The Cause of Feminism and the Sabarimala Case

As Malala Yousafzai said that “I raise up my voice- not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard. We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back.” Feminism means the equality in rights of both men and women. There are inexplainable crimes, obloquies, and injustice showered on women for centuries uncountable, which are indeed unpardonable and plenty. Feminism came as a movement because women were deprived of their rights. Their interests were supressed, and they were marked inferior. Woman have been living in a male dominated society where their interest was most often than not overlooked. Their development was dependent on what the men in the society deemed correct. ‘Choice’ was not even a word for women.

There was a rush of the Feminist Movement in the west with the #MeToo movement. This brought a huge wave of Feminist awakening in India. Women realized that being at the mercy of men is not something that they desired. The society has set a glass ceiling for women when it comes to achieving. There were women who started a rebellion against the pre existing norms that the society had set for women. These norms and conditions ranged from totally illogical to absurd. Seeing these women come out to support a movement, which would aim to bring gender equality and women empowerment, many joined the revolution. Like their feminist counterparts all over the world, feminists in India seek gender equality: the right to work for equal wages, the right to equal access to health and education, and equal political rights. Indian feminists also have fought against culture-specific issues within India's patriarchal society, such as inheritance laws.

The history of feminism in India can be divided into three phases: the first phase, when reformists began to speak in favour of women rights by making reforms in education, customs involving women; the second phase, from 1915 to Indian independence, when Gandhi incorporated women's movements into the Quit India movement and independent women's organisations began to emerge; and finally, the third phase, post-independence, which has focused on fair treatment of women at home after marriage, in the work force and right to political parity. India's patriarchal culture has made the process of gaining land-ownership rights and access to education challenging.

Indian feminists face certain obstacles in Indian society that are not present or as prevalent in Western society. Their challenges are different from the others. While Indian feminists have the same ultimate goal as their Western counterparts, their version of feminism can differ in many ways in order to tackle the kind of issues and circumstances they face in the modern-day patriarchal society of India. The emergence of feminism has brought India a new progressive stand to the show to the world that this country respects and acknowledges women. “The real enemy of feminism is not men, it is the woman who misuse the word feminism.”

The new flagbearers of Feminism have made it cool to be a feminist. They have made it a brand. Out of these emerge pseudo feminists who do not understand the essence of feminism. They are usually called Femi-Nazis who are regressive when it comes to imparting equal rights to both the genders. They think men are a misogynistic and oppressive part of society. Definition of Feminism for pseudo-feminists is- women should get more privileges than men as women have been oppressed for long and deserve more privilege. They use women rights to shield themselves and practice unfair power. In the Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (misuse of Section 498 a), SC commented that only 15% of the cases registered against men for sex crimes are legit. Under the garb of feminism, there have been many different ideologies proposed and implemented. They promise to be “better” for women but end up being regressive in terms of equality to both the sexes. It now goes more into conflict and controversial space rather than resulting in any positive outcome.

This brings the question of: What is real feminism? It is essential to know that there is a difference between misandry and feminism. People often confuse the simple ideology of feminism with the idea of “man hating”. This could have been because of what is projected in the media and wide misinformation. There are many cases where women misuse the law to obtain a favourable outcome which has led to the false cases based on revenge. One such case is the Sarvjeet Singh Bedi case where he was falsely accused of sexual assault and was later acquitted. The amount of societal pressure on the person who has been falsely accused is tremendous. If a woman stereotypes all men as being misogynistic, she has successfully included people who are also fighting for her rights. Gender Equality and Women Empowerment became a goal rather than reality.

Feminism is a blend of Empowerment and Equality. What is equal if sorted with limitations? With the Sabarimala issue, where does the question of feminism arise? There is a temple in Southern Indian Kerala. As the history of the temple goes, Lord Ayyapan is the symbol of celibacy and peace. He defeated an evil demoness who turned into a beautiful woman. But it is said that she has been cursed to live a life of a demon until she is defeated in a battle by someone who has both the powers of Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu. Ayappan is the abandoned son of Shiva and Mohini who is said to be an incarnation of the almighty god Vishnu himself. After the demoness was defeated in the battle, she proposed marriage to Ayyappan. He refused her offer by saying that he has to go to a forest and remain celibate throughout his life. However, because of the persistence of the woman, he promised her that he would marry her the day new devotees would stop visiting him at the temple. Unfortunate for her, The temple is visited by lakhs of devotees ever year. This issue can very well be paired up with issues like denial of entry to Muslim women inside a dargah or a mosque, Female genital mutilation (FGM) and the ban on Parsi women who marry outside her community entry into the fire temples and participate in other rituals. These all involve religion and its undue domination on the rights of women. These are the cases where women are seen as a class.

