Sabarimala controversy
स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः।
स्वकर्मनिरतः सिद्धिं यथा विन्दति तच्छृणु॥
స్వే స్వే కర్మణ్యభిరతః సంసిద్ధిం లభతే నరః l
స్వకర్మ నిరతః శుధ్ధిం యథా విందతి తచ్ర్ఛుణుll
Swe swe karmanyabhiratah samsiddhim labhate narahl
Swakarmaniratah siddhim yathaa vindati tacchrinu ll
(Bhagadgitha - mokshasanyasayogam - ll18.45ll)
Each man, devoted to his own duty, attains perfection. When a person
acts according to his nature the entire personality supports the action. His
body mind and intellect cooperate. He finds fulfilment in what he does. The
environment or circumstance may not allow a person to act wholly according to
his nature. Yet he should pursue to the extent he can leaving rest to God.
Let us now extend it to the issue of Sabarimala. Now we equate man to
Electrical Energy. By itself it is not visible. It is felt in the form of
several electrical appliances. A grinder cannot condition the air, a bulb
cannot grind and an air conditioner cannot lit. Though the energy is the same every
appliance is different to the other. No appliance can discharge the other ones
duty. The same case with temples also. Some are meant to men, some for women
and some for both. Even then there will be certain days where the entry is
restricted. This concept we should understand. More over the temples in Kerala
are more Tantric by nature than of Agama Shastra. They meticulously abide by
the temple laws.
In Kerala the deity is a celibate, only in Sabarimala as against five
Ayyappa Temples prevailing in Kerala. As such the other four temples allow
devotees of all kinds with no restriction.
In Sabarimala, the deity is Naishthika Brahmachari (నైష్ఠిక బ్రహ్మచారి) and thus he does not want to see ladies of procreation ability. Beyond
10-50 age group stipulation is not correct as it cannot be taken for granted.
There is also scriptural evidence from the sthalapurana which is otherwise
called as Bhuthanadhopakhyanam (భూతనాథోపాఖ్యానము).
2. Kerala ladies have exclusively their own festivals where the gents
will have no entry. These ladies include highly educated, big executives of
renowned Organisations, journalists, poetess, writers etc. Thiruvathira, is an
exclusively women’s festival and no men allowed in the vicinity. During Pongala
a specific Pooja for ladies, the streets of Thiruvananthapuram will be crowded
by ladies thrusting the devaswom board to shut the doors of Padmanabha temple.
3. They have a temple where once a year the priests there will wash the
feet of every woman devotee who comes there because a woman is the representation
of the Goddess.
4. In the same way Sabarimala is for men where women of the age from
which they do not get menstruation are eligible to see the God.
5. There are men who while going to Sabarimala take their mothers aged
sisters, kith and kin along with them. The devotees are creating a social
bondage in the society. The refrain from taking intoxicating drinks and lead a
pious life for all the 40 days. This practice enables a thick reunion with the
better half and freshness among the men to attend to their routine with
enriched enthusiasm.
Let us come to the people who have raised the issue.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has said no one would be allowed
to stop women devotees of menstruating age from going to Sabarimala..... The
Asian Age. With this assurance
Activist Rehana Fatima, who had made an attempt to enter Sabarimala
temple, has been expelled from the Muslim community for "hurting the
sentiments of lakhs of Hindu devotees", the Kerala Muslim Jama'ath Council
said.
journalist Kavitha Jakkal of Hyderabad based Mojo TV, on Friday is
another lady who was within the age of menstrual cycle have started walking
towards the Sabarimala temple with tight police escort amid strong protests by
devotees opposing entry of women of menstrual age into the Lord Ayyappa temple
in Kerala.
While Kavitha tried for want of exposure of her bravery Rehana wanted
to belittle the customs and traditions of Devaswom.
One lady by name Mary of 46 years also tried but in vain. I need not
tell why she tried, as you can assess by her name itself.
One simple question to these three ladies is ‘whether can they try to
go into a mosque at the time of prayer. Why don’t they fight for that?
With due respects to Mr. Sujit Nair I am bringing to your notice the
facts he exhorted.
