#Thiruvananthapuram: While a court battle continues on whether a ban on women entering into Kerala’s Sabarimala Temple should be lifted, the lakhs of pilgrims who visit every year seem to be divided on the subject.
The Supreme Court is hearing a petition challenging the ban on women between 10 and 50 entering the ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa. It made strong observations today, questioning the age-old traditions.
“In Vedas, Upanishads or scriptures there is no discrimination between and men and women. This discrimination will be tested on the parameters of constitutional equality and right to custom and religious practices,” the court said.
“Is spirituality a domain of men only? Are women are incapable of spirituality?” it added.
Reacting to the developments, Mrs Nair (full name) in her 50s observed, “I am against women visiting Sabarimala during their menstruating age. River Pamba is already polluted. Where will everyone throw their sanitary napkins? And then, while entering the temple, the hygiene standards are extremely high. How will women maintain that?”
Contrary to her opinion, Sharad (full name), who is a student, said, “I have no problem with women entering Sabarimala, but then the security to them has to be ensured”.
Chief Minister Oommen Chandy however kept away from expressing his opinion. “A state government can do very little when it comes to religion and customs. It is for the temple boards to decide,” he said.
Kerala’s temple board has opposed the court examining the constitutional validity of the ban, arguing that the court can’t dig up customs which are thousands of years old.
Rahul Eashwar, the grandson of Sabarimala chief priest is strongly against women being allowed inside the Sabarimala temple. He said, “If God is everywhere, why should you go to a temple? That’s because a temple is designed for a particular spiritual experience and just like male and female hostel, we have Sabarimala for men and another temple in Kerala considered as Sabarimala for women. We will bring this and more to the notice of the Supreme Court.”
Leave a Reply