Sabarimala : 'Gender equality' or 'A Political football?'
I call myself a feminist. I have always urged for gender equality the way lots of people of my generation do, by daily challenging gender biased practices, gender biased traditions and discriminatory attitude of society towards women. So to myself, and all such people : this is time for us (the youth) to involve and participate in the present day politics and realize what is actually going wrong around us, while we put on the blind fold of 'gender equality'.
The blogpost comprises of four elements essential to our understanding of the Sabarimala debate
1. A brief about the conflict ( Sabarimala temple and the SC verdict )
2. Challenging the pseudo-feminist narrative
3. An event to defame Hindu traditions
4. Concluding the political football
Here we go,
1. A BRIEF ABOUT THE SABARIMALA CONFLICT:
Sabarimala is a prominent Hindu temple located on a hilltop in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district. The ban on women entering the temple premises is being practised for centuries, as devotees consider Lord Ayappa, the presiding deity of the temple, to be celibate. On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, saying that 'discrimination against women on any grounds, even religious is unconstitutional'. Following the court's order, hundreds of Ayyappa devotees, including women, blocked the state and national highways in various parts of Kerala, expressing their grievances with the SC verdict.
2. CHALLENGING THE PSEUDO-FEMINIST NARRATIVE
Feminism doesn't exist in black and white. Pseudo-feminist voices too exist, who tend to drive a plot, push a narrative and speak up selectively, in selective events as favourable to their ideology and agenda.
While I've not been comfortable of gender biased traditions, I would have supported these feminist voices. But it is obnoxious to know that a bunch of so called feminists who raised their voice for allowing women to enter the Sabarimala temple aren't spared by politics. Ironically women who wish to enter Sabarimala is a Muslim woman: Fathima Rehana, a Christian woman kavitha Jakkal, Mary Sweety and an atheist woman: Suhasini Raj. Now why does their religion matter when it is all about equality, then I shall be addressing that further in section 3 of the blogpost. 'Rehana fathima' a pseudo-feminist, has been challenging a lot of gender biased Hindu traditions but hasn't yet spoken a word on the ' prohibited entry of women in mosques', 'presence of only male-priests in Church' and 'the bail of bishop Franco Mulakkal , a bishop who raped a nun 13 times and is roaming around freely'
But no! Hindu traditions are discriminatory. This is where political inclination plays an important role. Where one narrative ( left ecosystem) raising voices only towards Hindu traditions, tries to distort and defile Hindu Rituals. And with a facade of gender equality, feminists try to push this narrative by speaking selectively. Ofcourse these traditions should be questioned but the the aim of the left wing is to portray that only Hindu traditions are discriminatory. Whereas 6 temples in India do not allow the entry of men and 5 temples do not allow the entry of women.
3. AN EVENT TO DEFAME HINDU TRADITIONS
The left ecosystem of India has always tried to defame Hindu traditions with profound support of media and the Judiciary. After the historic SC verdict on Sabarimala, a progressive Muslim women's forum NISA, had decided to approach the SC to seek entry in Sunni mosques. Kerala HC dismissed the plea on entry of Muslim women in mosques, stating that 1. They do not observe a denial of entry for Muslim women in mosque, 2. If Muslim women do not have a problem with their prohibited entry in mosque, a Hindu shouldn't interfere and hence that is where it is important to know that a Muslim woman and a Christian woman desire to enter the Sabarimala. Earlier also, when Muslim leaders had been questioned about gender inequality existing in mosques and innumerable traditions of Islam that are gender biased, the leaders had defended these discriminatory practices with article 25 ( article 25 guarantees the Freedom to follow any religion and propagate it) . They ruthlessly said that SC shouldn't interfere in their religious practices.
Whereas Hindus form an exceptional, least privileged community of the Indian society, where their traditions violate article 21 ( protection of life and personal liberty) but traditions of no other community violate this article . Quoting Anand Rangnathan: 'There can be no liberty unless you abjure Religion. Hundreds if not thousands of Religious edicts are discriminatory and violate Art 21. The SC would become a militant atheist if it was honest, which is great in my view, but would you or India accept this?'
