Proposed Legislation to Solve Sabarimala Issue

With the disclaimer that I am not a legal expert......

I am proposing a legislation to solve the Sabarimala Issue as follows:

In the context of Hindu Temples and other places of worship:

Deity means a personified form of an entity of worship. To be called a Deity, the following conditions should be satisfied:
a) The Deity must have the nature of a person of conscience, and the place of worship is to be his/her personal abode.
b) The rituals of worship should be similar to the daily rituals of a person, such as bathing, consumption of food, sleep etc.

The Deity is a legal person, to be treated as a 'minor'. The chief priest, or a person in a similar position by convention shall be the legal guardian of the Deity, with rights and responsibilities to take decisions and express desires on behalf of the Deity.

The actions by the legal guardian can only be challenged by the well established conventions for the same, such as 'deva prashnam'. In case no such conventions exist, a consensus from the persons handling the same function at other temples shall be used.

The Deity, being a legal person, and the Temple being the personal abode of the Deity (and not a public place), is entitled to all rights entitled to a real person, such as right for privacy, right for property etc as guaranteed by the constitution and the legal framework of the land.

The devotees and worshipers visiting the place of worship shall be deemed as personal visitors for the Deity at his/her pleasure. The offerings made directly to the Deity shall be deemed as 'personal gifts' to the Deity.

The right to entry into the premises, customs to be followed, rituals to be performed etc shall be as per the desire of the Deity, as expressed by the 'legal guardian'. Changes in these shall be made only under general consensus of the devotees and the approval of the 'legal guardian'.

Sabarimala Vratham: What are the requirements

Questions are being raised about the Sabarimala Vratham, including the question of 'pula' where you are required to stay away from the worship things for a period after someone close passes away.

Here are the requirements of the Vratham:

You should keep yourself in the "state of hygiene" (Shuddhi) equal to what needed for Temple visit for the entire period. Please note that this is required for ALL Temple visits for the day of the visit. For Sabarimala, the requirement simply extends for 41 days.

a) Body hygiene: Bathe twice daily and keep yourself clean. Bleeding/pus oozing wounds, leaking excreta, menstrual blood etc are cause for unhygiene.
b) Food hygiene: Only vegetarian food, prepared at a same state of hygiene, ie cooked by a person who maintain the same state of hygiene. This is difficult to do in the current environment, so vegetarian food from trusted eateries may be accepted in unavoidable circumstances.
c) Mind hygiene: Avoid any thoughts or deeds of temptation, including about Sex, Food, Money or whatever turns the mind away from god.

If any of the hygene requirements are broken by accident/mistake, you should do penance. If the state of unhygiene is prolonged for more than a day (like a bleeding wound), then you can't continue.

If there is a death or birth in the close family, there is a state of 'unhygiene' associated with it, for certain number of days. This state is relieved by associated rituals at the end of the period.

This 'hygiene' requirements are common for all temple visits for the day of visit, and also for worship at home. You should not light the ritual lamp at morning and evening in the state of 'unhygene'.

Now, Sabarimala needs 41 days of vratham. If the vratham is broken for more than a day, or broken knowingly, you can't continue.

Another point is, you can climb the 18 steps only once per year. You can visit the temple any number of times, but you need to go up to the 'holy yard' by the side entrance. If you start the vratham and it is broken in the middle, the custom is not to take the 18 steps that year.

What is contempt of court

Disclaimer: I am NOT a legal expert. I am a law abiding citizen of this country. The foregoing is my common man opinion. I apologize in advance if this view is wrong, and thanks for correction.

As I understand, contempt of court is when someone disregards a court order and does (or promote) something in violation of the order. Maybe the scope extends to the 'spirit' of the order, not just the letter of the order. It also covers other things, like personally criticizing the judge or making allegations of bias or whatnot, but those are not important for this discussion.

That is all there is.

Now, coming to the Sabarimala verdict:

The Honourable Supreme Court gave a verdict that the law that barred entry of women in the age group 10-50 to the Sabarimala temple is un constitutional, and therefore void. The law is gone.

