In 2019, two women attempted to enter Kerala's Sabarimala Temple under police protection, sparking debate on religious rights versus gender equality.
On January 2, 2019, two ladies tried to enter the Sabarimala Temple situated in Kerala, not out of devotion but to challenge the authority. Among these ladies, one was Rehana Fathima, who was born into an orthodox Muslim family and had no faith in the temple. She tried to enter the temple; however, she never tried to enter mosques where women are not allowed. The other was Bindu Ammini, who was the youngest female State Coordinator of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist). She herself admitted that she was an atheist and had no devotion to the deity of Sabarimala.
Hence, these women tried to enter the Sabarimala Temple but never went to the hundreds of Lord Ayyappa temples where women are allowed. They attempted to enter Sabarimala under police protection after the Supreme Court of India, by a majority of 4:1 in its judgment dated 28 September 2018, held that the restriction on women between the ages of 10 and 50 was unconstitutional. The majority consisted of four male judges, while the only female judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, did not agree with the other four judges and delivered a dissenting judgment.
This case was heard on a PIL filed by activists linked with the Young Lawyers Association, working thousands of kilometers away from the Sabarimala Temple in and around Punjab. They came to know about the temple and its rules by reading three newspaper articles, one of which was written by Barkha Dutt. They challenged the faith of the devotees of Sabarimala.
Though the Supreme Court tried to label it as a historic decision against gender discrimination, by hurting the sentiments of thousands of female devotees of Sabarimala,.Amidst all this, let me take you through the history of the temple. Lord Ayyappa is believed to be the son of Shiva and Mohini, a form of Vishnu, and was born to kill the demon Mahishi. After Mahishi was slain, a woman named Malikappurathamma emerged from the demon's form, having been freed from a curse. She fell in love with Lord Ayyappa and wished to marry him. However, Lord Ayyappa declined her proposal, stating that he had dedicated his life to answering the prayers of his devotees. He promised that he would marry her when no new Kanniswamis (first-time pilgrims) came to Sabarimala. Since first-time pilgrims continue to visit the temple every year, Malikappurathamma is believed to be waiting for him at the Malikappuram Temple.
For this reason, women devotees traditionally refrained from visiting Sabarimala out of respect for the celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa and out of respect for the love and devotion of Malikappurathamma. In this context, in the loud echoes of activists demanding equality, dignity, and liberty what about the rights of thousands of devotees and their freedom of faith? What about the dignity and privacy of Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma as understood by their devotees?
In a country like Bharat, where you walk a mile across a village, town, or city you will find a temple with a unique deity and a distinct story behind it, and those who believe in a temple also believe in the story associated with it. For example Sabarimala is not the only temple with unique entry traditions. Across India, several temples follow customs based on their own legends and beliefs. The Brahma Temple at Pushkar restricts the entry of married men into the inner sanctum, while the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple in Kerala reserves its famous Pongala festival exclusively for women. Similarly, at the Kamakhya Temple in Assam, the Goddess is believed to undergo her annual menstrual cycle during the Ambubachi Mela, during which the temple remains closed and devotees faithfully observe the tradition. For devotees, such practices are not viewed as discrimination but as an integral part of the faith, history, and identity of these sacred spaces.
And these matters of faith cannot be weighed on the scales of the Supreme Court, as was done in the Sabarimala case, where the beliefs and dignity of thousands of Sabarimala devotees were, lost to the agenda of Marxist, atheist, and anti-Hindu activists.
Again, the constitutional questions arising from the Sabarimala reference are being heard before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Ironically, the arguments of Marxist activists, high-profile advocates, judges, government counsels, and lawyers are echoing in Delhi, while the faith of Ayyappa devotees is silently watching from thousands of kilometers away.
But let us remember that this is the land of Bharat, where, for many devotees, faith is often greater than the deity itself. I remember my mother once visiting a temple in Rohtak and taking a vow that she would not return to that temple until a child was born to her brother. Thereafter, no Supreme Court, no High Court, and not even the deity herself could make her enter that temple until her wish was fulfilled. This is how deeply personal the relationship between a devotee and the deity can be.
Yet, ironically, the faith of Sabarimala devotees and the traditions of the temple were sacrificed at the altar of Marxist activism.