So hence, different rules for different religions as said by Rahul Roushan
The notion that traditions are illogical and scientifically unproven has been challenged by Sabarimala devotees, substantiating their argument with a valid history, that justifies the prohibited entry of women in the temple. And for people who are least aware of the history must read https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.firstpost.com/india/why-women-are-barred-from-sabarimala-its-not-because-they-are-unclean-2583694.html/amp
4. CONCLUDING THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL
While with section 2 and 3, I've been much clear of the intention of the left wing in India to smear the Hindu traditions, BJP has also been trying to accumulate Hindu votes by empathizing with religious sentiments of Hindu devotees.
BJP national president Amit Shah, who was in Kerala on October 27, extended his full support to the devotees protesting against the entry of women of all ages into the shrine.
The stand of the Congress in Kerala does not have the same opinion as that of the party’s national leadership on the subject.
Speaking in Madhya Pradesh, Rahul Gandhi acknowledged that his viewpoint differs from that of his party workers who represent the sentiment of the people of Kerala. He said, “My opinion is different from that of my party on this issue. My party represents the feelings of the people in Kerala. However, my personal viewpoint is that all men and women are equal. The women should be allowed into Sabarimala temple and they have the freedom to go everywhere”.
For the left liberals and seculars, only certain communities can have the liberty to practice religion, freedom of expression, freedom to protest. Leftists are feminists for whom gender equality ought to exist (which is a brilliant thing) but only in Hindu traditions.
Left is offering opportunities to the right wing in India to attract the majority by taking a stand for Hindus.
Last but not the least;
My answer to this pseudo-feminist appeal has been: There are many discriminatory practices happening in the country where we need feminists, their voices to challenge and fight against reprehensible cruelty done to women, rather than targeting a particular community to fulfill their agenda.
And while I am not happy with the protests done by the Sabarimala Devotees in Kerala: there are innumerable problems in the country that need our attention, our time our concern and our sensitivity towards issues that will help us develop as a Nation, rather than devoting so much of our strength in challenging the verdict.
The blogpost comprises of four elements essential to our understanding of the Sabarimala debate
1. A brief about the conflict ( Sabarimala temple and the SC verdict )
2. Challenging the pseudo-feminist narrative
3. An event to defame Hindu traditions
4. Concluding the political football
Here we go,
1. A BRIEF ABOUT THE SABARIMALA CONFLICT:
Sabarimala is a prominent Hindu temple located on a hilltop in Kerala's Pathanamthitta district. The ban on women entering the temple premises is being practised for centuries, as devotees consider Lord Ayappa, the presiding deity of the temple, to be celibate. On September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, saying that 'discrimination against women on any grounds, even religious is unconstitutional'. Following the court's order, hundreds of Ayyappa devotees, including women, blocked the state and national highways in various parts of Kerala, expressing their grievances with the SC verdict.
2. CHALLENGING THE PSEUDO-FEMINIST NARRATIVE
Feminism doesn't exist in black and white. Pseudo-feminist voices too exist, who tend to drive a plot, push a narrative and speak up selectively, in selective events as favourable to their ideology and agenda.
While I've not been comfortable of gender biased traditions, I would have supported these feminist voices. But it is obnoxious to know that a bunch of so called feminists who raised their voice for allowing women to enter the Sabarimala temple aren't spared by politics. Ironically women who wish to enter Sabarimala is a Muslim woman: Fathima Rehana, a Christian woman kavitha Jakkal, Mary Sweety and an atheist woman: Suhasini Raj. Now why does their religion matter when it is all about equality, then I shall be addressing that further in section 3 of the blogpost. 'Rehana fathima' a pseudo-feminist, has been challenging a lot of gender biased Hindu traditions but hasn't yet spoken a word on the ' prohibited entry of women in mosques', 'presence of only male-priests in Church' and 'the bail of bishop Franco Mulakkal , a bishop who raped a nun 13 times and is roaming around freely'
But no! Hindu traditions are discriminatory. This is where political inclination plays an important role. Where one narrative ( left ecosystem) raising voices only towards Hindu traditions, tries to distort and defile Hindu Rituals. And with a facade of gender equality, feminists try to push this narrative by speaking selectively. Ofcourse these traditions should be questioned but the the aim of the left wing is to portray that only Hindu traditions are discriminatory. Whereas 6 temples in India do not allow the entry of men and 5 temples do not allow the entry of women.