This means, the Government, who used to enforce this law, can no longer enforce it. Which means, the government can not block any women from going to Sabarimala, because there is no law against it anymore. If the government does it, that would be contempt of court.

That is all there is.

Now, based on this, are the following contempt of court?

1. This may sound ridiculous, but this seems to be what the Govt afraid of. The Govt fails to get at least one woman to the temple within a reasonable amount of time. Is that contempt of court? Of course the answer is no, except that the CPIM government thinks otherwise.
 
2. A group of individuals blocks a women who tries to enter the temple. Are they in contempt of court? No!! Because the court simply voided the law that enabled the govt to block her legally. However, it is still a civil offense to block someone from doing something that she is entitled to.

It will be like blocking someone from entering a road, or a public park, or their own home. Offense, but NOT contempt of court. We have seen this happening during the thousands of hartals, and trade union disputes here in Kerala.

3. A women approach the police demanding protection to enter the temple. The police says "we don't have necessary resources currently to send with you". Is that contempt of court? NO! The court did not order the govt to take women to the temple.

4. The priest closes down the temple to deny darshan to the women. Is that contempt of court? No. The court said the law is void. Denying entry to everyone is not discrimination.

There you have it.. These are my common man's view.

Are Temples Public Places?

This is one of the fundamental questions came before the Honourable Supreme Court. Hon. Justice Indu Malhotra asserted that temples are not Public Places, by virtue that the idea was raised and voted down at the constituent assembly.

Let us bring some logic here. What is a 'public place'? Is it a place 'used by' the public, or is it a place 'paid for' by the public? Tobe more specific, does the mere fact that the public 'uses' a facility makes it a 'public place' and grant some right to the public?

The answer is No. Mere use of a facility doesn't grant the public any right upon it. The public need to have made some expense upon the place, to gain some right into it.

Then what about places like Shops, Restaurants etc?

They are public place, because the public pays for the service. If you conduct a trade, then you can not discriminate between whom you trade with. On the other hand, a free service can choose who they serve.

But the devotees pay for the services..

No. The devotees make 'gifts' to the Deity, to show their worship. The Deity do not demand it, nor offer anything in return, except the perceived blessings.

No.. What about all these pujas and offerings you pay for.

Answer: Those are not paid to the Deity. Those are paid to the 'facilitators' of the puja. The Deity do neither solicit, nor offer these, hence not accountable for it.

Then what about the Grants given by the government?

The 'grant' is actually a compensation for taking over the temples long time ago when the Travancore Kingdom took over the temples in the kingdom. When Travancore acceded to the Indian Union, covenant was made effecting the payment.

Consider this: Sabarimala causes so much of economic activity resulting in revenue generation in the state. It is only fair that the temple gets a 'reverse tax' from that.

Let me make a parallel here. Imagine a very respected village elder who live on his pension from the govt. People visit him for blessing, advice etc, and give gifts to him. Is his house a 'public place'?

So, as the Honourable Justice Indu Malhotra asserted, Sabarimala is not a public place. The Deity is entitled for privacy, and deference to the beliefs.

The Central or State Government can actually make a legislative act, formally granting the right of privacy to the Deity, and end the current stalemate.

Is Lord Ayyappa Celibate? Does he hate Women? Then How come Lord Dharmasastha is shown with two wives?

The subsequent discussion will not make sense to scientific thought and logic. If you are into those, the first question would be "Why pray to a bronze statue" and the discussion should there. If you have come admitting that "praying to a statue is fine", then read on..

In Hindu belief, the concept of 'God' and 'Deity' are different. Let me take the parallel of Lord Krishna here.

Lord Vishnu is part of the trinity of gods. Lord Brahma is the creator. Lord Vishnu is the sustainer and Lord Shiva is the destroyer. There are a number of temples where we worship Lord Vishnu's deities. Examples include the Padmanabha Temple at Thiruvananthapuram and Poornathryeesa Temple at Thripunithura. Both are Royal temples, but the deities, rites and customs are widely different.

