GARIMA SINGH
Editor In Chief
Recently, the Supreme Court has given many historical verdicts, verdicts that are showing the strong signs of change. The consequences of the decision on homosexuality, adultery, SC-ST Act, Aadhaar card will be far-reaching. Positive or negative is hard to say right now. In this sequence of historical decisions, the Supreme Court has allowed women of 10-50 age groups to enter Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The decision is just that women of all age group will now be able to enter the temple, but just think for a while that for 800 years, women of a particular age group were not given the right to go to the temple because they menstruate and it has been linked to religion. The temple of the country which never discriminated between religions, caste, and class, surprising that going on gender discrimination was normal for everyone.
The cycle of menstruation which is the basis of the creation of nature, through which women gives birth to nature, how it can be called as profane? Who and how did this was decided that Lord Ayyappa considered menstruation to be unholy? This comment made in the judgment of the Supreme Court evolves realization, that what is the existing reality? The court said that the man has placed an autograph on the lifespan page and there is no space left for the woman to sign. Patriarchal perception cannot be allowed to play with equality in faith. The court also clearly stated that the physical structure cannot come between God and the devotee. Nor can there be any difference between a woman and a man on any basis, it is completely unconstitutional.
But the thing that needs to be noted is that Temple moderator are unhappy with this decision of the court. They are in the mood to file a reconsideration petition, this is a separate thing that the hearing on the plea of the petition is to be heard by the bench who has already given the verdict. In such a situation, the possibility of a change in the decision is very less.
But it cannot be denied that the mentality of maintaining such customs is still alive. Decisions on the Sabarimala, Shani Shingnapur, Haji Ali Dargah give such people an opportunity to peep within themselves. But the one saying that decision is in the favor of feminism must understand that in the broader sense this is not in favor of feminism but in favor of socialism, because the society cannot be formed without women, those who have such illusions, this verdict shows them the mirror, that understand it yourself otherwise law is still alive.