The Government tried to amend the Travancore Cochin Hindu religious
institution Act. The act was institutionalized in the year 1950. Let us see the
clause no.5 of the amendment.
5. Amendment of section 29- In subsection (2) of section 29 of the principle
act, the word who shall be appointed by the board. “He shall be a Hindu” shall
be omitted. What the communist Government wanted to bring about is the board
should contain a member other than a Hindu. Will it be possible for a Church
and a Masjid? If it is not possible then why only for a Hindu Temple.
The Government intends to control the board of any Temple but not other
religions’ revered places. Is this not the conspiracy by the Govt.?
Going into the chronology of the Sabarimala verdict, in 2006 Indian
Young Lawyers’ Association filed the petition against Devaswom to scrap non
entry of women of age in between 10-50. Actually this constituted body is
entitled to take care of the secular aspect of maintenance only and not Temple
customs. When the deity is consecrated with Mulamantra Upadesha he is deemed to
be a living being as far as the temple is concerned. He being celibate.
5 ladies put this petition, but ironically Prerana Kumaran who was one
of the petitioners confessed that she was not aware of the Devaswom regulations
while joining hands with the other four, further she added she was not from
Kerala. After coming to know several facts after going through books and
journals she felt she was wrong. Though she wanted to withdraw it was too late
for her to do so. On Nov.27 the LDF Govt. of Kerala files an affidavit in
support of that PIL resting with the court regarding entry of ladies in
question. The matter was going cold, however the Kerala Govt. again raked it up
and submitted another affidavit on 7th Nov 2016, stating that they favored
entry of ladies of all age groups. This says that the Govt. was keen for the
verdict and on the verdict. In a 17 member Polite Bureau of communists there
are only two women.
This it-self shows their commitment for women.
However in the 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court Indu Malhotra who was
the only lady gave her verdict in favor of the defense council and two petitioners
among all the five ladies withdrew themselves, which can be considered as moral
victory for the defense. Of these two Prerana Kumaran whom I referred above was
one.
When we thoroughly go over these things we can conclude that the LDF
Govt. is keen on any amendment detrimental to the interests of Hindu religion
with special reference to Sabarimala, for the reason that it is one of the most
famous temples of India, and any verdict against its customs and traditions will
cripple the Hindu religion and shaker the spirit of Hindus in Kerala vis-à-vis
the nation.
The head of one house cannot have power to administer other house with
which he has nothing to do. It is the same case with two different
Organisations also. How that a Muslim or a Christian can poke his nose into
Hindu cultural rituals.
Sabarimala temple is one which was constructed on par with great
temples of India according to Sthapathya Veda. According to the plan devised by
the Sthapathis the construction takes place. Hence every construction will
abide by certain axioms and they are to be followed verbatim by the devotees. They
will be bestowed with repercussions and rewards. Hence, than to disobey the
stipulated terms better to go by them for the good. More over one thing that we
should remember is a temple is not a prayer hall like in the case of other
religions.
The temple is said to have been constructed before 12th Century
as per Historians. Right from that time till the date of verdict by the court
things were in place. A keen observation of proceeding that took place just
before the matter was referred to court prompt to conclude that the Sanatana
Dharma should receive a fatal attack for its detriment.
Swasti.
Amma read this as an annex to my above article.
Afterwards we can speak on the topic.
SR.ADVOCATE K PARASARAN
ROCKS SUPREME COURT WITH HIS ARGUMENTS ON SABRIMALA TEMPLE
Brilliant submissions by
Sr. Advocate Shri K Parasaran today before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sabarimala
matter
(Source: People for Dharma
@People4Dharma)
1. Arguments in the
Petition resume. Mr. Parasaran now argues for the Nair Service Society.
2. Mr. Parasaran submits
that Kerala is an educated society.
3. Mr. Parasaran submits
that 96% of the women in Kerala are educated. They are independent. It is a
matrilineal society. Therefore to assume that the practice of the Temple is
based on patriarchy is fundamentally incorrect.
4. Mr. Parasaran submits
that the practice of the Temple is not comparable to Sati. In fact, Sati itself
has not connection to the Hindu faith.
