There are women who silently steer seminal civil rights movements, there are women who fight against society and its norms for education and upliftment, there are women who constantly lead from the front to nurture a balanced workplace environment, and then there are women who get famous for sneaking in a house.
House. Yes. In this case, one, where a God resides. Certainly, the women who defied a customary ban to enter a temple has got nothing to do with religious practices or offerings to a faith. They just used a religious shrine for a political podium to get famous.
And, what was the cost of these two ladies getting famous? Sufferings of common people -- belonging to all kinds of faiths, who never signed up to partake in any political propaganda.
Small businesses were forced to remain shut, taxi drivers halted services at the fear of being attacked while public transports were damaged, and schools were closed as protests paralyzed a particular Indian state.
No. This can't be the collateral damage for 'renaissance' in a state, where the ruling governance suggests not being in line with the nation's choice of rulers collated in terms of religious inclinations. To put it simply, Kerala had chosen Left Democratic Front, while India elected a Hindu-nationalist party.
The very basic context of Sabarimala is not equality of rights, or right to religion, but only and only political.
Let's take a step back and try reasoning it why of all things, this is anything but religious.
The very premise of Ayappa and the ban on menstruating women entering his temple is that he's a sworn celibate. And, the polytheistic religion that Hindusim is, allows to associate humane qualities to gods and goddesses as irrespective of geographies across the country, they are worshipped not just as a mother but also as a daughter, or, not just as a father but also as a son.
In the way-of-life, where you practice your god to be as human as yourself, does necessarily leave the scope of the vices of man even in the deity. That's the crude spiritual way of deciphering why women were not allowed to enter a shrine that houses a celibate young male god.
Even more interesting is the fact that Ayappa is a syncretic deity, which nurtures a confluence of different tributaries of faith in the names of Shaivism, Shaktism and Vaishnavism. He is even honored by some Muslims in Kerala, thanks to legends and folklores.
The Sabarimala temple is located within a present-day tiger reserve and if Ayappan iconography is to be resorted, the god's representation depicts him riding tigers. Even a very pragmatic assessment of the association with the carnivore would rest arguments that the fierce animals walked the place.
So, the sensible reasoning from a societal approach on the ban disallowing women to take a strenuous and dangerous pilgrimage was perhaps, to protect them.
Yes, of course, what's the need for that now? Women can protect themselves well enough and the temple is no longer inaccessible. But then, we're dealing with a vowed celibate male here. And, there's a reason why the primal part of any Hindu temple complex is called sanctum sanctorum, where sanctity, rituals and beliefs take precedence over whims of desire and motif-driven advocacy.
If it was about gender equality in access for religious offerings, tradition would have stood guard. But, it was never about that. It was just to prove a point, which itself had no point in the first place.
The moment it had to adopt a guerilla hide-and-seek tactic, feminism took a hit in the foot. The fact the activists acknowledged this couldn't have been done in broad daylight, or, without police protection defeated the case and belittled the movement if at all there was any. Again, it was never a religious cause. It was just another agenda for some to grab limelight and become famous overnight.
Have we ever given it a thought, why it has to be Sabarimala in Kerala for all the outrage? Why not Shani Shingnapur in Maharashtra or, Patbausi Satra in Assam?
If we're talking about gender equality and equal accessibility to worship, why are we talking in splinters? It should be generic and collective for everyone. Let's allow all men to enter each and every temple, where traditions and practices disallow entry to them. Why is it difficult for some women to admit the diversity in beliefs and abide by the customs that come along with them? Because, they don't know what they want. Rather, why they want!
The vast stretch of land that India is houses a host of temples, where men are not allowed to enter. Let's take for instance the Attukal Bhagavathy Temple, which not so surprisingly, is also in Kerala. The temple, dedicated for worshipping a form of the Mother Goddess, made it to the Guinness Book of World Records for the single largest gathering of women for a religious activity, where men were not allowed to participate.
Another such example would be Kanya Kumari, as the name suggests in vernacular, belongs to a young female goddess who turned ascetic and hence, men are prohibited there as well.
In the temples of the Bhagwathi in Chengannur (also in modern-day Kerala) and Kamakhya (Assam), divinity marries a very basic human trait. The presiding deities in both the temples, who are goddesses, are believed to menstruate and follow socially-imposed practices of menstrual seclusion and the temples remain shut. But, every time they re-open, there are celebrations in the name of rituals.
In a religion, which considers women as Prakriti or the nourishing mother, champions health and fertility in the form of voluptuous depictions of female deities, follows rituals to celebrate the moments of girls attaining puberty, cannot be just as shallow to not let women enter a particular temple for being women.
The problem is traditions begin on rational and moral grounds, but the rhyme or reason dies with time, leaving only preaches and practices. And in most cases, what remains is misrepresentations and misinterpretations.
It's evidently a memory game, where the one who remembers, wins. But all those who lose, define majority.
And those who are at fault, always need unwarranted distractions and baseless deliberations. It's just as perennial as the woes and frowns of common people, and smiles and pity on the faces of gods.
No comments:
Post a Comment