Religious Freedom and Gender justice: Women Entry Issues in Sabarimala Temple Rajagopal. PK. Assistant Professor, PG Department of Political Science, NSS Hindu College, Changanacherry, kottayam ,District, Kerala

Religious Freedom and Gender justice: Women Entry Issuesin Sabarimala Temple

Rajagopal. PK.
Assistant Professor, PG Department of Political Science, NSS Hindu College,
Changanacherry, Kottayam , District, Kerala

ABSTRACT

Gender equality and gender justice are the features of an egalitarian political
system. Gender equality is meaningless without gender justice and discrimination on
the basis of gender which is a violation of basic human rights. Twenty-five year-long
legal battle on this issue has created concern among the Hindu devotees including
women. In fact, the issue has two sides. In a human rights perspective, it is a violation
of the basic principles of gender equality, gender justice and natural justice. On the
other hand, the entry of womenfolk is not fully restricted in Sabarimala temple.
Thousands of women devotees visit the shrine every year. Moreover, the entry of women
in a particular shrine is not a means of gender equality or a matter of empowerment of
women, in the context of gender inequality, prevails manifold. This paper views the
traditional ban for women of a particular age group at the hill shrine of Sabarimala
in two different perspectives-constitutional and religious.

Introduction

Sabarimala temple is an epitome of religious harmony and a great centre of pilgrimage that attracts people not only from the southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh but also from other parts of the country and abroad. It is estimated that about 4 to 5 crore devotees offer prayer in the temple every year. It is one of the few historically significant temples in Kerala. We can see that thetemple is referred in many foreign accounts like that of Xuanzang, Lt. Ward etc.
Xuanzang calls it as Churulimala1 and Lt.Ward in his Memoir of the Survey of Travancore and Cochin States (1891), refers it to Chourymulla Pagoda.2 Scholars regard that Sabarimala was a Buddhist shrine before converting it in to Ayyappatemple, like many of the Hindu temples in Kerala.3 According to Amarakosha, the word Sastha or Dharmasasta is one of the eighteen synonyms of Gautama Buddha 4. But renowned historian MGS Narayanan in an interview stated that there is no need to associate Sree Buddha with Lord Ayyappa. According to him, Buddha had renounced
his kingdom and everything else for peace, while Ayyappa was a warrior5. The temple located in Perunad GramaPanchayat, Pathanamthitta District in Kerala is a part of the Periyar Tiger Reserve in the Western Ghats mountain ranges. It is managed by Travancore Devaswom Board, an autonomous body constituted under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act XV of 1950.Earlier the temple governing body has a woman member above 50 years of age who shall be nominated by the Hindus among the council of Ministers, later this provision has been omitted from the Act. Sabarimala temple is the major source of income for Travancore Devaswom Board and in the year 2016-17 the income from this temple was Rs.243.69 crore.6
Temple administration in Kerala today confronts several grave issues. The issue of temple entry of the marginalized is becoming widely discussed in the socio-political arena of the state. The issues like the appointment of priests in temples on the basis of merit than birth, entry of women of a particular age group at Sabarimala temple, entry of non-Hindu believers in selected temples etc are the major issues that have been debated today. Sabarimala is perhaps the only Hindu shrine where a man is
not banned from entering on account of caste; creed or religion. However, there is discrimination based on gender.7 This discrimination in the hill shrine is not between men and women but between women and women. The issue is that of temple custom versus constitutionalism.