5. Mr. Parasaran cites the
examples of the wives of Dasaratha and Kunti to prove that they did not commit
Sati after their husbands' death.
6. Therefore Mr. Parasaran
submits that we should not approach the issue of with notions of patriarchy.
7. Mr. Parasaran says that
a right question will lead to the right answer, a wrong question will lead to
the wrong answer.
8. Mr. Parasaran submits
that if a person asks "can I smoke when I pray?" he will get a slap.
But if he asks "can I pray as I smoke?" he will be appreciated.
9. Therefore, Mr.
Parasaran says the right questions must be asked in this case for the Court to
get the right answers.
10. Mr. Parasaran further
submits that in this case he has to be even more careful and prepared because
he is answerable not just to the Lordships but also the Lord above.
11. Mr. Parasaran is now
reading out portions from the Shirur Mutt decision of the Supreme Court.
12. Mr. Parasaran submits
that even democracies, especially democracies, must protect religion and
tradition.
13. Mr. Parasaran submits
that Hindu religion respects merit and wisdom wherever it comes from. He says
for neeti, it is still Vidura neeti which is cited. That is the greatness of
the faith.
14. Mr. Parasaran submits
that while the court must listen to activist voices, it must equally listen to
voices which seek to protect tradition.
15. Mr. Parasaran submits
that the Legislature is Brahma, Executive is Vishnu and Shiva is judiciary
because only Shiva's Ardhanarishwara form epifies Article 14, equal treatment
of both sexes.
16. Mr. Parasaran submits
that Shiva is no Brahmachari, but even when his meditative state was sought to
be disturbed by Kama Deva, he was reduced to ash because he failed to respect
that state of Shiva.
17. Mr. Parasaran submits
that we must not proceed with the presumption that the ancients knew nothing
and that we know better in all aspects of life.
18. Mr. Parasaran that
Lord Ayyappa's character as a Naishtika Brahmachari (Not NASTIKA BRAHMACHARI) is
protected by the Constitution.
19. Mr. Parasaran is
placing reliance on the judgment of the Court in Tilkayat Govindaji Maharaj
(1964).
20. Mr. Parasaran refutes
the argument of the Petitioner that some women may die before they reach the
age of 50, Mr. Parasaran says that a person carries her or his fate with him.
That's not a legal consideration to reverse the tradition
21. Mr. Parasaran points
out that there are thousands of ppl who register for Padi Pooja at , the
consequence being that the pooja will be conducted in their name only long
after their deaths.
22. Mr. Parasaran
therefore submits that using death as an argument to upset the tradition is
neither here nor there.
23. Mr. Parasaran submits
that the basis of the practice is the celibate nature of the Deity, not
misogyny. Devotees who visit the Temple too are expected to observe celibacy in
letter and spirit. Hence, during the journey, company of women must be avoided.
24. Mr. Parasaran is
reading out portions from the Sundarakanda of the Ramayana to explain the
concept of Naishtika Brahmacharya.
25. Mr. Parasaran submits
that Lord Ayyappa is a yogi. To define who a Yogi is, Mr. Parasaran is quoting
Adi Sankara.
26. Mr. Parasaran submits
that misogyny is not supported by Hindu Shastras nor is chastity the sole
obligation of the woman. In fact, chastity is a greater obligation on the man
and he is duty bound under the Shastras to give a pride of place to the woman.
27. Mr. Parasaran submits
that the practice in Sabarimala by no stretch of imagination is informed by
misogyny. The only consideration is the nature of the Deity.
28. Mr. Parasaran now
proceeds to address Article 25.
29. Mr. Parasaran submits
that Article 25(2)(b) applies only to social reform, it still does not apply to
matters of religion covered by Article 26 (b).
30. Justice Chandrachud
wonders if Article 25(2)(b) applies to only Hindu institutions. Mr. Parasaran
responds that the practice sought to be addressed by the said Article is
peculiar only to Hindu institutions.
32. Mr. Parasaran resumes
submissions post lunch. Mr. Parasaran submits that women do not fall under the
protection of Article 25(2)
No comments:
Post a Comment