#ReadyToWait v/s #RightToPray: The fight of two hashtags.

The motivation for this post is the Times-Now debate of  30^th Aug 2016 on the Sabarimala women entry issue. Quite unusual for Arnab debates, this time it was a contest between two hashtags,  #ReadyToWait v/s #RightToPray instead of one trying its way up in India trends chart.  

Anybody who knows in details about Sabarimala should have felt that subject knowledge of Arnab and the panellists on his side was very superficial this time. They should have done a better homework even though they can be pardoned because of the regional nature of the topic of discussion.

First let us briefly look at what both the sides stand for.

#RightToPray is supposed to be a gender equality movement which draws its pride from their perceived victory at Haji Ali Darga and Shani Shingnapur temple in the matter of women entry there.

The other side with #ReadyToWait hashtag is declaring themselves to be a feminist movement 
created by the women devotees of Lord Ayyappa, the deity of the hill shrine Shabarimala. Their aim in simple terms looks to be to tell us that Sabarimala women entry issue is not a gender equality issue as its new champions would want to project it as. Neither is it the real women devotees who are behind this controversy.

As the #RightToPray concept is of less ambiguity let us try to understand more about the novel idea of #ReadyToWait. Let us check if it was justifiable for Arnab to term it absurd out rightly and accuse it of lacking merit.

To begin with, it should be understood that the usage of the phrase ‘ban on women entry’ is totally wrong for Sabarimala unlike in the case of Shani Shinganpure temple and Haji Ali darga where it was a blanket ban on women to enter the particular pray areas of those shrines (started very recently in the case of Haji Ali, supposed to be after 2011). In fact, every year lakhs of women visit and pray at Sabarimala. So let us first be clear on this point that there is no ban on women in Sabarimala.

But, there is indeed a restriction on women belonging to a particular age group –10 yrs of age to 50 yrs, to be more precise. This custom is followed by women folks of Ayyappa devotees by their own choice from time immemorial. There was neither any strict imposing of this practice nor any monitoring by any authority. It was only in 1991 there came a formal imposing of this restriction with a high court order followed by the petition of a (male)devotee complaining about some VIPs were given exemption to come to Sabarimala contrary to the customs and usages followed in the temple. 

Now let us analyse the premises of this tradition of Sabarimala.

In Sabarimala the deity Lord Ayyappa is being worshiped in the form of a celibate (brahmachari). The poojas, the rituals, the traditions and everything related to Sabarimala is designed in accordance with this special posture of its celibate deity. Devotees have to observe strict vrata (brahmacharya vratham) of up to 41 days including maintaining physical purity, abstaining from earthly pleasures like consumptions of alcohol, meat and sexual activities etc. as part of the preparation for the yearly pilgrimage to Sabarimala.

The main argument on why women in particular age group are not welcome in Sabarimala. 

One is that from the folklores of Ayyappa we can see that towards the end of his life as man he chose to be a celibate and went to become the deity of the temple which was constructed by the King of Panthalam, Ayyappa’s adoptive father, on the instruction of the Lord himself. He had chosen the steep mountains in the deep forest as his adobe for his eternal yogic sleep so that he can be stayed away as much possible as from the worldly affairs. It is in the culture of our land, as part of Sanatana Dharama, that nobody wants to disturb such a yogi by their presence (this also explains why Sabarimala is not open for ‘darshan’ throughout the year). And especially young women prefer to stay away from such celibate yogis out of respect.  

One of the main arguments seems to have raised by ReadyToWait camp and its supporters is that the celibate posture of the lord Ayyappa deity is what which mandates the pre-conditions, which is the strict vrata, for his devotees to come and worship him so as to have very minimal disturbance to his permanent yogic posture. So they are asking if somebody is not believing in these pre-conditions as part of the Sabarimala pilgrimage, then it means that he or she doesn’t believe in this deity of Ayyappa at all. If he or she doesn’t believe in Lord Ayyappa in Sabarimala in its current form, then why he or she should insist to go there. It indicates that their insistence is not out of the devotion. They are free to go to hundreds of other Ayyappa temples across the country where the deity’s posture is not that of a celibate and hence there are no restrictions of any kind. The revolting, non-believing, Ayyappa fans (yes, not devotees) can very well visit any of those temples and offer their prayers (if any). Problem should finish there itself.