The issue of women entry

Sabarimala temple is located in the erstwhile Travancore which is famous for the historic Temple Entry Proclamation. It is unfortunate that such issues like ban on women to enter into a particular temple is happening in the land of the Temple Entry Proclamation. It is the only major Hindu temple, where a man is not prohibited from entering on account of caste; creed or religion. But there are restrictions for women in pilgrimage. As far as women is concerned, it is stipulated that only those
who have not attained the age of puberty and the menstrual cycle and those who are past menopause alone should undertake the pilgrimage. The entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years is prohibited in the shrine because the presiding deity Lord Ayyappa is considered to be a „naishtika Brahmachari‟ (perennial celibate).
Sabarimala temple has justified the ban on entry of women of a certain age saying thatthe restriction was enforced under Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 Hindu organizations and bodies like the Akhila Bharatiya Ayyappa Seva Sanghom have come out in public against the move to give the womenfolk entry atSabarimala shrine. In 1982, the volunteers of Ayyappa Seva Sangam blocked the entry of two girls on the ground that they had attained the age limit and would be violating the traditional restriction by entering the temple. Again in1986 the entry of women hit the headlines when an actress entered into the sannidhanam( temple premise) for the
purpose of a Tamil movie. The controversy was taken to the court in 1992 and thecourt fined the actress.8 The entry of women at the forest shrine becomes again anissue in 1990 in connection with the visit of a lady officer of the Devaswom Board tothe temple with members of her family including women, for the naming ceremony ofher grandson. This incident was then brought to the attention of the High Court andthe court issued an order prohibiting the entry of women in 10-50 age groups.
Following this, lady doctors, women police and devaswom guards were posted atvantage points to prevent the entry of women. In 1990, S. Mahendran, a devotee, fileda petition in the Kerala High Court protesting against the entry of young women to theshrine (which was contrary to the temple's customs). He cited the example of S.Chandrika, the Board's former commissioner. She had conducted the first rice-feedingceremony at sannidhanam for her granddaughter in the presence of several women.
The Court accepted the contention of the petitioner that the restriction imposed on
women of a particular age group from entering the temple is a matter of religion and a
matter of religious faith under Article 26 (b) of the Indian Constitution. It was observed that a religious denomination or organization enjoyed complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies were essential according to the tenets of the religion and no outside authority had any jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of such religious denomination. In 1991, the court issued a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board not to permit women above the age of 10 and below the age of 50 to trek the holy hills of Sabarimala in connection with the pilgrimage to the Sabarimala temple and from offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine during any period of the year.9 A direction was also issued to the Government of Kerala to render all necessary assistance, inclusive of police and to ensure that the direction issued to the Devaswom Board was implemented and complied with.10 In 1994, the then Pathanamthitta District Collector B.Valsalakumri, visited the temple by obtaining a court verdict in order to see the civic amenities there, sparked off another controversy.11
The next phase took place in 2006. A team led by a noted astrologer conducted a four-day "devaprasnam" (astrological observation) at the Sabarimala temple. It was pointed out that there happened the presence of a woman at the sanctum of the temple. Subsequently, one famous film actress from the State of Karnataka, Jayamala, made a public disclosure that she had entered the temple and she was pushed into the sanctum sanctorum by the surging crowd. Later, it was alleged that the whole episode was part of a conspiracy to earn fame for the astrologer. A criminal case was then filed against him, his assistant and the actress forhatching a conspiracy and hurting religious sentiments of the people of the state. 12. With the incident leading to a storm, the Kerala government had then ordered a crime branch probe but the case was subsequently dropped.13 However, in July 2012, the Kerala High Court quashed the charges against the accused actress on the ground of insufficient evidences. However, the temple tantri (chief priest) performed a purification ceremony at the temple.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged the constitutional validityof Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry)Rules, which bars women from entering the temple and sought removal of the ban inthe Supreme Court. This Public Interest Litigation was filed on the ground that such rules and notifications violate the right to religion of women (Article 25), and theright to equality (Articles 14 and 15) challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules,
1965, and the notifications issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board. However, the Travancore Devaswom Board argued that the restriction did not discriminate womenagainst men but women against women on the basis of age. This view has been takenas regressive by gender-equality activists who raised the argument that menstruationdid not make a woman impure. Critics say the restriction violates women‟s fundamental right of protective discrimination.
In November 2007, the LDF government had then filed an affidavit statingthat “it is not fair to deny a section of women entry into Sabarimala.” That affidavit had questioned the rituals, customs and observances followed in the temple. With this,
has signalled its return to the side of women fighting for equal right to worship
with man at the temple.14 There happened a shift in the policy of the government
when UDF came to power, favouring the ban on the entry of women on the ground
that the restriction had been in place from “time immemorial” and was a part of the
temple‟s “unique idol concept.” It reasoned that since the presiding deity, Lord
Ayyappa, was a celibate or „Naisthik Brahmachari,‟ even the “slightest deviation”
caused by the presence of young women on the temple premises was undesirable.
After that, the LDF Government which came to power favoured the entry of women
of all ages at Sabarimala temple in the Supreme Court. In the affidavit, the
Government had stated that “it is not fair to deny a section of women to enter in
Sabarimala” and questioned the rituals, customs and observances pursued in the
temple. By doing so, the government has taken a U-turn, since early in the year it
opposed the entry of women of the 10-50 age groups into the temple citing the
temple‟s tradition since time immemorial.15
Twenty five year long legal battle on this issue has created concern among the Hindu
devotees. The Supreme Court in its observation stated that no temple or governing
body can bar a woman from entering the shrine where lakhs of devotees throng
annually to worship. The court questioned how a temple managed by a statutory board