3. AN EVENT TO DEFAME HINDU TRADITIONS
The left ecosystem of India has always tried to defame Hindu traditions with profound support of media and the Judiciary. After the historic SC verdict on Sabarimala, a progressive Muslim women's forum NISA, had decided to approach the SC to seek entry in Sunni mosques. Kerala HC dismissed the plea on entry of Muslim women in mosques, stating that 1. They do not observe a denial of entry for Muslim women in mosque, 2. If Muslim women do not have a problem with their prohibited entry in mosque, a Hindu shouldn't interfere and hence that is where it is important to know that a Muslim woman and a Christian woman desire to enter the Sabarimala. Earlier also, when Muslim leaders had been questioned about gender inequality existing in mosques and innumerable traditions of Islam that are gender biased, the leaders had defended these discriminatory practices with article 25 ( article 25 guarantees the Freedom to follow any religion and propagate it) . They ruthlessly said that SC shouldn't interfere in their religious practices.
Whereas Hindus form an exceptional, least privileged community of the Indian society, where their traditions violate article 21 ( protection of life and personal liberty) but traditions of no other community violate this article . Quoting Anand Rangnathan: 'There can be no liberty unless you abjure Religion. Hundreds if not thousands of Religious edicts are discriminatory and violate Art 21. The SC would become a militant atheist if it was honest, which is great in my view, but would you or India accept this?'
So hence, different rules for different religions as said by Rahul Roushan
The notion that traditions are illogical and scientifically unproven has been challenged by Sabarimala devotees, substantiating their argument with a valid history, that justifies the prohibited entry of women in the temple. And for people who are least aware of the history must read https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.firstpost.com/india/why-women-are-barred-from-sabarimala-its-not-because-they-are-unclean-2583694.html/amp
4. CONCLUDING THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL
While with section 2 and 3, I've been much clear of the intention of the left wing in India to smear the Hindu traditions, BJP has also been trying to accumulate Hindu votes by empathizing with religious sentiments of Hindu devotees.
As per reports, around 529 cases have been registered and over 3,500 people have been arrested with regard to the case of protests against the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict.
A dawn-to-dusk hunger strike by BJP workers began on October 27 , right in front of Kerala DGP’s office, further intensifying the agitation against the CPI(M)-led LDF government’s crackdown on Sabarimala protesters.
BJP national president Amit Shah, who was in Kerala on October 27, extended his full support to the devotees protesting against the entry of women of all ages into the shrine.
The stand of the Congress in Kerala does not have the same opinion as that of the party’s national leadership on the subject.
Speaking in Madhya Pradesh, Rahul Gandhi acknowledged that his viewpoint differs from that of his party workers who represent the sentiment of the people of Kerala. He said, “My opinion is different from that of my party on this issue. My party represents the feelings of the people in Kerala. However, my personal viewpoint is that all men and women are equal. The women should be allowed into Sabarimala temple and they have the freedom to go everywhere”.
For the left liberals and seculars, only certain communities can have the liberty to practice religion, freedom of expression, freedom to protest. Leftists are feminists for whom gender equality ought to exist (which is a brilliant thing) but only in Hindu traditions.
Left is offering opportunities to the right wing in India to attract the majority by taking a stand for Hindus.
Last but not the least;
My answer to this pseudo-feminist appeal has been: There are many discriminatory practices happening in the country where we need feminists, their voices to challenge and fight against reprehensible cruelty done to women, rather than targeting a particular community to fulfill their agenda.
And while I am not happy with the protests done by the Sabarimala Devotees in Kerala: there are innumerable problems in the country that need our attention, our time our concern and our sensitivity towards issues that will help us develop as a Nation, rather than devoting so much of our strength in challenging the verdict.
Comments
Post a Comment