What's new

Sabarimala: India's Kerala paralysed amid protests over temple entry

Gabbar Singh

Test Debutant
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Runs
15,550
It's interesting that the politicians and public figures in India who claim to be all for gender equality when it comes to things like getting rid of triple talaq are silent, or worse still condone the temple's stance, when it comes to the Sabarimala issue.


Violent protests have paralysed the southern Indian state of Kerala after two women made history by entering a prominent Hindu temple.

Schools across the state are closed and public transport too has been suspended. One person was killed in clashes on Wednesday.

The Sabarimala temple was historically closed to women of "menstruating age" - defined as between 10 and 50.

The Supreme Court revoked the ban in September, which prompted outrage.

On Wednesday, Bindu Ammini, 40, and Kanaka Durga, 39, entered the shrine around dawn and became the first women to do so.

Thursday saw a second day of protests across the state.

Right-wing groups, supported by India's ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), demanded a state-wide shutdown. They wanted schools, colleges and businesses to remain closed as a sign of protest.

The state government, which supports the Supreme Court ruling, stepped up security and deployed police across the state for protection.

But fearing violence, schools and shops were closed. And buses did not run as protesters blocked highways and other roads.

In total, more than 700 people were arrested on Wednesday and Thursday. Sixty police officers were injured, more than 80 public buses were damaged and at least a dozen police vehicles were attacked.

How big are these protests?
Violence broke out in several cities and towns on Wednesday as groups of protesters clashed with police, who fired tear gas to disperse crowds.

Police told news agency AFP that at least 15 people were injured after protesters hurled stones at them.

According to local media reports, around 100 people were arrested by police in one district, where a mob assaulted a woman police officer.

Police told BBC Hindi's Imran Qureshi that they have also detained two people in connection with the death of a man during the protests on Wednesday.

Several journalists were also attacked in the protests that engulfed the state capital, Thiruvathapuram. Police said they are investigating the matter.

Indian airlines have issued warnings to passengers travelling to Kerala.

Why has the issue become so political?
The Kerala state government supports the court verdict and Mr Vijayan has repeatedly said his government will provide the security to enforce it.

But India's ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has argued that the court ruling is an attack on Hindu values.

The issue has become increasingly contentious in the run-up to India's general election, scheduled for April and May. Critics have accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of pursuing a religiously divisive agenda to court the BJP's mostly-Hindu support base.

Even the protests have turned into an ideological battle between the right and the left - most of the protesters belong to right-wing groups affiliated to the BJP; and those who support the court ruling are affiliated to Kerala's left-wing coalition government.

Why are women of a certain age not allowed to enter Sabarimala?
The Supreme Court decision to let women worship at the Sabarimala shrine came after a petition argued that the custom banning them violated gender equality.

Hinduism regards menstruating women as unclean and bars them from participating in religious rituals - but most temples allow women to enter as long as they are not menstruating, rather than banning women in a broad age group from entering at all.

Protesters have consistently argued that the court ruling goes against the wishes of the temple's deity, Lord Ayyappa.

They say that the ban on women entering Sabarimala is not about menstruation alone - it is also in keeping with the wish of the deity, who is believed to have laid down clear rules about the pilgrimage to seek his blessings.

According to the temple's mythology, Lord Ayyappa is an avowed bachelor who has taken an oath of celibacy and hence, women of a certain age are not allowed into the temple.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-46744142
 
It's all about the coming elections. Enter Congress to condemn all this with Rahul running his mouth.
 
BJP on one hand supports Muslim women on Triple Talaq, but turns blind eye to Hindu women rights.
 
Religion is a club... the club hierarchy makes rules.

Should Supreme Court be getting involved at all in a religious matter? Personally I think not. But it depends on who owns the temple? Does it belong to government?

The aggrieved women should look to set up their own temple with their own rules.
 
Religion is a club... the club hierarchy makes rules.

Should Supreme Court be getting involved at all in a religious matter? Personally I think not. But it depends on who owns the temple? Does it belong to government?

The aggrieved women should look to set up their own temple with their own rules.

This. Those who have a problem with the rules of a religion are free to join another religion or make a new one.
 
This. Those who have a problem with the rules of a religion are free to join another religion or make a new one.

There are some famous golf clubs in the UK that still don’t allow women to be members... I don’t see high court intervening in such cases.
 
There are some famous golf clubs in the UK that still don’t allow women to be members... I don’t see high court intervening in such cases.

Indeed, and most restrooms don't allow the other gender. that is gender apartheid.
 
There are some famous golf clubs in the UK that still don’t allow women to be members... I don’t see high court intervening in such cases.
But in this case high court intervened and banned the entry of women between age of 10 and 50.
 
Everyone should have the right to enter temples.

Good initiative.

No they shouldnot. A temple or for that matter any religious shrine is not a public park. Its a place of faith and only those who have faith in the deity should be allowed to enter that particular religious shrine.
 
BJP on one hand supports Muslim women on Triple Talaq, but turns blind eye to Hindu women rights.

Divorce is a legal issue. Triple talaq denies the woman her rights under Indian laws to seek maintenance etc and is also unislamic.

Sabarimala is a religious shrine and belongs to Lord Ayappa. His tradition says that since he is in a Naishtika Brahmacharya state, women of menustrual age will not enter his abode.

You cannot claim right to enter someone's place of dwelling. Thats his choice.
 
Religion is a club... the club hierarchy makes rules.

Should Supreme Court be getting involved at all in a religious matter? Personally I think not. But it depends on who owns the temple? Does it belong to government?

The aggrieved women should look to set up their own temple with their own rules.

No temples belong to the govt. It was built and rebuilt by the Pandya royal family. The communist govt of kerala passed a law to takeover the management of the temple so that they can access and use the crores of rupees that devotees offer to the deity. Similar laws have been passed in other states also where govt is taking over temples to get access to the huge donations the temples get.

Its another area of friction for Hindus. Govt has no job taking over temples and using temple funds.
 
No temples belong to the govt. It was built and rebuilt by the Pandya royal family. The communist govt of kerala passed a law to takeover the management of the temple so that they can access and use the crores of rupees that devotees offer to the deity. Similar laws have been passed in other states also where govt is taking over temples to get access to the huge donations the temples get.

Its another area of friction for Hindus. Govt has no job taking over temples and using temple funds.

Why would the Government in Hindu Majority Kerala not cater to the sentiments of the Hindus? I think the government will only take such an extreme step if it resonates with some sections of the society.
 
Why would the Government in Hindu Majority Kerala not cater to the sentiments of the Hindus? I think the government will only take such an extreme step if it resonates with some sections of the society.

Kerala has very large non hindu population close to 45%. The commies want to get those votes. This will backfire spectacularly on the commies.
 
No temples belong to the govt. It was built and rebuilt by the Pandya royal family. The communist govt of kerala passed a law to takeover the management of the temple so that they can access and use the crores of rupees that devotees offer to the deity. Similar laws have been passed in other states also where govt is taking over temples to get access to the huge donations the temples get.

Its another area of friction for Hindus. Govt has no job taking over temples and using temple funds.

Temple belong to devaswom board which was under the control of state even before the formation of Kerala and first communist government. The funds are used for the welfare of temples and employees
 
But over ruled by Supreme Court.

Courts should never be employed in religious rules case IMO.

Supreme verified several documents and found that women of all age used to enter the temple so it overturned high court's verdict.
 
Temple belong to devaswom board which was under the control of state even before the formation of Kerala and first communist government. The funds are used for the welfare of temples and employees

No it doesnot. Property and the temple is considered the private peoperty of the presiding deity. Devaswom board only manages the property.

No govt has the right to takeover temples. Its done to get access to the temple funds and use it. Why is the govt intergering in the running of a temple?
 
No it doesnot. Property and the temple is considered the private peoperty of the presiding deity. Devaswom board only manages the property.

No govt has the right to takeover temples. Its done to get access to the temple funds and use it. Why is the govt intergering in the running of a temple?

Then why you said that temple belong to government. The money is deposited in state treasury for a very healthy interest rate not a single penny is used for any other purposes, there is a separate bench in high court to over look whole thing. I'm not aware of any incident in which government is involved in ruining of the temple.
 
Then why you said that temple belong to government. The money is deposited in state treasury for a very healthy interest rate not a single penny is used for any other purposes, there is a separate bench in high court to over look whole thing. I'm not aware of any incident in which government is involved in ruining of the temple.

I didnot say the temple belongs to the govt. I said that govt took over management of the temple.

Why should the money be in state treasury? Its not state's money.The surplus should be for the temple to invest anywhere they like, but the state takes away that surplus. They are using that fund for state purposes.

Govt has no business running the temple or taking its funds.
 
I didnot say the temple belongs to the govt. I said that govt took over management of the temple.

Why should the money be in state treasury? Its not state's money.The surplus should be for the temple to invest anywhere they like, but the state takes away that surplus. They are using that fund for state purposes.

Govt has no business running the temple or taking its funds.

Sorry it was a mistake from my side and I'm not sure whether devaswom board's money is invested in state treasury or not but there are several acts which prevents the misuse of funds and there is no provision for government to access it.
 
^Money is deposited in state treasury bank not state treasury at higher interest than any other public sector banks, it works as per RBI guidelines.Only provision of accessing money is by applying for loans but the interest rates are much higher than other financial institutions so government normally don't take loans from it. Even if government still want to take loans from treasury bank they need to go through many hurdles.
 
^Money is deposited in state treasury bank not state treasury at higher interest than any other public sector banks, it works as per RBI guidelines.Only provision of accessing money is by applying for loans but the interest rates are much higher than other financial institutions so government normally don't take loans from it. Even if government still want to take loans from treasury bank they need to go through many hurdles.

Let me tell you a few things,

No other state in India has a Treasury Savings bank like Kerala. TSB doesnot work under RBI like other banks.

No one knows how much money the govt is taking as loan and at what interest.


This is basically a way to bypass the laws. Force Dewaswom boards to deposit money in TSB. Then take money from the TSB.

Govt has no business taking a paisa from the temples.
 
Let me tell you a few things,

No other state in India has a Treasury Savings bank like Kerala. TSB doesnot work under RBI like other banks.

No one knows how much money the govt is taking as loan and at what interest.


This is basically a way to bypass the laws. Force Dewaswom boards to deposit money in TSB. Then take money from the TSB.

Govt has no business taking a paisa from the temples.
My reply was based on news reported by BJP MP owned news channel. You can clear you doubts by posting your questions on Kerala financial minister's official FB page or you can file an RTI, FYI there is a BJP owned channel in the state which is yet to raise any questions against the report.
 
No temples belong to the govt. It was built and rebuilt by the Pandya royal family. The communist govt of kerala passed a law to takeover the management of the temple so that they can access and use the crores of rupees that devotees offer to the deity. Similar laws have been passed in other states also where govt is taking over temples to get access to the huge donations the temples get.

Its another area of friction for Hindus. Govt has no job taking over temples and using temple funds.

Absolutely deplorable.
 
Not sure why this could not be handled with more sensitivity. All cultures need to evolve with time but the loss of life and hooliganism could be checked
 
I didnot say the temple belongs to the govt. I said that govt took over management of the temple.

Why should the money be in state treasury? Its not state's money.The surplus should be for the temple to invest anywhere they like, but the state takes away that surplus. They are using that fund for state purposes.

Govt has no business running the temple or taking its funds.

Do these temples pay taxes?
 
I don't know that is why I asked 'do these temples pay taxes?'. If you don't know the answer, it is better you stay quiet and let someone else answer it.

Even I don’t know the answer and hence asked why you specifically mentioned temples. Maybe you learn to read and stop getting in a twist when you don’t know stuff
 
It's all about the coming elections. Enter Congress to condemn all this with Rahul running his mouth.

Actually congress don’t really know how to react.

Even someone like Shashi Tharoor is defending the ban.

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on Wednesday, 2 January, criticised women who are entering the Sabarimala temple and said though he is all for women empowerment, it is a matter of sanctity of the temple

https://www.thequint.com/news/india...cises-entry-of-two-women-in-sabarimala-temple
 
Even I don’t know the answer and hence asked why you specifically mentioned temples. Maybe you learn to read and stop getting in a twist when you don’t know stuff
I asked a simple question but you are just trolling here. Once again if you don't know the answer to my question keep quiet.
 
I asked a simple question but you are just trolling here. Once again if you don't know the answer to my question keep quiet.

Again you are losing your marbles about a simple question. You are the one who seems to be trolling and getting irked by innocent questions. Please keep quiet.
 
Actually congress don’t really know how to react.

Even someone like Shashi Tharoor is defending the ban.



https://www.thequint.com/news/india...cises-entry-of-two-women-in-sabarimala-temple
There is a school of thought that CPM is going hardball on this as this dents the Congress. the Hindu votes will now be divided between them and the BJP. The resultant brouhaha will help them consolidate the minority vote as they are now coming out as the party against the RSS
 
What I found interesting was how most women who supported entry are atheists.

What next, wearing Saree/decent clothing in the temples is a symbol of patriarchal oppression and therefore women should be allowed to wear whatever they wish, be it a bikini or lady gaga type dresses.

Absolute mental this whole episode.
 
What I found interesting was how most women who supported entry are atheists.

What next, wearing Saree/decent clothing in the temples is a symbol of patriarchal oppression and therefore women should be allowed to wear whatever they wish, be it a bikini or lady gaga type dresses.

Absolute mental this whole episode.
You don’t have to be a follower to have an opinion. And at the same time it should not stop you from doing something right.

There are too many holes in the story from the devasom board and frankly it seems it is being hyped up for political mileage by the BJP and CPM. As much as I sympathise with the devotees how the situation has been handled, they need to move on with the times.
 
You don’t have to be a follower to have an opinion. And at the same time it should not stop you from doing something right.

There are too many holes in the story from the devasom board and frankly it seems it is being hyped up for political mileage by the BJP and CPM. As much as I sympathise with the devotees how the situation has been handled, they need to move on with the times.
I don't have issues with that. Heck I don't even go to the temples if I can help. But this recent precedent of SC interfering in religious/personal lives of people is a dangerous one and deserve all the criticism that come their way.
 
I don't have issues with that. Heck I don't even go to the temples if I can help. But this recent precedent of SC interfering in religious/personal lives of people is a dangerous one and deserve all the criticism that come their way.
The best case is for the society to reform itself but in India no community wants to change. In this scenario it should be the government being the harbinger of change and since governments only indulge in vote banks, it’s left to the SC. The SC in this case operated on precedence and considering the circumstances it was a fair decision. The state government should have handled it better.
 
Again you are losing your marbles about a simple question. You are the one who seems to be trolling and getting irked by innocent questions. Please keep quiet.
Lol what? Who asked the innocent question first? Who came up with a stupid cross question in reply? Read your above post again and don't waste people's time here.
 
Lol what? Who asked the innocent question first? Who came up with a stupid cross question in reply? Read your above post again and don't waste people's time here.
Don’t you get tired of your circular logic. I asked a follow up question to your initial question. You should learn to shut up when you don’t know the answer. maybe someone knowledgeable would have responded to both questions but your incessant trolling has derailed the original line of questioning. Take a break and shut up.
 
Don’t you get tired of your circular logic. I asked a follow up question to your initial question. You should learn to shut up when you don’t know the answer. maybe someone knowledgeable would have responded to both questions but your incessant trolling has derailed the original line of questioning. Take a break and shut up.
Whenever someone doesn't know the answer they ask the question, that's what I did. Only people who need to shut up are the trolls like you. :inti

'Ulta chor kotwal ko daante' fits you perfectly.
 
Whenever someone doesn't know the answer they ask the question, that's what I did. Only people who need to shut up are the trolls like you. :inti

'Ulta chor kotwal ko daante' fits you perfectly.
Bro your presence is severely getting felt in the Rishabh Pant thread.
Please report immediately.
Thanks.
 
Whenever someone doesn't know the answer they ask the question, that's what I did. Only people who need to shut up are the trolls like you. :inti

'Ulta chor kotwal ko daante' fits you perfectly.

Even I don’t know the answer and hence asked the question. Your ad hominem attacks and trolling are derailing a fairly good discussion. Move along to the other thread.
 
There is a school of thought that CPM is going hardball on this as this dents the Congress. the Hindu votes will now be divided between them and the BJP. The resultant brouhaha will help them consolidate the minority vote as they are now coming out as the party against the RSS

Yes. Basically this. Commies are with SDPI here and trying to corner as much of the 46% minority votes as possible. Hindu votes being divided means the commies keep power.
 
The best case is for the society to reform itself but in India no community wants to change. In this scenario it should be the government being the harbinger of change and since governments only indulge in vote banks, it’s left to the SC. The SC in this case operated on precedence and considering the circumstances it was a fair decision. The state government should have handled it better.

The law says temple belongs to the deity.

Since the deity doesnot want women of menstrual age to enter his abode thats it.

This is a religious shrine and a place of faith.

Not a public park for activism.

These same activists will be absent if asked to enter a Mosque and lead prayers,lady clergy in churches or entry for all in parsi temples. This selective outrage and hypocrisy will not be tolerated.
 
The law says temple belongs to the deity.

Since the deity doesnot want women of menstrual age to enter his abode thats it.

This is a religious shrine and a place of faith.

Not a public park for activism.

These same activists will be absent if asked to enter a Mosque and lead prayers,lady clergy in churches or entry for all in parsi temples. This selective outrage and hypocrisy will not be tolerated.

There are regressive practices in all religions but that should not be a justification of why the current practice should continue. There are a lot of holes in terms of how strictly this tradition was followed, till even a few decades back. The main issue is the lack of debate, with both sides hollering. Also we should ignore people like Rehana Fatima who have jumped in for their 2 seconds of fame.
 
There are regressive practices in all religions but that should not be a justification of why the current practice should continue. There are a lot of holes in terms of how strictly this tradition was followed, till even a few decades back. The main issue is the lack of debate, with both sides hollering. Also we should ignore people like Rehana Fatima who have jumped in for their 2 seconds of fame.

See if you dont have faith in the deity why visit his shrine?
 
The women who want to enter are faithfuls. Why deny entry to women who want to visit the deity?

Clear double standards from BJP. Where is the equality?

Faithfuls who want to break the rules of the faith. If they faith in lord ayyappa then why are they trying to break his Naistika Brahmacharya state.

Equality is how laws treat them. Equality doesnot mean you have the right to enter religious shrines and desecrate them. The temple is not some govt owned public park. It belongs to the deity.
 
The western media see this as a Indian women rights issue but I can see it's a relgious view but I think it would help if it was explained. What is the logic behind women not being able to enter?
 
See if you dont have faith in the deity why visit his shrine?

I do have faith in the deity but I don’t believe either side in the debate. Today my friends shared a Malyalam song which was shot on the temple steps in the 70s. The heroine in it was a young women. How was that song allowed then and now we have women devotees not being allowed?
 
The western media see this as a Indian women rights issue but I can see it's a relgious view but I think it would help if it was explained. What is the logic behind women not being able to enter?
The god in this case is a celibate and it’s in reverence to him that women in the menstruating age range are not allowed. From what I know there is no strict rule book allowing or disallowing women in the temple. I could be wrong though.
 
I do have faith in the deity but I don’t believe either side in the debate. Today my friends shared a Malyalam song which was shot on the temple steps in the 70s. The heroine in it was a young women. How was that song allowed then and now we have women devotees not being allowed?

I stand corrected. It seems that is some fake news being spread by the CPM. I am on the fence again

PS: should have verified before posting from a forward :-/
 
The god in this case is a celibate and it’s in reverence to him that women in the menstruating age range are not allowed. From what I know there is no strict rule book allowing or disallowing women in the temple. I could be wrong though.

Thanks. Then surely if these women believe in him , they should understand this and stay away. I think it could be the new age modern femanist fanatics who are causing this issue. Im sure there are many other temples where such women can visit.
 
Thanks. Then surely if these women believe in him , they should understand this and stay away. I think it could be the new age modern femanist fanatics who are causing this issue. Im sure there are many other temples where such women can visit.

Yeah there are women only temples as well. This really is a plot to divide the Hindu votes and dent the Congress by CPM. The BJP stands to gain, but they are too insignificant in the state to pose a threat in the short term.
 
Interesting debate this has turned into on here - must admit [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]'s arguments are very good and difficult to counter.

I think it's good that this debate is taking place however the manner in which it's happening should have been more peaceful and cordial.
 
Yeah there are women only temples as well. This really is a plot to divide the Hindu votes and dent the Congress by CPM. The BJP stands to gain, but they are too insignificant in the state to pose a threat in the short term.

Long term bjp will gain in kerala.
 
Yes but they will never win the state. The demographics of Kerala won’t align with their views

They will take the state eventually as even the two minorities do not get along well, plus the spread is not uniform and minority population is concentrated in pockets.
 
The best case is for the society to reform itself but in India no community wants to change. In this scenario it should be the government being the harbinger of change and since governments only indulge in vote banks, it’s left to the SC. The SC in this case operated on precedence and considering the circumstances it was a fair decision. The state government should have handled it better.
Judicial outreach from the highest echelons of Indian justice system have faced a rigorous criticism and rightly so.
When it comes to faith, one has to tread very carefully since religion is a sensitive issue and not everyone would be as tolerant as most Hindus are if/when SC tries to encroach on religious boundaries of others which aren't supposed to be crossed.

I agree that backward practices must be purged keeping in mind the changes taking place in the society in the modern times but then again how to define a ritual/practice as primitive? Who gets to decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't and Why?

Some religions such as Islam which take pride in their unchangeable religious structure since the times of prophet could find themselves at loggerheads with the law by that logic since some of their universal customs could easily be interpreted as oppressive to women. Would SC dare to change the system of gender segregation while praying in the mosques?

Things such as these take their time and expecting an overnight change in attitude of people is foolishness.
 
Judicial outreach from the highest echelons of Indian justice system have faced a rigorous criticism and rightly so.
When it comes to faith, one has to tread very carefully since religion is a sensitive issue and not everyone would be as tolerant as most Hindus are if/when SC tries to encroach on religious boundaries of others which aren't supposed to be crossed.

I agree that backward practices must be purged keeping in mind the changes taking place in the society in the modern times but then again how to define a ritual/practice as primitive? Who gets to decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't and Why?

Some religions such as Islam which take pride in their unchangeable religious structure since the times of prophet could find themselves at loggerheads with the law by that logic since some of their universal customs could easily be interpreted as oppressive to women. Would SC dare to change the system of gender segregation while praying in the mosques?


Things such as these take their time and expecting an overnight change in attitude of people is foolishness.

Muslims are not asking for this. You wont see women protesting to lead prayers. It happens in around a handful of mosques worldwide with the numbers of followers, a few dozen.

Do these women have any religious arguments they should be allowed to attend?
 
Muslims are not asking for this. You wont see women protesting to lead prayers. It happens in around a handful of mosques worldwide with the numbers of followers, a few dozen.

Do these women have any religious arguments they should be allowed to attend?

Religious Hindus aren't asking in the Sabrimala case either. It's mostly radical feminist atheist type miscreants who have taken it upon them to confront religious practices what they perceive to be authoritarian.
Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if these same women turn their attention to Islam after enough appeasement from SC.It doesn't have to be religious Muslim women at all.
 
Judicial outreach from the highest echelons of Indian justice system have faced a rigorous criticism and rightly so.
When it comes to faith, one has to tread very carefully since religion is a sensitive issue and not everyone would be as tolerant as most Hindus are if/when SC tries to encroach on religious boundaries of others which aren't supposed to be crossed.

