On Sabarimala controversy: for

constitutionally grounded jurisprudence

Madhu Prabakaran

: (The following is a write-up, I posted in my Facebook as I felt I must register my opinion. To my

surprise, it was such a taboo, no one wanted to share it, even if they read it they wanted to keep it a
secret as if they have come across something forbidden. That surprised me. If endorsed, some told
me, it may affect their image and they will be mistook as being with fascists and Hindu
fundamentalists. This has nothing to do with Hindu Fundamentalism. Why that fear exists?- Please
feel free to reproduce or publish anywhere, Please read the write up: )
If certain stakeholders of a faith believe in whatsoever mythology of a deity & if that belief
gives solace or hope to them, I think that should be respected.

Non-stakeholders of that faith forcefully reforming the stakeholders of the faith through
violating their faith appears to me unnecessary poking into the affairs of those who have a
greater stake in the belief. This is accepted anthropological wisdom. The visionaries of the
Indian constitution made the anthropological wisdom to be the spirit & hallmark of the
constitution. Interestingly, this is the unique character of Indian Secularism too. Indian
nationalism is togetherness (as Tagore made it clear in his seminal work on nationalism) and
Indian secularism is tolerance (as Mahatma Gandhi made it clear).

I as an individual may be having my personal faiths, should someone with any reformative or
progressive thought has right to impose it on me? Can it be justified because the other fellow
is more reformative or revolutionary? To be more precise, can the progressive act as moral
police with me? I have the right to my personal space. This is my privacy. This is my
fundamental right to faith. This logic applies to sacred spaces too. They have the right to exist,
and so traditions.

Second, different people have different stakes in different affairs. Those who have a greater
stake, should not be deprived of voice, giving significance to another with a lesser stake in a
given context. For instance, a regular Ayyappa devotee has a greater stake in Ayyappa worship,
at Sabarimala, in the prevailing faith context, than one Trupti Desai not connected to the
pilgrimage, faith or temple. Judging a dispute by the degree of stakeholdership is the accepted
principle of jurisprudence.

Third, a pilgrimage or a ritual should be first understood from its own prevailing logic than
from a virtue alien to that practice. Again, this is a sound principle of jurisprudence.

Fourth, sacred and profane are two types of rationalities, two distinct spaces. Should sacred
domains force into profane logic? Are sacred domains are mere public places? Sacred spaces
need not be a public place for all. Even, profane places have their distinctions & differences.
A staffroom is not necessarily a classroom.
Sacred faiths may have their unique symbolic significances, say for instance, irumudi,
neithenga, saranam vili, abstinence, sexual discipline, naistiga brahmacharyam, the practice of
deep meditation, moksha, mantra, nama japam etc., it is even a reasonable profane logic that
the sacred symbolism should not be violated, but may be reformed if required through
consensus, to match with contemporaneity, gradually, if necessary. Sacred faiths though are
social phenomenon they are still far removed from saying that all of their symbolic
significances and meanings can be reduced to profane social logic. This is a known principle
of jurisprudence, justified by social sciences, especially by anthropological studies. Sacred
places have their own personality and the right to sacred privacy. I believe that should be
respected.

Constitution of India is not deliberately that 'secular' disallowing sacred domains. Instead, it
guarantees the right to faith.

Next, privacy issue: privacy is not a mere hiding place, it is a right to have private belief, or
right to have a personal expression. Privacy is right to have once own unique existence, not
necessarily in compliance with the logic of everybody else. That means the deity #ayyappa &
rituals or practices surrounding his pilgrimage need not be in compliance with a uniform
Hinduism or Buddhism or whatsoever name by which we wish to reduce the sacred realm. His
place, & his practice has its unique logic. If one wants to visit him, in his place, one has to
comply with his logic. Even gated communities, malls, and also virtual spaces like websites
have their rules. And so, the temple has its own rules, rituals & practices that can't be reduced
to profane generality. A sound jurisprudence should respect the privacy & personality of the
shrine in its own logic. Privacy is a fundamental principle of liberty. Is it not important to
respect privacy & personality of a sacred space - & those who have a stake in it.

