The Supreme Court has raised a very pertinent question on the age-old tradition that bans the entry of women of menstrual age from the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. A decade-old case, which is being taken up now, will bristle with the tensions of strong and conflicting opinion. While the practice will have no legal ground to stand on in terms of constitutional provisions granting it any legitimacy, the big tussle between tradition and modernity is something with which the wise judges will have to grapple.
The rule has been broken, by an actress who not only worshipped at the temple but also touched the deity 28 years ago, and also by female members of the Travancore royal family visiting the shrine during their regime. The arguments over whether a menstruating woman following the purification rites — including of celibacy — over 41 days can be construed to defile the pilgrimage are theological. Playing the devil’s advocate can trigger the leading question on whether there is a guarantee men would not feel the sexual urge, even if in the throes of a religious vow.
If the highest principles of gender equality are considered, the argument of the temple falls flat, even if it is one hosting a god of perpetual celibacy. Also, there is no logic to the endurance of women being questioned because of the difficult trek to the temple. Truth to tell, a fierce tradition of a male preserve built up over centuries is being questioned only now. It would be truly historic if this one were to be brought down in the age of enlightenment.
