“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Would someone please cite Shakespeare to Justice P.B. Varale and the nine-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala matter in the Supreme Court? On Tuesday, Justice Varale asked whether advances in technology, education, thinking, and exposure would leave a “believer” able to suspend rationality and follow age-old practices.
Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, warned over 100 years ago that humanity could be trapped in the “iron cage of rationality,” where the thrust towards efficiency and rational thought could limit creativity and personal freedom.
Speaking for myself, I am a “believer”—I follow Christ, and I know He rose from the dead. To me, that is not belief, but knowledge. At the Holy Eucharist, I eat His body and drink His blood—not in any cannibalistic, Epstein-style way, but in deep reverence, to forge a complete unity with Christ, who lives in me. I would hate to have to defend this aspect of my life in a court of law, when the Kingship I serve is not of this world. And no, that Kingdom does not conflict with my citizenship of India, which will last only until I die.
There are hardworking people protesting for fair wages and better living conditions in different parts of the country; deaths from road accidents are reported every day; worksite accidents have been taking a heavy toll in recent days. There are a host of concerns that a secular government and the judiciary must attend to in order to better the lives of ordinary citizens.
Instead, attention and time are spent on unsettling matters long settled—like the Naishtika Brahmachari form of Lord Ayyappa, whose shrine atop a hill in Sabarimala sits within the Periyar Tiger Reserve. The state government has barred private vehicles for nearly 20 km up to the Pamba River, where devotees take a dip before walking barefoot for about five km up the hill to the shrine of Lord Ayyappa.
This is a tradition that has gone on for about 1,000 years. Why must the Supreme Court attempt to make sense of this? It does no one any harm—menstruating women are free to set up another temple and bar males of a certain age from visiting. Why must they breach this barrier?
Just recently, I accompanied a Dutch journalist to the Pampa River, and we interviewed devotees of Lord Ayyappa either on their way to the temple or returning from their visit. Not one of them wanted the temple opened to menstruating women. Parvati from Kozhikode, a 75-year-old devotee who was returning, said she had made the pilgrimage 24 times, including six times on Vishu, which marks the New Year in the Malayalam calendar and fell this year on April 15. She said Ayyappa has blessed her abundantly and that she always has more than she could ever ask for. When asked to describe the temple, she said it is beautiful, with gold everywhere. The first time she went up was when she was 54 years old; in those days, she was much healthier. These days, her knees ache, but she said she would keep going for as long as she could, until she can climb no more.
Parvati was quite clear—any woman who wants to go must wait; wait for about two or three years after menopause, ensure the bleeding has stopped entirely, and then set out. Why would the Supreme Court want to interfere with that? To what end? Electoral malpractices and the rampant abuse of the media by no less than the prime minister—would addressing those not be a better use of the time and resources of the Supreme Court of India?
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor