Supreme Court: Faith and Women...

One of my Dad's favourite quote was "Nij par shasan, phir anushasan". I guess the English idiom, "Charity begins at home" loosely translates it.

The Supreme Court has been, in the recent past, quite vocal of equality and its judgements have reflected it. So whether it is the Triple Talaq Judgement or that on Sabarimala, it has been in favour of the women who have been the sufferers of the ignominy of being the "lesser" sex.

When the Supreme Court passed the Triple Talaq judgement, it was hailed as a landmark judgement by the masses. 

Most of us Indians hailed the judgement when it gave the minority Muslim Women some respite very large heartedly. After all they were the sufferers, right? When some Muslim groups asked us to not meddle in their ways, we out shouted them and called them regressive, backward and narrow minded. Since we were the majority(80% of the population is Hindu), nothing untoward happened. 

But then the Supreme Court passed the Sabarimala verdict, allowing Women between 10-50 years to pray to Lord Ayyappa in his abode too! And all hell broke loose. Suddenly everyone, including a veritable Supreme Court Judge, were questioning whether Law had any right to question faith. 

And then the inimitable Smriti Irani jumped into the fray, and outdid even herself. She was always ridiculous, but this time, she was downright ugly. Suddenly it was embarrassing to watch her wax eloquent on TV about her faith and her husband's faith and worst of all Sabarimala.

I am amazed that she talks about faith and knows so little about it. She says she is a practicing(whatever that means!) Hindu and though her husband is a Zoroastrian, she proudly practices Hindu faith. And herein lies the dichotomy. 

Hinduism, as I understand it(and despite being born a Brahmin, I know only the outsider's perspective), says that the married woman follows her husband's faith. And since his faith does not permit her to be a practicing Zoroastrian, she follows her own faith. Her brand of Hinduism is something most Pandits will not allow. So it is alright for her to be following her own faith(thereby taking liberties with the religion) and not alright for others to do the same? And she has to be abusive of others(her blood-soaked napkin comment was nauseating) who wish to follow their own brand and worship God in Sabarimala temple.

And then comes the most eloquent and in most parts sane(despite his personal proclivities) Shashi Tharoor who says that women should not visit the temple. A classic case of people believing you were an ass, till the time you opened your mouth and proved them right! So women have no right to visit since they will desecrate the space. A regressive male in liberal's clothing??? 

When Asiya Biwi blasphemy case was unfolding in Pakistan, we cried for her and called for international intervention. Pakistan Supreme Court also gave a landmark decision in her favour, despite being a Muslim country. When Hindu women are wanting to enter temples of their own faith, there are riots in Kerala and general pandemonium all around. How are we any different from our neighbours and we are not even a Hindu country? 

And who is anybody to decide whether a woman is allowed? If I want to or if I believe it, I have a right to do exactly as I please, and the Supreme Court sanctions it. 

Coming back to where I began, we have started to specialise in selectively quoting the Supreme Court when it suits us. And when it does not, and if we are a majority, we will openly defy the rule of the law! Before we go ahead and talk of other religions, isn't it time, we looked at ourselves first before preaching?

Disclaimer: Nope, I am not visiting Sabarimala in the near future. I have a problem going to places where I am not welcome!  Those who believe that they have to, are more than welcome to visit!