By not allowing menstruating women from the age group of 10-50 to enter the inner sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala temple, Article 14 and 25 are violated. Article 14 states the right to equality without discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The two sets of fundamental right, Article 25 which is an individual right and Article 26 which is a group right. According to Article 25, we have the right to free practice and propagation of any religion. While Article 26 states that every religious denomination has the right to establish and maintain institutions and manage its own affairs, subject to public order, morality and health which means that they can make their own rules. So, the issue is that what should be given more precedence to? It should be noted that Article 25(1) is subject to public order, morality, health and is not absolute. The SC on cases related to religion, like the triple talaq case uses Essential religious practices test. For example, in the Shirur Mutt case in 1954. In this test they determine that either a religious practice is essential and integral. These practices no one can interfere in. With non-essential practices, The court can get rid of practices that are discriminatory. Excluding women or any class of people is unconstitutional and has no place in the modern, democratic, constitutional India. Patriarchy cannot trump freedom to practice religion. “Physiological and biological barriers created by the rigid social dogma had no place” said, Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, CJI and Justice Khanwilkar held that the Sabarimala prohibition was a prejudice against women, which was propagated and was not an essential part of religion.

SC said right to worship is equally available to men and women. Justice Chanderchud’s comment widened the scope of Article 17 as he said that the prohibition was a part of untouchability as the article doesn’t specify which kind of untouchability. In our Indian Mythology, it is the humane probity to worship women. Menstruation is not impure and that belief is extremely archaic and that women have an equal right to enter the temple. Neither ritual sanctity nor scientific justification for the argument of pollution being caused due to menstruation is acceptable. Criticism with the Sabarimala verdict is that it is infringing on the autonomy of free conscious promised in Article 25.

The petition was filed by activists and not devotees. They had no interest in the religion or its practices. In India, The fundamental issue has been the inability to strike a distinction between diversity and discrimination, uniformity and equality, pluralism and standardization. There is only one temple dedicated to a specific deity who happens to be a brahmachari. And in that particular place, there is restriction for a particular age group of women not because of menstruation but because he is a brahmachari. Why is that practice compared with untouchability and sati? A place of worship is not a secular place. It is irrational to apply secular logic to a place of worship. When it comes to the Hindu space, it believes in the diversity of spaces. There are specific places dedicated to the different forms of energy and then there are spaces which are open to everyone. Nowadays, under the garb of feminism, we try to inculcate weaponized form of equality which is nothing but standardization. This could result to Hindu faith losing its originality if the 500- year-old practice is not followed. It is often argued that temples are not public gardens or tourist spots that anyone can go into. If one is a devotee, one will respect the custom of the temple. And if one is not a devotee, one does not have no business to question the custom. Religion cannot be compared with science. Judiciary should not decide on the matters of faith. There are plenty of reasons provided as to why the five-hundred-year-old practice should be continued to be practiced. There already exists many religious restrictions in India. As per traditions to respect the deity who is eternally celibate of the temple required that no women between the age of 10 to 50 enter the temple as it might distract him out of his cause.

There are restrictions against men too in several prominent temples, for example the temple of Brahma in Pushkar.

There are also practical concern of difficulties for women in climbing Sabarimala. The Sabarimala temple is situated in a hilly region with mountains and thick and dense forests around the neighbouring are. A worker of the temple has also pointed out that there will be lack of adequate sanitation facilities for women, thus making their journey even more difficult.

CJI Khehar in the Triple Talaq Case commented that Religion is not a matter of logic, it is a matter of faith. It may include irrationality. There is no ban only a restricted during a particular period. Women as a class are not prohibited. The practice is there to bring spiritual self-discipline. The SC’s September 2018 judgment on Sabarimala issue induced protests in Kerala. Compliance with the SC is not a matter of choice. The Supreme Court’s Justice DY Chandrachud said that there were vile threats and abuse on social media against him for his verdict in the Sabarimala case Religion is not just a spiritual pursuit but a critical part of the societal organisation. It shows what position each section holds in the society by the way it treats them. You can see that the problem has been solved when the image that comes to your mind whenever you come to hear the word Feminism is about both the sexes asking for equal rights.