Finally, the narrative of #sabarimala has a story around a teenaged divinized orphan boy grew
up in a princely family, showing courage (veeram) to give up luxury, conformity certain adept
principles, valour, fierce love, self discipline, compassion for animals, respect for all,
acceptance of the different others... greater impulse control through his adept practices, and
showing the path to fellow men how to achieve liberty, fraternity, equality, civility &
mindfulness (peace) and instructs fellow "men" a practice of vratha & pilgrimage in order to
gradually achieve what he achieved. A beautiful story of man disciplining (-impulse control &
compassion for the fellow beings, or living a simple life or practising determined ahimsa as a
matured masculinity- Which feminists too insist, here it is an established practice). Why
disrespect the teenage adept that turned into divine- especially by those who don't have any
stake in his story? Let the people who respect him follow his path as he is believed to have
prescribed.

The counter to this comes from some Historians- they claim this story has no consistent
historical root. Such a statement can come only from those who do not know what history is.
No human belief has any consistent historical root. Histories are made by imagining history.
There is nothing static about culture or traversals of events or their reconstructions.

Any story, including history receives & retains coherence only when it is narrated so. Beyond
the selective narration no story has any coherence; further, no story is ended. Since it has long
duration existence even after some sequences appeared to have ceased; no story, that is live
can be narrated to its completion, as it is in the making. It is live, kicking & networking with
its distant strings, separated by spacetime & contexts. A story that is not live is either irrelevant
or in hibernation, would come back with its continuity latter. All of a sudden a forgotten story
may claim relevance. As far as mythologies are concerned it is further complicated.
Mythologies are intensely in making. They are thickly more alive with potential interpretations
and undiscovered realizations. Historians, if claim domain knowledge over symbolisms of
mythologies, it may be because they haven't understood what the sensible intellectuals of that
field have made studied observations. The few statements I made are part of the historical
methodology, which many scholarly historians aware. I learnt them from prudent history
teachers.

Traditions or cultures are never static. They change. Sabarimala is not a threat to gender justice
as it is projected. If it has any excess that would be changed gradually as the dress codes &
many other practices give way to changes as requirements changes. Why show off heroic
joussance & excess - guided by obsessive compulsion of projecting ourselves as politically
righter than the others? Why name & shame & provoke and claim revolutionary credit by
faking up excessive zeal. Isn't it a lynch mob 'intellectualism'. Is it not a mentality of using an
opportunity to mob attack and nourish a false sense of being a 'revolutionary'?

However, let the Pilgrimage be made friendlier towards elderly woman undertaking pilgrimage
with younger girl children. Now, this has been made more difficult by activist frenzy & also
by a lack of government's proactive intervention in this front. It is not Govt. job to run a
revolution. Govt.'s duty is limited to give good governance. It can't talk about gender justice
while has no capacity to help elderly woman & young children with better hygiene facilities or
basic necessities. Government is mandated for good governance, not for revolution.

By all these arguments, I believe, the navodhana reformers have a lesser stake in the Sabarimala
issue. The joussance of reformists appears to me a sadistic enjoyment of claiming superiority
over whom they think inferior. A kind of socialite caste aggression over the ordinary folk. A
kind of sophisticated intellectual racism, I think, deserves condemnation.

The 'progressive' navodhana reformers, who make the sabarimala as an anti-women pilgrimage
centre demanding the pilgrims to accept the charge that they along with their deity were anti-
women so long, and should give up the 'regressive' mindset, appears like a Taliban extremist
demanding a pagan idol worshipper to give up pagan idolatry and get progressively reformed
into monotheism & creationism, being very sure that other is wrong enough to be beheaded. It
is like, the 'modern' colonial rulers were very sure that forest was a wasteland and should be
converted useful by felling trees and clearing it off its wild animals. Academic elite vs. ordinary
nonelite, bent to reform the non-elite-- is ironically racist and condemnably casteist though
appears sophisticated cry for reform or progress, a holy inquisition of the 'reformed' against the
'unreformed' and considering the 'unreformed' to be a shame to co-exist with! Ironically, a
navodhana purity vs navodhana pollution, a navodhana untouchability & a navodhana
intellectual brahminism!

Whether anyone agrees with me or not, I present here a voice questioning the stereotyped
intellectual 'liberal' juggernaut.

The party politics over this issue is a separate business. That is a secondary infection. Most
debates are surrounding BJP or LDF political manipulation of this issue. I am not debating
about that political business here.