In recent times, the Supreme Court has been called upon to deal with several matters relating to religion and personal law, such as divorce, entry of women into temples, female genital mutilation and most ticklish of all, the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit. Many contradictions have surfaced in the wake of judicial interventions. Rather than help resolve these complex issues, the political class has shown that it cannot rise above vote-bank politics.
A case in point is the Supreme Court judgment allowing entry for women aged 10 to 50 to the Sabarimala Ayyappa Temple. For many decades now, the BJP has supported a Uniform Civil Code as a “magic bullet” to ensure equality under law for men and women. To quote from the party’s 2014 election manifesto: “BJP believes that there cannot be gender equality till such time India adopts a uniform civil code, which protects the rights of all women.”
But if the spirit of the uniform civil code is equality for women, then how can the BJP oppose the Sabarimala verdict? Its approach to the Ayyappa temple issue is in sharp contrast to that of the BJP government in Maharashtra, which gave an undertaking to the Bombay High Court in 2016, that women would be allowed entry into all the temples in the State.
When the apex court gave its verdict banning Triple Talaq, the BJP welcomed it and brought a law to make the practice illegal, claiming as it did so that it was committed to equal rights for women and the rule of law. In the Sabarimala case, by opposing the SC judgment, it has taken a step back.
BJP president Amit Shah has tried to draw a distinction between his party’s stand in the Sabarimala and the Triple Talaq case. He has said that the two cases are very different, pointing out that “there are 13 temples in India where men are not allowed…it is about respecting everyone’s sentiments”. The question naturally arises as to the sentiments of the thousands of women who want to visit Sabarimala. In Maharashtra, the entry of women into Shani Shingnapur, Shirdi was opposed, yet women were allowed in when the temple authorities capitulated.
The BJP finds itself in an awkward position, because it cannot support the rights of Muslim women on the one hand and ignore the rights of Hindu women on the other! If it did not give in to the Muslim patriarchy, it cannot be seen to give in to the Hindu patriarchy. Yet, there is no doubt that the common man — and in some cases, woman — in Kerala is against the SC verdict. As a political party, the BJP must side with public sentiment but as a member of the NDA government, it must obey the judiciary.
The Congress is in an even bigger mess, because its track record on the rights of Muslim women is downright horrible. It went to the extent of setting aside the SC judgment in the Shah Bano case, in order to deny proper maintenance to divorced women. In Parliament, it raised several objections to the Triple Talaq law.
Now, Congress president Rahul Gandhi has said that while he personally supports the entry of women into Sabarimala, he is being forced to oppose it because of pressure from his party: “My opinion is that women are equal and should be allowed in but my party unit in Kerala has a different view…I’m going with the party.” Drawing a distinction between himself and his party is a cop-out and smacks of hypocrisy. Given that the Congress has had two women presidents, one of whom served as Prime Minister, there can be no excuse for such transparent vote-bank politics.
Certainly, popular sentiments are important in matters of faith, as in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi. But even here, all political parties are patiently awaiting the verdict of the SC on the title suit. There has been a strong demand for an ordinance on the issue, specially after the SC decided not to hear the case until next year, but the government has not responded.
The Sabarimala Temple is not a private club, which can disallow the entry of women. It is a public place and not a private property and no one can be refused entry. The SC has done its job and upheld the Constitution. Its order has the force of law and the government must implement it, as long as the verdict stands. Political parties would do better to try and defuse public unrest by convincing social organisations and the temple authorities to adapt to the law, rather than using it as an opportunity to garner votes.
Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.