I agree that backward practices must be purged keeping in mind the changes taking place in the society in the modern times but then again how to define a ritual/practice as primitive? Who gets to decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't and Why?

Some religions such as Islam which take pride in their unchangeable religious structure since the times of prophet could find themselves at loggerheads with the law by that logic since some of their universal customs could easily be interpreted as oppressive to women. Would SC dare to change the system of gender segregation while praying in the mosques?

Things such as these take their time and expecting an overnight change in attitude of people is foolishness.


I think the SC should and if cases are presented, it should vote for reform irrespective of the religion involved. The fault lies with our elected leaders who are supportive of customs based on the community involved. We don’t have open debates as the hard liners are always offended and as such we remain far too backward thinking in our views as a nation and with time we seem to be getting too hardline with the religious dogmas. If we are to survive as a secular republic we should have uniform laws about gender and access. Religion should be confined to the spiritual plane as it was originally intended.
 
I think the SC should and if cases are presented, it should vote for reform irrespective of the religion involved. The fault lies with our elected leaders who are supportive of customs based on the community involved. We don’t have open debates as the hard liners are always offended and as such we remain far too backward thinking in our views as a nation and with time we seem to be getting too hardline with the religious dogmas. If we are to survive as a secular republic we should have uniform laws about gender and access. Religion should be confined to the spiritual plane as it was originally intended.
While ideal but not as easy as you are making out it to be Bhai. Too much diversity has a few disadvantages as well and this is one of them.
 
Muslims are not asking for this. You wont see women protesting to lead prayers. It happens in around a handful of mosques worldwide with the numbers of followers, a few dozen.

Do these women have any religious arguments they should be allowed to attend?

The argument is Article 14 15 16 17 and 18 of the constitution which provides right to equality.
 
Supreme court is hearing a petition which wants non hindus to be allowed in jagganath puri temple. I wonder what right a non hindu has to enter one of the holiest shrines of hindus? Why should they be allowed?
 
Supreme court is hearing a petition which wants non hindus to be allowed in jagganath puri temple. I wonder what right a non hindu has to enter one of the holiest shrines of hindus? Why should they be allowed?

[MENTION=143407]GBK_Fan[/MENTION] This is what I was talking about.
 
Religious Hindus aren't asking in the Sabrimala case either. It's mostly radical feminist atheist type miscreants who have taken it upon them to confront religious practices what they perceive to be authoritarian.
Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if these same women turn their attention to Islam after enough appeasement from SC.It doesn't have to be religious Muslim women at all.

I agree they are not religious but the problem here is the communists are supporting them. No orgainsed party in any Muslim nation would support women in such a case.

If the constitution suggests equality then its an issue of a secular consitution in a religious nation, never really works.
 
I agree they are not religious but the problem here is the communists are supporting them. No orgainsed party in any Muslim nation would support women in such a case.

If the constitution suggests equality then its an issue of a secular consitution in a religious nation, never really works.

Most Muslim political parties and Islamic social outfits in Kerala are with the religious Hindu devotees. For example check this out- https://www.rediff.com/news/interview/why-muslim-league-supports-sabarimala-protest/20181206.htm

The largest Muslim party in the state of Kerala is taking a stance against the communists. They know if communists get their way they will start targeting all religions.

There should be a fine balance between tradition and modernity. When it comes to a sensitive subject like religion, traditions have to be respected. Some may not seem logical to these rationalists but faith transcends science in certain matters.

And a religious place of worship should not be a centre for activism or cheap publicity. The protesters and trouble makers here are militant atheists and radical feminists. There are also 'female only temples' in some parts of the country, ultimately it is a question of faith and tradition.
 
Most Muslim political parties and Islamic social outfits in Kerala are with the religious Hindu devotees. For example check this out- https://www.rediff.com/news/interview/why-muslim-league-supports-sabarimala-protest/20181206.htm

The largest Muslim party in the state of Kerala is taking a stance against the communists. They know if communists get their way they will start targeting all religions.

