Ayodhya decision of Supreme Court of India, despite the red herrings showing up, has explored a sense of unanimity among the people whose belief is in honouring the court orders rather than insisting on what could not come out of the battle being fought on the basis of beliefs and faith, but before expecting such development in connection with other cases of the same nature.
Union Minister V Mulridharan suspecting the women devotees of Lord Ayappa to be naxalites is, on one hand, like messing up with what is in judicial process while on the other, his demand for an inquiry to find out who is a devotee and who is othenvise is ridiculous. According to reports the ten women were terminated from the Pampa River were women from Andhra Pradesh who did not know the tradition of women between 10 and 50 keeping off the shrine of Lord Ayappa for reasons roots in legends and tradition. They understood and returned.
This much knowledge as for now is enough. Unless, there was more fear of breach of peace by the activists pleading for right to women’s entry into Sabrimala temple than anticipation of good sense as the case is in the court of law, ten DSPs, 30 Inspectors, 12 Sis and 2500+ constables is quite a big amount of security bandobust in and around a temple where devotees go to pray.
Like the case of Ramjanmabhoomi in Ayodhya wherein pleas, arguments, documents, did play a role in their own earnest, a direction for better reasons and a counsel in the interest of the society and social harmony it was when it came out. When it is coming to be called New India, practices and traditions in this country deserve respect by all means.
A wish to perform darshana should be seen as something not for reasons beyond one’s control. Branding women naxalites just because they want to visit the shrine, cannot write off the fact that the ban which is being opposed is judicial and not traditional and not that hard and fast going by the legends which speak of women of prominent families including those of royal family women entering the temple and performing rituals prior to 1991 when a legal order against the entry of women of reproductive age into the 12the century temple was imposed.
Such decisions as of Ayodhya and of Sabrimala as it is hoped to come, must be chewed and digested in larger interest of the humanity instead of the standing in support of a traditions which deny equality. While the Supreme Court too wondered whether such disputes as of Ramjanbhoomi had erupted over the birth places of saints, sages of other religion so as to take a cue for basing the judge- ment, the five-judge bench too referred to prevalence of restrictions on women in religious places was in other religions, before the case was referred to a seven judge bench.
As far as the union minister Muralidharan’s suspicion that the women devotees could be naxalites will incite the left wing extremists enough to meddle with the matter. Now it is two months to go before the Sabrimala festival concluded with lakhs of devotees from all over reaching for special repair at the altar of Lord Ayappa.
Whatever threats made by woman activists that they would visit the shrine after November 20 must remain an issue of law and order to reach between the activists and the devesthanam board which knows the rules to act in such eventuality. Any political intervention in this case which is with the Supreme Court is bound to complicate further.