Then.. Lord Krishna is considered to be the complete incarnation of Lord Vishnu. There are a number of Krishna Temples, where the deity is not considered to be Vishnu. Lord Vishnu have two wives. Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth and Bhumi, the goddess of earth. But Lord Krishna is predominantly worshiped alone in Kerala, and with Radha in the north. Lord Krishna's principal consort was Rugmini, but she is hardly worshiped in any temple.

Lord Krishna himself is worshiped in various forms. At Guruvayoor, the form changes by the time of day. At Ambalappuzha, it is the boy form. There are many places the infant form is worshiped. Some places he is worshiped as a warrior armed with the weapons and conch. Some places he just holds his flute and a lump of butter.

Each Temple have certain 'personality' to the deity. This personality is initiated at the time of the installation of the deity, and are subject to modifications. Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala is installed as a celibate ascetic, who do not want to see women of age 10 to 50 at his abode.

Here comes a few questions.

What about Malikappurathu Amma? Isn't she a woman? 

Malikappurath Amma is not a mortal woman. She is a deity herself, derived from the purified form of the demon Mahishi. Like any deity, she is timeless and ageless. Even if you apply human standard, she should be, like 500 years old, so definitely in the right age bracket anyway.

Is lord Ayyappa scared/hate of women?  

No. The deity simply don't want them to come to his place. One of the reasons could be in consideration to the men who are supposed to go penance.

Then, haven't the rituals and conventions changed in the past? If the deity's nature is set at the time of installation, can't that be modified? There are a number of legends of the deity's nature being modified.

Yes, it is quite conceivable that the nature of the presiding deity at Sabarimala could be changed into a worldly form from an ascetic form. It would be like a major surgery for a human. The question is, is that really necessary? The vast majority of women devotees seem to think that the current conventions can continue.

A Compromise Formula

I have a compromise formula to put forth before the government and the devotees.

The Hon. Supreme Court verdict simply canceled the law that legalized the restriction for women of age group 10 to 50 into Sabarimala. The Hon. Court did not ask the government to promote women entry like a used car salesman.

Here is the compromise:

1. The government need to declare that it understand the devotees concerns, and will not force the entry of women into Sabarimala.

2. To be compliant with the verdict of the Hon. Court, the Govt and Devaswom Board will dismantle the police checkpost and signs at Pampa that used to enforce the law.

3. The Govt will declare that it will not post women police officers or devaswaom employees to Sabarimala. Women below 10 and above 50 are already visiting the temple with no problem. So, even if women of age in between comes, they too can be handled with the same facilities.

4. If devotees block women at Pampa, the police will consider that as a 'civil dispute' and respond in the same way they respond to other civil disputes such as labour dispute. They will ensure law and order only, and do not aid the women to make their way among protests.

That is all it will take to solve the problem. That is, unless the Govt want to play extreme feminist.

Now, there can be concerns about point 4. Kerala Police is well known for the way they handle civil disputes such as labour dispute. The trade union folk come to work site and demand that unloading is their right. Police will come and stand there observing things, or even advising the contractor/owner to do what the union guys say. Same with strikes at Industries. They will not enforce the civil laws. They will act only if a 'law and order' situation happens.

Isn't the practice of barring entry of women discriminatory?

Question: Isn't the practice of barring entry of women discriminatory?

Answer: First of all, millions of women do visit the temple every year. The restriction is only for women of age group 10 to 50 years.

It would be discriminatory, if we had a significant population of women who honestly want to visit and object the restriction. For something to be discrimination, there should be some form of loss/hurt because of the action, or some form of benefit because of its removal. The person may or may not be aware of the loss/benefit, but the loss/benefit must be there in principle.

So, what loss/hurt does the women have in this case? On the other hand, what benefit do they get if this 'right' is pushed upon them?

I would readily admit that it is discriminatory, if I see the number of women  who support the verdict that amount to at least 10% of the number of women who oppose.