Rights of passage

It's peculiar that the restriction on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple is not more vociferously condemned.

At Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, priests and the management draw on ‘tradition’ to bar women between ages 10 and 50 from the temple. The denial is based on concerns that it’s a strenuous journey for the fair sex and that women, along with men, can cause law and order problems. If the latter ‘logic’ is outrageous (the Haj or Amarnath, instances of men and women moving together as pilgrims), the first belies the common sense that an older woman is more likely to suffer from the rigours of a pilgrimage than a younger one. What is worth noting, however, is the hesitation in 21st century India to address gender discrimination in places of worship. This is symptomatic of the deeply-entrenched psyche that ‘traditions’ are immune to the logic of contemporary mores. Harking back to the same ‘traditional’ not-for-women-for-their-own-good argument, women pilots in the Indian Air Force are denied the right to operate/fly fighter aircraft. Reasons cited include ‘concerns’ that in the event of being captured as PoW, women will receive a worse deal than their male counterparts. The message is clear: women can storm male bastions only to the extent that they are ‘allowed to’.

HT Image

It should rankle that this discrimination amounts to the Dalitisation of women -- the former having made their point as far back as in 1930. If the temple entry movement of 1930, that started off in Nasik and found a hub in Kerala’s Guruvayoor temple, could make trustees and managements throw open their doors to Dalits, it’s peculiar that the restriction on the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple is not more vociferously condemned. Undoubtedly, India has freed itself of many oppressive acts -- this instance is as good as any to take another step towards parity.

But whether, at all, it will spur the few remaining temples that enforce this rule into recognising the absurdity is unclear -- for the actor who first sparked off the controversy has apologised for her ‘wrongdoing’. It would have served the purpose of empowerment better had she pointed out that her visit 17 years back was as unremarkable as any other male pilgrim’s visit. At the other end of the spectrum, the defence services may want to revisit the Constitution that allows equal opportunity. What women who choose to join the defence services want is equal opportunity and equal protection, not unsolicited mollycoddling.