We see and hear a lot of arguments for and against the entry of women in the age group 10 to 50 years to the Sabarimala temple. I am on the side of the Save Sabarimal movement, who oppose the entry of women in the age group 10 to 50 years to the Sabarimala temple.
Here, I intend to collect the arguments for the entry, and make a civil debate against them.
Argument 1: The restriction is against the constitution
Answer: The Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that the restriction of women of the age group 10 to 50 years is against the principle of equality in the constitution. The court had weighed various for and against arguments. I am not qualified to analyzeand comment on those arguments.
So, my answer is simple: Constitution is made by the people for their betterment. It is not above the people. When matters that create hurt to the people, the law should stand with the worst affected side.
Let us see who are the parties here:
Side A: A group of people who are 'concerned' that the 'equal rights' of women is denied. Let me remind you that these are not devotees who want to actually worship at the temple. Their interest is in the 'social justice' part of it.
Side B: Millions of devotees, whose sentiments are hurt. This include the vast majority of women devotees, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the ruling. The women lose nothing by virtue of the denial. It is just one temple among the millions of temples. Any real devotee of lord ayyappa would want to obey the custom.
So, the honourable court decides that the 'social justice' is more important than the sentiments of the very same constituency for whom the said justice is delivered.
Is 'social justice' or 'equal right' a medicine pill that need to be force fed to the patient who don't want it?
Here, I foresee a counter argument: What about the 'anti vaccine' movement? Shouldn't we allow the proponents of that movement their way?
The answer is, vaccination is a matter of actual physical harm. No sane person would say that the women who do not go to Sabarimala to use their 'equal right' will suffer any harm.
Here, I intend to collect the arguments for the entry, and make a civil debate against them.
Argument 1: The restriction is against the constitution
Answer: The Honourable Supreme Court has ruled that the restriction of women of the age group 10 to 50 years is against the principle of equality in the constitution. The court had weighed various for and against arguments. I am not qualified to analyzeand comment on those arguments.
So, my answer is simple: Constitution is made by the people for their betterment. It is not above the people. When matters that create hurt to the people, the law should stand with the worst affected side.
Let us see who are the parties here:
Side A: A group of people who are 'concerned' that the 'equal rights' of women is denied. Let me remind you that these are not devotees who want to actually worship at the temple. Their interest is in the 'social justice' part of it.
Side B: Millions of devotees, whose sentiments are hurt. This include the vast majority of women devotees, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the ruling. The women lose nothing by virtue of the denial. It is just one temple among the millions of temples. Any real devotee of lord ayyappa would want to obey the custom.
So, the honourable court decides that the 'social justice' is more important than the sentiments of the very same constituency for whom the said justice is delivered.
Is 'social justice' or 'equal right' a medicine pill that need to be force fed to the patient who don't want it?
Here, I foresee a counter argument: What about the 'anti vaccine' movement? Shouldn't we allow the proponents of that movement their way?
The answer is, vaccination is a matter of actual physical harm. No sane person would say that the women who do not go to Sabarimala to use their 'equal right' will suffer any harm.
No comments:
Post a Comment