Author: S Murlidharan
Publication: Swarajyamag.com
Date: April 12, 2016
URL: http://swarajyamag.com/culture/courts-seem-to-be-taking-tough-stand-on-hindu-issues
The Bombay High Court has secured equality for women in the matter of worship at Shani Shingnapur temple, Maharashtra. In its wake, the Supreme Court is girding itself to tame the misogynic tendencies of the Sabarimala temple, Kerala.
To be sure both feminists and courts are fulminating against all religions when it comes to misogynic practices but swift and strict actions are reserved for Hindu temples. And this precisely is bound to sow seeds of resentment on the part of Hindu religious and political outfits that could explode someday in none too distant a future into a full blown civil and political crisis.
Feminists can afford to be sanctimonious but not courts. The rule of law must be applied even-handedly. And till such time the skew in law in favour of a particular religion is removed, courts should refrain from interfering in the religious practices of one religion to the exclusion of others.
The US Congress showed remarkable courage and sagacity in banning bigamy, overcoming shrill and strident protests of the Mormon Church with its dominant presence in the state of Utah, described as the only Mohammadan state in the USA, the befitting sobriquet earned thanks to Mormons before ban being allowed to keep a gargantuan harem upto 27 wives.
Would we dare do it in India? Would we dare to promote uniform civil code that frowns on bigamy to a constitutionally enforceable status from the present wishy-washy directive principles?
The Supreme Court which says it is the Constitution that matters may soon rue its words when religious minorities smugly cite the constitutional provisions on religious minorities.
If our Parliament cannot summon such courage and judiciary can only sermonize in lofty verbiage, then the sad conclusion is only Hindu religion can be taken liberties with.
Misogyny practiced in Haji Ali was talked in the same breath with the misogyny practiced in Shani Shignapur when the issue was raging but the Court chose to pass orders only against the Hindu shrine whereas it should have passed an order in rem in larger public interest.
Of course there was a legal technicality---Haji Ali was not before the Court. In other words, the Bombay High Court was not seized of the misogyny practiced in Haji Ali. But the question is should courts take such a narrow approach in these kind of matters?
Even if courts straightjacket such issues having wider ramifications cutting across religions, shouldn’t legal precedent or stare decisis be invoked by the voluble group of feminists and civil activists?
The blunt truth is Islam enforces its religious edicts with a firm hand often described as fatwa. Even if a court explicitly ends the alleged misogyny in Haji Ali or indeed in any other so-called minority shrine or religious place, a fatwa would follow and the voice of sanity would be muted or stilled.
What is more being by and large a monolithic religion, despite the Sunni Shia divide, the religious edicts and strictures beget worshipful compliance so much so that even women in whose favor apparently the court might have spoken up would look askance at it.
Indeed the moot question is whether the forces who organized the female movement against the invidious gender practice in Shani Shingnapur would dare to similarly organize a similar movement against the so-called minority religious practices.
Courts it seems have not been hearing cross sections of Hindu females a large section of which might as a matter of faith subscribe to the seemingly misogynic practices. For example, the age-old bar on female entry into Sabarimala temple might have recently found taunting and irreverential opposition with phrases like happy to bleed doing the rounds but what is not sufficiently publicized or brought to light is many Keralite women have implicit faith in the ban. Faith and rationality do not go hand in hand.
That Hinduism is loosely banded together and is liberal with several sects and sub-sects has come as an alibi for not hearing Shankaracharyas, Namboodhris and Vaishnavite seers. And it is this disparity and looseness that has subjected Hinduism to being lectured at by all and sundry including the license to paint Goddess Saraswati in nude in the name of artistic freedom. |