spot for others
on a whim. Sabarimala is the focus of the attack since it is a huge devotional
Hindu site in Kerala, which has become a battleground for Left and Abrahamic
forces for conquest and erasure of Hindu traditions. Anything that invalidates
the stories that form the basis for people’s shraddha, and attacks their practices, is fair game.
The indigenous feminist #ReadyToWait movement, on the contrary, is Kerala women reaffirming their faith and devotion in the Ayyappan tradition and stories. There is no evidence that forces behind #RightToPray have any belief in Hindu traditions for reform nor any interest to secure any “right” for “Hindu women.” Rather, the intent is destroy the sanctity of the temple that Hindu devotees, men and women, don’t wish to see destroyed. Hinduism is liberal, precisely in the sense that it allows a range and variety of practices to flourish unmolested and lives by this acceptance of diversity. Forcing conformity of all temples to one norm, however high-sounding it may be, is an illiberal blow against this richness and diversity of the Indian traditions. We must not succumb to this right to destroy.
As you are no doubt aware, Swarajya is a media product that is directly dependent on support from its readers in the form of subscriptions. We do not have the muscle and backing of a large media conglomerate nor are we playing for the large advertisement sweep-stake.
Our business model is you and your subscription. And in challenging times like these, we need your support now more than ever.
We deliver over 10 - 15 high quality articles with expert insights and views. From 7AM in the morning to 10PM late night we operate to ensure you, the reader, get to see what is just right.
Becoming a Patron or a subscriber for as little as Rs 1200/year is the best way you can support our efforts.