octoBER 13, 2018
A Tangle of Temple Entry and ‘Pragmatic Politics’
Is gender justice being held to ransom by vote bank politics in the Sabarimala controversy?
T
he question of the entry of women, between the ages of
10 and 50 years, into Sabarimala temple in Kerala, is as
old as the formation of the state itself. The debate around
Sabarimala temple has involved the judiciary, successive state gov-
ernments, the priestly class and socio-religious organisations, and
devotees of all ages and genders. However, parties to the debate
do not constitute a homogeneous whole, as they hold diverse
standpoints on the issue. The resultant differences between
these standpoints have further widened the political fault lines
following the much-awaited verdict of the Supreme Court in late
September 2018. The Court revoked the existing ban on women’s
entry into the temple during their menstruating years.
The judgment, delivered by a five-member constitutional bench,
was divided 4:1. The majority opinion judges, all male, affirmed
“constitutional morality” over “discrimination in devotion” and
“patriarchy in religion.” The lone dissenting judge, also the only
woman on the bench, differed on the grounds that “notions of
rationality cannot be invoked in matters of religion.” While
many in the country celebrated the verdict that upheld gender
equality, women devotees in Kerala thronged the streets to protest
the same. Arguments against the verdict primarily centre on
fears of increased state intervention in religious affairs. While
these fears are valid in a multireligious country like India, the
case of Sabarimala temple and other public temples in Kerala is
unlike many other pilgrimage sites in the country.
Nearly 1,700 Hindu temples in Kerala, Sabarimala included,
are governed by state bodies. This includes the minister of
devaswom affairs in the Government of Kerala (that oversees
their matters), regional devaswom boards (in charge of the
management and administration of temples), and the Kerala
High Court (that audits the activities of the boards). Temples in
South India have historically been patronised by a combination
of local elite and prevailing political authority, who managed
their coffers and resolved disputes. The transfer of authority
from the princely regimes, to colonial rule, to finally the Indian
republic paved the way for such state-centric complex of
temple governance in South India in general, but Kerala in
particular. Thus, state intervention in Sabarimala goes back
to the Travancore–Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,
1950, when the temple’s governance was transferred from the
Travancore Royal Devaswom Commission to the Travancore
Devaswom Board (TDB), a statutory body.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW octoBER 13, 2018 vol lIii no 41
What has got lost in the din of the present controversy is that
it was the state legislature that passed the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965. This meant
that the TDB’s two successive notifications disallowing the entry
of “mature” women, traditionally barred only from the sanctum
sanctorum of Sabarimala, into the temple premises altogether,
were endorsed by the legislature. In reality, however, this rule
was more strictly adhered to during the pilgrimage season of
November–December and the Vishu festival, and not so strictly
during the rest of the year, barring access to certain areas within.
In 1990, a vigilant devotee filed a case against routine transgres-
sions by VIP women among others in the Kerala High Court, which
upheld his objection and instituted a complete ban on women’s
entry into Sabarimala in their menstruating years. Thereafter,
women had to provide proof of age to enter the temple premises.
In 2006, this ban was challenged in the Supreme Court by a lay
group. Since then it is the state government that has been changing
its position in the Court. While the Left Democratic Front (LDF),
in power in 2006 as also now in 2018, opposed the ban, the United
Democratic Front supported it. While this ping-pong battle has
been laid to rest by the Court’s verdict, the contest continues to
play out on the streets with political parties adding to the hyper-
bole. As the Communist Party of India (Marxist) defends its stand
and compels the TDB to toe its line, the Congress party and the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have been demanding a review of
the petition in a bid to attract the dominant-caste Nair voters.
The unique state-led governance of public temples in Kerala
notwithstanding, it is worth questioning the propriety of the Kerala
legislature officiating the ban on women’s entry into Sabarimala
in their menstruating years. This legislation, above all else, is in
violation of constitutional morality brought to attention by the
Court. While the Indian model of secularism has entailed distance
of the state from all religions, the principal political contradic-
tion in India has come to be centred on religion. This has been
engendered and fuelled largely by political parties and their
associates. Various cases, at distinct points of time, have been
raked up beyond proportion to polarise opinion and outcomes
on them. This can be traced back to the Shah Bano case (1985)
and, more recently, the triple talaq petition (2017). Once again,
the dichotomy and opportunism of present-day political parties
stands exposed for their entirely contrary stands vis-à-vis the
triple talaq and Sabarimala cases.
7
EDITORIALS

Temple entry forms one of the grounds to articulate the con- seems to have become vulnerable to pragmatic politics. It most
cerns of justice. The state has, and will be, an important stake- commonly takes a back seat in the quagmire of vote bank poli-
holder in this agenda. However (gender) justice, as a value, tics and larger demands for religious/communitarian reform.

8 octoBER 13, 2018 vol lIii no 41 EPW Economic & Political Weekly