Sabarimala verdict in Supreme Court highlights: Top court lifts ban, women of all age

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

You need not worry. We will provide you with good quality sanitary pads and other helps.
Do visit Sabarimala.

Sorry! No Whispers ! Happy to Bleed! Will meet in Sabarimala!

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Kafkaesque once again!

Sabarimala temple authorities had earlier this month said that women can be allowed in the temple once a machine that scans menstruating women 'just like the ones that check for weapons' is invented


This has led to a huge outrage with one campaign by name 'Happy To Bleed' being launched on Saturday asking women to "to hold placards/sanitary napkins/charts saying Happy To Bleed" and post the pictures on their profiles or the campaign page "to oppose the shame game played by patriarchal society since ages.

https://www.business-standard.com/a...ntering-sabarimala-temple-115112301321_1.html

 

[prasad1]

I dont go to places where I am not welcomed.

I agree with that view, for personal issues.

I have participated in ERA (Equal rights Amendment) in USA. I have participated in fighting against discrimination in Housing in USA.


Not for personal gain, but for the principle.

 

[Raji Ram]

Machine to scan what?? :lol:

 

[renuka]

Closing the stables after the horses have bolted.

The best course of action would have been for the Hindu religious heads to have assembled and
1) discussed the matter threadbare in the light of Agamic injunctions.
2) persuade the litigant to withdraw the original petition from the court.
3) decide if there is any possible relaxations to the rule in the light of agamic rules as interpreted in the mosaic of time. For instance they could have decided and accommodated the feminists views by allowing women irrespective of age to go to the shrine subject to the condition that they should avoid doing that during their "periods" only.
4) Appeal to the Government to help enforce the agamic injunctions.

None of this happened because we hindus do not have an enlightened leadership -- either religious or political. We pay the price.

Now curative petitions, review petitions etc., are not going to make any material change. Agitation will be a stupid step and will become a forerunner to such agitations by other religious fanatics.

We are waiting for the honourable judges to proclaim whether a masjid is integral to religious worship in Islam or not.

While on one side we have people speaking of review petitions, we have yet to see celebrations by feminists in a big way. I wont be surprised if we come across a call by feminists to celebrate the victory this way:

Oh Menstruating women of the world! Unite! We in India have won a crucial victory in our relentless battle for equality with men.
We have now been proved to have equal rights as men have in every way.

We can now go to Sabarimala and paint the entire mountain red--crimson red. We can make the Pamba river flow in red color. Let us celebrate. All of you, exactly when you are menstruating, make it a point to visit the temple for worship. That is the right time to score a point against the patriarchical society and its tyranny. You need not worry. We will provide you with good quality sanitary pads and other helps. If you get depressions accompanying your periods, there will be enough free opiates available with our volunteers who will help you.
Do visit Sabarimala.

Pachyderm case went to High Court too..two sects couldnt even settle it out of court!

Problem of Hari itself couldnt be solved..Now you want to solve Hari Haras problem.

See Hari Hara..has part Shiva in him..so you cant go to Sabarimala....its 50% Haraam for you!

You wont be entitled to Apsaras in heaven..for 50% Haraam you would get a heaven of 50 shades of Gays!

So you will bleed too...a RED RED WINE.



[video=youtube_share;PqXwslCcPws]https://youtu.be/PqXwslCcPws[/video]

 

[Vaagmi]

Pachyderm case went to High Court too..two sects couldnt even settle it out of court!

Problem of Hari itself couldnt be solved..Now you want to solve Hari Haras problem.

See Hari Hara..has part Shiva in him..so you cant go to Sabarimala....its 50% Haraam for you!

You wont be entitled to Apsaras in heaven..for 50% Haraam you would get a heaven of 50 shades of Gays!

So you will bleed too...a RED RED WINE.
[video=youtube_share;PqXwslCcPws]https://youtu.be/PqXwslCcPws[/video]

This burst of #@&?!/@€€¥$¢∆ does not deserve a reply. Period.

 

[renuka]

This burst of #@&?!/@€€¥$¢∆ does not deserve a reply. Period.

Hey.....its just about bleeding red..
If one can bleed red a moutain top and bleed red a river..why cant you bleed too?
Dont worry just as you said you will give free sanitary pads and anti depressants...I promise anesthesia and suturing.
Ma Suchah.

Lol..you ended your sentence with the word PERIOD( pun intended)

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Dear KB Sir,

Women of other faiths might not be as courageous as Hindu women!!

