God's own country? Not for this Hindu God

Swami Ayyappa, Swami Ayyappa...

Neene gatiyappa, nanage neene gatiyappa...

[O Lord Ayyappa... You are my only refuge...]

Thus sings Kerala's living legend Yesudas in an old Kannada film.  (It would be very interesting to know the legend's views on the chaos unleashed by the Supreme Court's recent verdict on Sabarimala.)

First of all, let's cast a glance on the mytho-history of the place.  Lord Ayyappa, born of the union of Shiva and Vishnu (as Mohini), is also called Hari-Hara Putra for this reason.  He was borne specifically to bring an end to the demoness Mahishi.  After her annihilation at the hands of the Lord, Mahishi was released from her curse and was transformed into a beautiful maiden.  She proposed marriage to the Lord.  The Lord refused, but relented later by stating that he will marry her if and when His devotees stop appearing at his doorstep.  

Malikapurathamma, as Mahishi is called today, is said to be waiting in a separate temple in the Sabarimala complex for such an eventuality to occur.  As a mark of respect for her patience and sacrifice, women in the childbearing age voluntarily refrain from entering the sanctum of Lord Ayyappa. 

Besides, the bhaktas of Lord Ayyappa are required to observe brahmacharya - complete celibacy for a period of 41 days before the Makara Sankranti (in mid-January every year) when they congregate at Sabarimala for the ensuing worship and festivities.  The male bhaktas are required to wear the mala and black dress throughout the period of abstinence.  They are to follow strict rituals and changes in lifestyle: not smoking/drinking, not consuming non-vegetarian diet, and crucially, abstaining from sex.  (I have seen several patients, severe alcohol-dependents who have turned teetotalers during this period.)    

A male bhakta is to look upon others as his brothers and sisters, and address his fellow bhaktas as 'Swami'/'Sami'.  Basically, an average male follower transforms himself into something of a living saint during this period of purity and abstinence.  Therefore, for the male bhaktas, contact with women in the reproductive age-group is strictly prohibited.

These, as far as I am aware, are the only reasons why women in childbearing age are disallowed from entering the holy sanctum at Sabarimala.  And mind, the women in this age-group have been following this dictum voluntarily; they are not being oppressed or excluded from worship due to any patriarchal reasons.   

Having said all that, do we want the status quo to continue?  Do we want women to be excluded from the sanctum, even due to the reasons cited above?  Clearly not.  We want them to enter the sanctum... eventually.  We want the perception of purity to undergo a transformation that does not look at the act of menstruation as necessarily evil or impure.  But such a change takes time.  

All through the history of Indian society, there have been examples of arrival and settlement of alien cultures and traditions that went through the dual process of conflict, and adjustment and assimilation, before the syncretism that we see today became a reality.  This is true of foreign invasion and occupation of India and the sociocultural changes thereof, the bhakti movement that originated from the need to negate ritualism and varna/jati system, the abolition of sati, the prevention of child-marriage, the laws against dowry system, saving and educating the girl child, decriminalization of homosexuality, etc.  None of these occurred instantaneously: they came about only after several hundreds and thousands of years of conflict, adjustment, and finally, acceptance.  

In time, with gradual change in opinions, through well-intentioned laws and acts, and altered public perception, the bigger transformation will come about.  So the key word here is, eventually... eventually change will occur; it is not easy to change firmly entrenched cultural and religious notions by the single stroke of a tipsy judge's pen.  

I say tipsy because the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court seem to have acted on a whim - the kind that occurs to you after downing a peg or two.  I further wonder if the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court got out of the wrong side of the bed on the day, and said, "Yo dude!  Let's do something rad today!"  And then 4 of the 5 Judges decided to strike off the sacrosanct 800 year old religious custom at Sabarimala.  (It is interesting to note that the one Judge who dissented was a woman.)  I would like to call these four assenting Judges, the 'Rad 4'.   

The present Keralite government is of course, chuffed, considering its manifesto appears to be aligned only against Hindu practices, and not any other religion's.  The government, in all likelihood, arranged for the surreptitious entry of women in childbearing age-group into the sanctum.  They also brought out a human wall of women in support of the Supreme Court's verdict.  It was howlarious to watch interviews of burkha-clad women who hadn't a clue what they were doing there; one of them confessed her husband asked her to be there!  Sorry mate, Irony, that's another death for you...   

Apparently the Rad 4 were concerned about "equality, freedom of conscience and right to personal liberty" of [Hindu] women, and the fact that "to treat [Hindu] women as the children of a lesser God is to blink at the Constitution," and "placing the burden of men's celibacy on women stigmatizes them, stereotypes them."  Noble... noble thoughts indeed!

I have added [Hindu] to the above statements since the Rad 4 appear to be concerned only about the welfare of Hindu women.  Dear Honourable Rad 4, may I draw your attention to the following non-Sabarimala examples where women are so stigmatized and stereotyped that their plight blinks at the Constitution?

1. Girls/women are not allowed into the sanctum of the BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir.  Yes, even infant girls are not allowed - I have experienced this first-hand.

2. Women are disallowed from attending Friday prayers in mosques.  

3. Churches of many denominations do not have female priests/pastors because "only a baptised man validly receives sacred ordination".

4. Women of a certain religion are required to wear redundant head-cloths and dress up like walking bank vaults.  They are considered to be the 'personal property' of their husbands with hardly any rights to property/divorce.

5. In a certain religion, polygamy is allowed, but polyandry is disallowed.

5. Preachers of a certain religion exhort their male adherents into carrying out certain acts that will get them a place in paradise where they will be served upon by virgins.  Yes, nothing short of virgins would do for our intrepid heroes, when, after a hard day's bombing, they go to claim their just reward.  

6. In certain religions, the inhuman and dangerous practice of female genital mutilation continues to date.   

One could go on, of course, but you get the point?  The legend of Sabarimala is a matter of faith - why target only Hindus' faith and not the faith of other religions?  Conversely, why not go hammer and tongs at the regressive religious practices of other religions as well?  In the absence of the latter, the question that begs to be asked is, does the Supreme Court possess the will, impartiality and courage to do so?

I am not holding my breath over it.  However, until the Supreme Court does so, we can seek succour from the song quoted above.  

Swamiye sharanam Ayyappa...!

Image sources:
https://www.hindugallery.com/lord-ayyappa-images/
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/unprecedented-security-in-sabarimala-trupti-desai-held-up-at-kochi-airport-due-to-protests-3187451.html

References:
https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/do-you-know-the-story-of-ayyappa/272129
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/sabarimala-legend-women-lord-ayyappa-1351674-2018-09-28
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-women-temples-kerala-5377598/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_and_the_Catholic_Church. (Vatican Canon 1024: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3P.HTM)