and financed out of the Consolidated Fund “can indulge in practices violatingconstitutional principles”. K. Parasaran and. K.K. Venugopal, senior counsels
appearing for Devaswom Board submit that the religious questions posed in this Writ
Petition can be determined finally only by the “Thanthri” concerned.The Supreme
Court in its observation stated that no temple or governing body can bar a woman
from entering the shrine where lakhs of devotees throng annually to worship. The
court questioned how a temple managed by a statutory board and financed out of the
Consolidated Fund “can indulge in practices violating constitutional principles”. K K.
Venugopal justified the ban on women's entry in Sabarimala temple in tune with the
tradition of the shrine. He argued that allowing women of a certain age in the shrine
would require reinterpretation of Article 25 and more importantly Article 26 of the
Constitution. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion. Article 26 deals with the rights of a religious
denomination.. The counsel referred to the peculiar custom in the temple, associated
with the 41 days of penance to be undertaken by the devotees, during which they are
under voluntary restraint from indulging in worldly pleasures. He then referred to the
Muslim shrine within the temple complex, and the history associated with it, making
it a unique characteristic of the temple. Justice Dipak Misra said that they have to rise
above the spiritual considerations, and address the Constitutional issues involving in it
and not any spiritualism associated with the temple. Justice Misra also observed that
the temple can‟t restrict the right of entry except on the basis of religion, and whether
the temple can claim constitutional protection on the ground of being a separate
religious denomination.16 The Supreme Court appointed senior lawyers Raju
Ramachandran and K Ramamurthy as amicus curiae in connection with the plea to
allow entry of women to the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple. . Finally the Supreme Court
referred to this case to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The Supreme Court referred
to this case to a five-judge Constitution Bench17.
Ramamurthy, in his submission has put forth the view that the restriction imposed by
the Devaswom Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution,
Articles 25 and 26 contains a guarantee for rituals and observations, ceremonies and
modes of worship which are integral parts of religion. Religious practice based on
religious faith adhered to and followed by millions of Hindus for over a millennium in
consonance with natural rights of men and women is not violative of Fundamental
Rights18
Raju Ramachandran argued that entry to a public temple is a legal right but not a
permissible right and, therefore, the temple authorities have no authority to curtail the
said right. The ban was affected women during their most active years and thus had
the impact of discriminating against women as a class. And the ban just because of
their biology was detrimental to their dignity. This was merely an “interpretation
created by those who have run the temple.
Justice Dipak Misra said that they have to rise above the spiritual considerations, and
address the Constitutional issues involving in it and not any spiritualism associated
with the temple. Justice Misra also observed that the temple can‟t restrict the right toentry except on the basis of religion, and whether the temple can claim constitutional
protection on the ground of being a separate religious denomination. Finally the
Supreme Court referred to this case to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The Supreme
Court referred to this case to a five-judge Constitution Bench19.
This issue has created a storm in state politics creating divided opinions on
“Right to pray Vs Ready to wait” positioning. While activists seeking women‟s entry
have came out with social media campaigns like „Right to Bleed‟ and „Right to Pray‟,
other Hindu women organisations have entered the battle through a „Ready to Wait‟
campaign.20 The women‟s group, led by Pune-based gender rights activist Trupti
Desai, has called for a march to allow the entry of women of all age groups to
Sabarimala on January 14, 2017.
Travancore Devaswom Board chief Prayar Gopalakrishnan stated that “We
will not allow Sabarimala to become Thailand. Even if the court opens its doors, I
don‟t think self-respecting women will dare to go up to the hill shrine.” This comment
was criticized by Minister for Devaswoms in his Face book post that the TDB chief
considered women who go to Sabarimala as shameless and so he has to apologise for
this remark. The issue made the relations between the Devaswom President and the
government at loggerhead and through the Devaswom Amendment Ordinance, he has
been overthrown before the commencement of 2017-18 Sabarimala pilgrim season.Conclusion
There is no consensus among various Hindu organizations and Devaswom Board
regarding the entry of women in to the forest shrine. In an unprecedented move RSS
general secretary Bhaiyyaji Joshi in his address to the national council has said that
unfair traditions have caused ban of women in many temples. Such unfair traditions
should be disposed with. But state leaders do not share this view. Temple entry
movements by marginalised sections have historically been used as a symbol of
protest against exclusion and as a challenge to the established power hierarchies in
society. Banning entry to temples is especially discriminatory since it subverts the
idea of everyone being equal to God and thus movements to enter the house of God
assume a larger meaning.xxi
Twenty five year long legal battle on this issue has created concern among the Hindu
devotees. Infact, the issue has two sides. In a human rights perspective, it is a
violation of the basic principles of gender equality, gender justice and natural justice.
On the other hand, the entry of womenfolk is not fully restricted in Sabarimala
temple. Thousands of women devotees visit the shrine every year. Moreover, entry of
women in a particular shrine is not a means of gender equality or a matter of
empowerment of women, in the context of gender inequality prevails manifold. An
urgent solution is necessary to solve this issue. A consensus among Hindu religious
organizations, heads of various muts, temple tanthri and others regarding the revision
of temple customs in a time bound manner. While taking the case of entry of women
of a particular age group in Sabarimala temple the concern here is modernity
regardless of traditional practices. An urgent solution is necessary to solve this
issue.A consensus among Hindu religious organizations, heads of various muts,
temple tanthri and others regarding the revision of temple customs in a time bound
manner. While taking the case of entry of women of a particular age group in
Sabarimala temple the concern here is modernity regardless of traditional practices.
The controversy continues to rage on with the tussle between religious tradition and
beliefs on one side and rationalism, gender justice and constitutional rights on the
other. The stake holders are many… devotees, temple authorities, politicians, priests,
lawyers, women‟s rights activists and of course the women in the “banned” age
group. It is a fact that forced temple entry can never result in a proper solution.