The logic is simple here, you don’t go to Sabarimala if you don’t believe in it simply because it is not a tourist place where anybody can go just for the sake of it. And those who believe are ready to follow the customs, the rules of lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala. And as part of that they are ‘ready to wait’ until the age which the tradition allows. It never means that they are denied a Ayappa ‘darshan’ for a prolonged period. They are free to visit all other Lord Ayyappa temples spread across everywhere during this restricted age span.  This should be exactly what the foundation on which this new movement called #ReadyToWait is built upon.    

What those who are in revolting gear don’t understand is that the rituals and customs are different in all temples. There is no single binding rule for this purpose in Hindu religion. One temple may have a celibate Ayyappa and in other temple may have a ‘bala’/infant Ayyappa. And both can have considerable difference in each ones rituals. That is the way of Hindu worship. You cannot compare it with one-book-one-god Semitic religions. One cannot impose a change to that of one temple just because one doesn’t like it. As far as such rituals and customs are not causing any harm to the public life then there is no provision for any attempt to curb it by force by any secular establishments, be it an elected govt or a court of law.

Hindu deity is recognised by the Indian law as a minor entity who has his own rights given by the law for his/her own protection. How to maintain his home, the adobe, the temple, can be decided by him by this law. The selection of poojas, the rituals and the customs are all part of this choice of the deity. You have to agree to this constitutional right of Hindu deities in this debate. How the wish of deity is being conveyed to common man is again a separate discussion altogether. It is also a fundamental right, not only of minority religions but also for any religion in India to have the right to preserve their customs and ritual which is applicable in this case of Sabarimala as well.

Before branding Kerala and its Hindus as anti-women one should take note that there are women-only temple rituals also in Kerala where no man is allowed during its annual celebrations. One such biggest temple in Kerala is the Attukal DeviTemple which is also known as women’s Sabarimala. This temple has found a place in Guinness book of world record for it sheer number of women gathering in a single day. Nobody consider it as the violation of gender equality against men under article 14 of Indian constitution. Every sane person understands that it is the ritual of one particular temple and they recognise it. It is the same case in Sabarimala also which is just another such a particular temple where you have a different set of rituals, the rituals which give the Sabarimala its unique position in Hindu way of life in India.

Those who are eager to brand Sabarimala as a regressive Hindu icon with half-baked information should understand one more important fact that Sabarimala is one of the very few prominent temples in India where there is no restriction in the name of caste or religion. Yes, you heard it right, there is no religious bar for entry in Sabarimala! Be it a Muslim or Christian or any religions, anybody can go to Sabarimala if they follow the rituals. Also they should know that there is a Mosque at the foothills of Sabarimala which is believed to be belonging to Lord Ayyappa’s friend who is a Muslim. His name is Vavar. Devotees call him Vavar swami! It is mandatory for all the Ayyappa devotees to visit this mosque first before starting climbing to the hill towards Sabarimala.  This is also part of the ritual. You cannot find it in the constitution of India.

These all special traditions and rituals are the ones which make the Sabariamala. Without all these, the Sabarimala will be just one of the hundreds or thousands of other temples. So before one raises his/her sword against Sabarimala in the name of gender equality he/she should understand that Sabarimala is the epitome of equality in any aspect, be it caste, religion or gender.

Aranb and team should understand that temples of Hindus are not run by constitution which is based of rationalism and logic instead they are administered by belief. It is meant only for those who believe in it. And until the rituals based on belief don’t affect the civil health of the society nobody other than the devotees has any right to alter it. Hindus of this country have done it in the past and will do it in future also whenever the need of a reform arises. Even in this issue also they are capable of differentiating between the rights and wrongs.

Last but not the least:  There is no comparison of yester year’s Sati or Child marriages, both were forced upon women, with an age old harmless tradition followed by matured Hindu women by their choice. Advice to Arnab is to please make sure you put some more effort on your homework before coming to debate when it comes to specific regional issues which don’t have a pan-India behavior.