Sabarimala issue turning out to be clash of civilisations

I have been largely disappointed with the recent Supreme Court verdict that has lifted the restriction on the entry of women to the Sabrimala shrine. 

 

It is a highly anglicised action by the judiciary, a feeling of betrayal by the state and disenchantment stemming from the inadequacy of the arguments made in court in defence of the Sabrimala tradition. 

 

Feelings of helplessness over the overbearing attitude of the establishment, which has not spared any thought towards understanding the Indian tradition, has been further aggravated by condescending TV anchors, who continue to assault the intellect. 

 

There are, in fact, several aspects that need to be comprehended before arriving at a decision of such a magnitude. Let me outline some of the important areas, which I feel is paramount when we look at this specific Sabrimala shrine that just cannot be circumvented. 

 

The first question is whether Indian courts ought to get into issues of religious tradition. While some say no, in my view religious traditions also need to be open to the test of constitutionality. However, in undertaking such a test, the law needs to be cautious on a few aspects:

 

Any petitioner that challenges a religious tradition must establish locus standi in a personal context. 

 

Else, it is difficult to balance the rights of those that have a personal stake in tradition against others that do not. 

 

Courts scrutinising religious tradition need to bring a degree of empathy and understanding to their analysis.  

 

It is also a fact that many ancient religious traditions have, with the passage of time, been misinterpreted and abused. Hence there is an inclination to mistrust them. However, the same is not true with all traditions. Therefore, to assume abuse, based on a seemingly superficial inspection, is to my mind not proper. Like with state action, the defaut to treat Indian tradition as constitutional, unless proven otherwise with evidence.  

 

The apex court’s latest verdict on a 12-century shrine’s hoary past and its tradition is like the cliched clash of civilisations between tradition and modernity. We see here that the general and overarching trend is to apply modern day rationality to all Indian traditions and customs. 

 

This so-called rationalist approach also discounts the fact that much of the Indian tradition and knowledge of the past were in the form of an oral tradition weaved into fables and tales and passed via generations. 

 

I felt that this aspect was largely overlooked by the Supreme Court judgement. The inclination to rebuke an oral tradition simply because it is not backed by a transcription in scriptures, reflects a western mindset that favours the written word. 

 

In this context, it is important to realise that the Sabrimala shrine is a Tantric shrine, so the priests there are all called Tantris. This is not a shrine built on the principles of a creator God or an omnipresent divine presence. 

 

Ayyappa at Sabrimala or elsewhere is simply a deity and a divine being, but not God. He is and can never be omnipresent or equated with the supreme divine. 

 

In the Tantric tradition, a mechanism was developed to understand, harness and utilise various forms of energies present in nature. This harnessing and utilisation of energies has been achieved through the recitation of mantras, use of yantras and the practice of various occultist rituals to secure specific and identified outcomes.

 

Specific rituals and customs were also prescribed to enable visitors harness this special energy. Process and practices were also prescribed to maintain and preserve these energies over an extended period of time. 

 

It is my belief that following the Tantric system, certain individual(s) tapped into and manoeuvred specific natural energies, to consecrate the Sabrimala shrine. They also provided a set of rituals and customs, derived from an understanding of these forces of nature, to preserve the energy at the shrine, a mechanism for humans to approach this energy field and to derive benefit from it. 

 

This included the traditional abstinence rituals regarding food, clothing and sexual activity. One such custom incorporated into tradition was the restriction on menstruating women from visiting the shrine. 

 

Now of course, one could question the very basis of the energy hypothesis. The argument could be that such a rational has no basis in modern science. But then the counter would be that the entire notion of God or divinity is questionable from a rationality perspective.

 

The entire notion of divinity of Ayyappa at Sabrimala comes from tradition, the same tradition that incorporates the seemingly distasteful restrictions. 

 

In the end we need to appreciate the existence of multiple schools of Hinduism and recognise that it will always be difficult for the followers of one tradition to accept the customs of another tradition easily, particularly when they appear to differ fundamentally.