Research Guru Volume-11, Issue-4(March-2018) (ISSN:2349-266X)
Notes and References
-----------------------------

1http://missiongreensabarimala.com/
2 Ward,B.S. (1891).Memoir of the survey of Travancore and cochin states.P.70
,http://statelibrary.kerala.gov.in/rarebooks/index.php
3 Historian A Sreedhara Menon draw the attention to the belief that vadakkumnathan
temple Thrissur,Madavurpara siva temple,kazhakkuttam were budhist shrines .http://missiongreensabarimala.com/
5 Sabarimala sree dharma sastha temple Ascent to awakening ,published by the Hindu
2016,p.44
6 The total revenue collection of the Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala for the 2016-
17 festival season stood at Rs 243.69 crore, Devaswom minister Kadakampally
Surendran said in the Kerala assembly that Hundi collection alone comes to around
Rs.89.70 crore and sale of appam was Rs.17.29 crore, Hindustan times, May 18,
2017, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/sabarimala-s-ayyappa-shrine-getsrs-
243-69-cr-as-revenue-during-festival-season/storymfwnTAvDPwSneWSbatLOSM.
html
7 KR Vaidyanathan, (1996), Pilgrimage to sabari, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Mumbai.
p.175
8 Ibid p177
9 S. Mahendran vs The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, on 5 April, 1991,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1915943/
10 Shashikala Gurpur et al.,Tradition-Modernity Polarities and Human Rights of
Women: Tracking Judicial Responses in India, American International Journal of
Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences,September-November,2014,pp.1-9,
http://iasir.net/aijrhasspapers/aijrhass14-601.pdf
11 Indian Express , 21st April 1995
12 http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/sabarimala-case-hc-lets-off-actorjaimala/
story-ApeEkCLKJKU4cQZq9ODhYK.html
13 http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ban-on-entry-of-women-factscontroversies-
about-kerala-s-sabarimala-temple/story-
K4Xi6GKMacPDmQO2jAmjNO.html
14 The Hindu, 7th . November, 2016.
15The New Indian Express,8th November 2016,http://www.newindianexpress.com
16 http://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court-set-to-hear-the-challenge-to-sabarimalatemples-
restrictions-on-entry-of-womenIndian Young Lawyers Association Vs The State Of Kerala ,on 13 October, 2017,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22558009/
18 Indian Young Lawyers Association Vs The State Of Kerala ,on 13 October, 2017,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22558009/
19 Ibid
20 https://www .pressreader.com/india/business-standard/20161226/281998967117220
xxi Swati Saxena, Shani Shingnapur temple protests: Can’t worship women as
goddesses and also deny them right to pray,
http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/shani-shingnapur-sabarimala-temple-entryprotest-
rights/
Research Guru: Online Journal of Multidisciplinary Subjects (Peer Reviewed)