This courage will make them enter holy shrines even during 'forbidden days'!

Dear RR Madam,

A large majority of devout hindu women won't change their stance just because of this verdict. Iyappaa at Sabarimala being a naishtika brahmachari is an essential part of the belief of His devotees.

Yes, women who visit temples for time-pass and women of revolutionary type or the left wing cadre would visit to prove a point. And you may be correct that this percentage may be higher in the hindu religion.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Islam has the Shariah court to govern Islamic affairs so experts are religious and legal experts but sadly we Hindus do not have such a court becos we have multiple school of thoughts..each Varna has their own Dharma..each Guru ji their own rules..a Ramanuja or a Shankara would contradict each other...so what choice does that leave?
We have to be governed by the Civil Legal Justice system..hence even a Pachyderm was taken to court as an exhibit.


So its not that I failed to understand your post..its just that you cant compare two legal justice system..the Civil and the Shariah...its like comparing apples and oranges.

Even in this case, the verdict was not unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion and the only majority verdict was pronounced.

In any case, the argument is that the ban violates fundamental rights of women and that only the constitutional bench is capable of deciding on this issue. SC did not say they are interpreting the rules of hindu religion. They were interpreting whether the rules violated constitutional rights. So this not the question of SC vs Shariah: It is the question of SC interfering selectively. It takes cognizance in one matter pertaining to one religion but not others. This is one example of fake secularism and that was what I was pointing out there.

 

[vgane]

The rule of banning young women must have been because

those who enter that Temple should observe strict vratham for 48 days!

Some guys might be lured by the beauty of the women and misbehave!

There is no such vratham to enter other temples.

True Madam! Now for the girls & young ladies the 42 days Vratham has to be compromised..Looks like only the so called liberated women are going to go to Sabarmilai now..There will be no support by the public...The review petition too is going to be filed on behalf of the theists in SC!! The implementation is going to be a damp squib!
I think this case was filed by a MUSLIM in SC to needle Hindu traditions and it was argued by Communists & DKists...We HINDUS should file a case to allow Muslim women to pray along with men....Also allow women to go to mosque without Burqa...Will SC take up these cases?

 

[vgane]

I just now read what former SC judge Markandeya Katju has voiced on the SC judgment!! In this my views concur with that of him!

Markandey Katju ✔ @mkatju



Justice Indu Malhotra's judgment is correct,& majority is wrong. With this judgment & s.497 one, SC has embarked on a perilous unpredictable path of over activism like US SC in 1930s utterly lacking in self restraint, heading for we know not where




Justice Indu Malhotra in her dissenting judgement in the Sabarimala case has displayed the balance and restraint required by all judges of a supreme court. I regret I cannot say the same for the judges in the majority. By interfering with the centuries-old practice of the Sabarimala temple they have opened up a Pandora's box and embarked on a perilous, unpredictable path of hyper-activism, which will be an albatross hanging on the necks of judges in India.
India is a country with tremendous diversity and plurality, as Justice Malhotra has noted. There are thousands of temples, mosques, dargahs etc each having its own peculiar practices and rituals. Courts should be extremely reluctant to interfere in this. As Justice Malhotra has rightly pointed out, religion is a matter of faith, and it is for each sect or denomination to decide what are its essential practices.
In most mosques in India, Muslim women are not allowed, and they have to pray at home. Even in the very few where they are allowed, e.g. in Jama Masjid, Delhi, they cannot pray along with the men, but in separate enclosures. Will the Supreme Court display the same bravery and order that Muslim women must be allowed to stand next to Muslim men during prayers in mosques? Or is the Court's bravery selective and confined to Hindus?


https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/sabar...urts-bravery-selective-and-confined-to-hindus

 

[renuka]

May be its high time Temples be userfriendly and not based on any Agama..a Buddhist temple or Sikh temple have no such problems.

Why Hindus always have some mantra or tantra or agama.


In malay..religion is called Agama.
Even Islam is known as Agama Islam.

 

[prasad1]

Dear RR Madam,A large majority of devout hindu women won't change their stance just because of this verdict. Iyappaa at Sabarimala being a naishtika brahmachari is an essential part of the belief of His devotees. Yes, women who visit temples for time-pass and women of revolutionary type or the left wing cadre would visit to prove a point. And you may be correct that this percentage may be higher in the hindu religion.