There should be a fine balance between tradition and modernity. When it comes to a sensitive subject like religion, traditions have to be respected. Some may not seem logical to these rationalists but faith transcends science in certain matters.

And a religious place of worship should not be a centre for activism or cheap publicity. The protesters and trouble makers here are militant atheists and radical feminists. There are also 'female only temples' in some parts of the country, ultimately it is a question of faith and tradition.

Sure but the issue here seems to be there are articles in the constituation(as mentioned by joshilabhai) which demand equality. So does the constitution come first or does the right of religous places of worship?
 
Sure but the issue here seems to be there are articles in the constituation(as mentioned by joshilabhai) which demand equality. So does the constitution come first or does the right of religous places of worship?

"Freedom of religion" too is enshrined in the constitution. I am no expert on Indian constitution or law/polity but this comes under fundamental rights.

Four articles under Part III - Fundamental Rights are granted to all people (citizens or not) in India. These are:

Article 25 - Freedom of conscience, profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
Article 26 - Freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 27 - Freedom from payment of taxes for promotion of any religion.
Article 28 - Freedom to attend any religious institution or religious worship at educational institutions.

There are sub clauses and more details but the gist is given above.

So it does look like a constitution vs constitution argument. Right to Equality (as joshilabhai said) vs Right to Religious Freedom.
 
Justice Indu Malhotra (lone woman judge in the bench) gave the best judgement IMO.

Giving a dissenting verdict, Justice Indu Malhotra opined that issues which have deep religious connotation should not be tinkered with to maintain secular atmosphere in the country.

Defending her stance, she said notions of rationality cannot be brought into matters of religion and India has diverse religious practices, and constitutional morality would allow anyone to profess a religion they believe.

She was of the view that it is not for courts of the country to determine which religious practices are to be struck down, except in issues of social evil like 'Sati'. She said right to equality conflicts with right to worship of devotees of Lord Ayyappa.

Noting that the issue in this case not limited to Sabarimala only, Justice Malhotra said this will have far reaching implications for other places of worships.

Justice Malhotra, who was hailed as the "true heroine in the Sabarimala miscarriage of justice" by some after she came out with a dissenting view, said equality doctrine cannot override fundamental right to worship under Article 25.

She went on to hold that Ayyappas enjoy the status of a separate religious denomination in the country. “If there are clear attributes that there exists a section with identifiable characteristics, they constitute religious denomination”, she observed.

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2018/09/28/Sabarimala-verdict-Justice-Indu-Malhotra-the-lone-protector-of-religious-freedom.html
 
Last edited:
Sure but the issue here seems to be there are articles in the constituation(as mentioned by joshilabhai) which demand equality. So does the constitution come first or does the right of religous places of worship?

Thing is how far do you take this right to equality and does it extend over other rights?

Can tommorow a man claim that he be given entry to my house as equality demands we have the same facilities?

Think like this, can i tommorow go and demand that muslims stop chanting that there is only one god but Allah as it by extension says gods of other religion are not true? That violates my right to equality.

Rights are not unlimited.
 
Last edited:
I find the whole Sabharimala issue fascinating. The politicians stirring and making an issue out of nothing and all the chaos that follows all for political gain but nothing for the public. From South India to Kashmir it is a politicians world, the public who votes for them are the fools and are being played left right and centre. It is the fate of the public that votes politicians any politicians to power, to be their slave, be used and abused for life.. Humans are a pathetic, stupid, ignorant, blind species, they are destined for destruction, they cannot be saved...
 
I find the whole Sabharimala issue fascinating. The politicians stirring and making an issue out of nothing and all the chaos that follows all for political gain but nothing for the public. From South India to Kashmir it is a politicians world, the public who votes for them are the fools and are being played left right and centre. It is the fate of the public that votes politicians any politicians to power, to be their slave, be used and abused for life.. Humans are a pathetic, stupid, ignorant, blind species, they are destined for destruction, they cannot be saved...

Eagles made it to play offs and India is crapping on Australia.... Life can’t be that bad, cheer up man!!
 
Back
Top