It was not long a long time ago someone said: A lot of Prisoners are lucky to get square meals, in the prison, outside they will starve. Yes, some of the mental patients locked up in prison get better treatment inside prison than outside. Is it ethical or legal to lock up innocent people?Similarly, women did not object to being "sati", and willingly jumped into the fire under the misguided assumptions, and the pressure of the society.Should we not educate them, instead of encouraging this discrimination?Similarly, the caste system perpetuates because it suits the ruling class because they do not want to enforce the constitution. And they are morally bankrupt.

 

[renuka]

To be honest..Hindu women in Malaysia never break temple rules.
I get so many Hindu patients who before going for pilgrimage to India ask me tablets to post pone their menses.

Its a big no no here to break temple rules.
Dress code too is followed...i myself have never broken a temple rule in my life.
So if you ask me..i wont go to Sabarimalai.

 

[prasad1]

To be honest..Hindu women in Malaysia never break temple rules.
I get so many Hindu patients who before going for pilgrimage to India ask me tablets to post pone their menses.

Its a big no no here to break temple rules.
Dress code too is followed...i myself have never broken a temple rule in my life.
So if you ask me..i wont go to Sabarimalai.

We may have to disagree on this topic.

I do not break the Dress code, or break temple rules.

But if we do not object to unjust practice we would not have become a free nation. To get rid of the British, The satyagraham and marches broke the British rules.

Similarly, The American revolted against the British unfair practice.

Similarly, Martin Luther King and others protested against the discrimination and won equality for colored people.

And Mandela defeated the apartheid system in South Africa by protesting against the system.

Some great Individuals sacrifice their personal life for the greater good and win it for the disadvantaged.


a/the squeaky wheel gets the grease/oil

idiom

Definition of A/The Squeaky Wheel Gets The Grease/Oil



—used to say that someone who complains or causes problems is more likely to receive attention or help than someone who stays quiet and does not cause problems.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a/the%20squeaky%20wheel%20gets%20the%20grease/oil

 

[கால பைரவன்]

May be its high time Temples be userfriendly and not based on any Agama..a Buddhist temple or Sikh temple have no such problems.

Why Hindus always have some mantra or tantra or agama.


In malay..religion is called Agama.
Even Islam is known as Agama Islam.

Just to keep things in perspective, there are more than 25 lakh temples in India. Only a handful of temples, such as Sabarimala and the Shani Shingnapur temple have these gender restriction rules. People who are comparing this issue to practices such as Sati etc are utterly ignorant. One needs to have a sense of scale of proportion.

Also, there are many modern day temples which are more like the temples that you are envisioning - user friendly, peaceful centers to meditate etc there is place for both agamic temples and modern temples.

 

[renuka]

We may have to disagree on this topic.

I do not break the Dress code, or break temple rules.

But if we do not object to unjust practice we would not have become a free nation. To get rid of the British, The satyagraham and marches broke the British rules.

Similarly, The American revolted against the British unfair practice.

Similarly, Martin Luther King and others protested against the discrimination and won equality for colored people.

And Mandela defeated the apartheid system in South Africa by protesting against the system.

Some great Individuals sacrifice their personal life for the greater good and win it for the disadvantaged.


a/the squeaky wheel gets the grease/oil

idiom

Definition of A/The Squeaky Wheel Gets The Grease/Oil



—used to say that someone who complains or causes problems is more likely to receive attention or help than someone who stays quiet and does not cause problems.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a/the%20squeaky%20wheel%20gets%20the%20grease/oil

May be I dont give importance to ritual worship or temples.

But why does anyone want to enter a place that forbids them?
I am not a Muslim..would I want to fight and say a non muslim should be allowed to go to Makkah?

If a temple restricts me...it says NO ..I would be Yes Sir...what would I gain by defiance?

Prayer is about acceptance..peace and surrender.

My life wont be in danger if a temple forbids my entry..after all God is not a mere idol.

What we call God as in an idol is a contracption that has been activated.

The activation code is a Tantra..technique..spiced with Mantras.

If a temple only allows testosterone in and not active estrogen..may be its a endocrinal temple?

An Agamic endocrinal structure...so why mess?
What if the testosterone charged atmosphere changes my body hormones?

I still want to wear my high heels and lipstick and play damsel in distress..i dont want to be a male.

So I shall abide for God is neither testosterone nor estrogen nor a decepticon.

 

[a-TB]

Even in this case, the verdict was not unanimous. There was a dissenting opinion and the only majority verdict was pronounced.

In any case, the argument is that the ban violates fundamental rights of women and that only the constitutional bench is capable of deciding on this issue. SC did not say they are interpreting the rules of hindu religion. They were interpreting whether the rules violated constitutional rights. So this not the question of SC vs Shariah: It is the question of SC interfering selectively. It takes cognizance in one matter pertaining to one religion but not others. This is one example of fake secularism and that was what I was pointing out there.

How can any country have parallel laws of same kind? If Sharia law or any law of a religion is on aspects unrelated to country's law, it is fine. But it cannot trump the laws of a country or its constitution. I think Sharia law is often at odds with a India's laws and must therefore be outlawed. Also Supreme court which is supposed to not interfere with matters of any religion should not have a freedom to selectively go after Hindu religion

 

[a-TB]

I found this in a whatsapp post.
============================================
Here is an open letter written by a professional woman from Kerala slamming all these double standards people, who cannot work on women’s equality in their own religion but poke their nose into other religions.

Here is her letter —

Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, have you travelled in an air plane? There while giving security instructions, they say, fix your own safety mask first before helping others. I request you to fix women rights problem in your own religion first before helping other religions. Allow your women to enter and worship in a mosque first.

I am a Hindu woman from Kerala and I don’t want to go to Sabarimala. You will find hundreds of thousands of us in Kerala and elsewhere. Highly educated professionals, writers, etc. who will agree with me. Why? Because, Kerala Hindu women have temples and festivals exclusively for themselves. Ours was a matriarchal society where only the women inherited.

We have a temple where once a year the priests there will wash the feet of every woman devotee who comes there because a woman is the representation of the Goddess. We have a temple in Mannarashala where the priests are exclusively women, We have Thiruvathira, which is an exclusively women’s festival and no men allowed in the vicinity. We have Pongala a pooja where lakhs and lakhs of women take part in it at Tiruvananthapuram. Since the temple cannot hold all these vast numbers, Trivandrum literally shuts down and it’s streets are full of women. Yes, exclusively women.

Contrary to that, Sabarimala is the one place in Kerala which is exclusively for men. This is where our men go together. It’s a male bonding thing like fathers and sons, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, all the male members in a family or community or friends. The whole community irrespective of caste, wealth, creed joins in including the women. Yes, many of us keep fast with the men in our family. Also women of young age and older ones above 60 are allowed inside Sabarimala, which is never shown by media. This is done because Lord Ayyappa was a brahmachari, which, pseudo secular morons fail to understand.

These forty days are a source of great joy and peace for us. In many homes, it is the only time of the year when men don’t drink, no non-veg food & are CELIBATE; every one gets up very early in the morning around 4:00 am, bathe, do their pooja, visit the nearest temple, the family gets together and it brings family members in together.

Our men don’t do this bonding by drinking, drugs or whoring, Instead it is through 40 days of detox. Every one is in it. The women as well.

There is peace in society because many alcoholics are detoxing. There is a bond not only in the family but in the community. You go for bhajans in the evening. Again the family goes together. The community gets together, very important in this day and age when everyone is working especially in Kerala.

 

[a-TB]

I think all citizens must have equal protection under law and a court should not interfere with a religious practice unless its rules violate the constitutional protection. In that case for fairness same ruling must be made to all religions that violate the equal protection under the constitution.

 

[Brahmanyan]

S C verdict on this issue has drawn the attention of many devotees of Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimalai. The editor in chief of "Sunday Indian Express" Mr. Manoj Kumar Sonthalia has written a front page editorial yesterday edition of the paper, almost concurring the views of dissenting Judgement of Justice Indu Malhotra.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/the...0/sabarimala-verdict-the-reality-1878887.html

This issue relates to religious faith of large number of people who gather from various States of our Country observing certain "vrathams". I am pained to see the discussion in this thread turning to frivolous comments.
I have visited the abode of Lord Ayyappa three times to seek his blessings. Once my grand daughter (10 years old) walked the hills along with us. Ayyappa Cult is unique. It has no Caste or Social imbalance. All devotees of the Lord address them as "Ayyappa" only. The "Guru Swami" who guides the group can of any caste.

Lord Ayyappa is the "Kula Deivam" for many families of all communities including Brahmins in Tamil Nadu. Our "Kuladeivam" is also Ayyanar and the temple is in Perungalur, near Pudhukkottai. The chief Priest (Poosari) is not a Brahmin, he belongs to Padimathaar community. First son in the family is named "Hariharan". We will find temples of Ayyanar in villages under the name of Ayyanarappan, Malayappan etc.

Faith is something goes beyond reasoning. I request the members to post their views in dignified language without hurting religious faith of others.

Brahmanyan
Bangalore.

 

[prasad1]

How can any country have parallel laws of same kind? If Sharia law or any law of a religion is on aspects unrelated to country's law, it is fine. But it cannot trump the laws of a country or its constitution. I think Sharia law is often at odds with a India's laws and must therefore be outlawed. Also Supreme court which is supposed to not interfere with matters of any religion should not have a freedom to selectively go after Hindu religion

It is a mistake to bring Shariat law when we are discussing Indian constitution. Shariat law is limited in India.
I agree that it should not play any part in India.


Muslims in India are governed by The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. This law deals with marriage, succession, inheritance and charities among Muslims. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 deals with the circumstances in which Muslim women can obtain divorce. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 deals with the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith. These laws are not applicable in Goa state, where the Goa Civil Code is applicable for all persons irrespective of their religion. These laws are also not applicable to Muslims who have married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. While other religious communities in India have codified laws, Muslim personal law is not codified in India.


I agree that there should be one personal Law for entire India, there should be an Indian civil code for all India.

Please read the following thread:

https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=17859&p=253185#post253185

 

[a-TB]

It is a mistake to bring Shariat law when we are discussing Indian constitution. Shariat law is limited in India.
I agree that it should not play any part in India.


Muslims in India are governed by The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. This law deals with marriage, succession, inheritance and charities among Muslims. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 deals with the circumstances in which Muslim women can obtain divorce. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 deals with the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by their husbands and to provide for matters connected therewith. These laws are not applicable in Goa state, where the Goa Civil Code is applicable for all persons irrespective of their religion. These laws are also not applicable to Muslims who have married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. While other religious communities in India have codified laws, Muslim personal law is not codified in India.


I agree that there should be one personal Law for entire India, there should be an Indian civil code for all India.

Please read the following thread:

https://www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=17859&p=253185#post253185

I do not understand your statement that it is a "mistake" to bring up Sharia Law. Well it is very relevant and you have not made a case what the mistake is.

A nation cannot have laws derived from many sources. Religion can have a set of rules/laws provided it does not interfere with laws of a nation. If it did, it has to be outlawed.

If Sabarimalai practices are violating laws of gender equality according to Supreme Court, then they have to look at gender equality in religious edicts of every other religion. So it is very relevant.

A nation's law cannot interfere with a religious practices (like say how a ritual is done) unless it violates the constitutional protections. Religious law cannot interfere with a nation's laws that is based on its constitution.

Sharia law is indeed interfering in many areas and along with Sabari Malai decision I hope they outlaw a large number of Sharia laws

 

[prasad1]

I do not understand your statement that it is a "mistake" to bring up Sharia Law. Well it is very relevant and you have not made a case what the mistake is.

A nation cannot have laws derived from many sources. Religion can have a set of rules/laws provided it does not interfere with laws of a nation. If it did, it has to be outlawed.

I agreed with your position that there should be only one set of laws for all India.

What I said that people do not understand that Shariat law is subordinate to the constitutional laws.
A large number of people make the mistake to assume that Muslims have parallel laws and it contradicts with the constitution.
That is not true.

Muslim Personal law board (Sharit). This law deals with marriage, succession, inheritance and charities among Muslims.

So, in my opinion, to equate sharia law with Equality is wrong.

 

[a-TB]

I agreed with your position that there should be only one set of laws for all India.

What I said that people do not understand that Shariat law is subordinate to the constitutional laws.
A large number of people make the mistake to assume that Muslims have parallel laws and it contradicts with the constitution.
That is not true.

Muslim Personal law board (Sharit). This law deals with marriage, succession, inheritance and charities among Muslims.

So, in my opinion, to equate sharia law with Equality is wrong.

Sharia law allows for multiple wives, Triple Talaq, divorce settlements, inheritance. These are not subordinate to constitutional laws and in fact seem to contradict them. I can be corrected but there is no defense of laws that are opposed to constitutional laws.

Why are men allowed to have many wives? Why should those laws say how divorce settlements and division of property are to be handled?

Inheritance laws have to be uniformly administered across a nation. Saying Sharia laws are subordinate to constitutional laws does not seem to apply to each of these instances.

We all can have our opinions but factually there cannot be many truths. In what way are these Sharia laws subordinate?

Sharia laws from theses examples show is discriminatory and is opposed to a nation's laws. I want to have an open mind to fact based points only, not opinions.