A younger member of the family of tantris attached to the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple said that they would intensify the agitation against the entry of women into the popular shrine despite the recent Supreme Court order. Rahul Easwar also said that the protest was not targeted at the Left Democratic Front government in Kerala.
He questioned the propriety of disturbing the bachelor god inside his abode in the forest. If women had found their way to the hill shrine earlier, those were to be considered aberrations, he said in an interview with Manorama Online.
* Why do you oppose women's entry into Sabarimala? Do you have any scripture to back your argument?
No scripture says so. About 4 lakh women went to Sabarimala last year. There is no discrimination against women. There is a regulation on a specific age group. The petitioners in the Supreme Court managed to present this regulation as discrimination. That is why we lost the case. There is no gender discrimination in Sabarimala.
* To bar a woman from going to Sabarimala at the prime of her health is a violation of her fundamental right. That is what the court said.
What are Hindu temples? A temple has no god. Every temple has a deity. Even Hindus are not aware of it. God is different from deity. Deities are different ways to worship the Omnipresent. This is not my definition. Each temple will have its own deities. Sabarimala Ayyappan has his own expressions and character. He has taken a vow of abstinence. You have to respect it when you go to Sabarimala. The current agitation stems from a disrespectful treatment of the concept.
* We heard revelations that women had gone to Sabarimala and even conducted rituals for the children earlier. Even a film was shot near the sanctum sanctorum. How did all these happen if the regulation of women is backed by tradition that dates from several years ago?
The tradition goes back several centuries, not years. This has been the practice since 1,100. There might have been isolated incidents but they are not the norm. If you ask for factual evidence, British census officers Ward and Conner have written in 1812 that there were no young women amid the pilgrims to Sabarimala. There might have been aberrations in the practice. We have to remedy that rather than encourage it.
* An astrological ritual found that many people went to Sabarimala without doing the necessary penance and some of them were even drunk. Why don't you do something about it before barring women?
There may be some people who go to Sabarimala without doing penance. I do not dispute the fact. We have to do something about it. But that does not mean that we have to accept women who feign faith and break the tradition. What do they have faith in? Tripti Desai, who clamoured for women's entry to the temple, did not even know about Ayyappan until recently.
* Who will Ayyappan be pleased with when a man with no faith and a woman with great faith go to him?
In the woman. There is no doubt about it. The question is what does she put her faith in. She has to have faith in Ayyappan as a bachelor. Every temple has a policy and philosophy. Why do you want to violate it. You can see thousands of women protesting the move. It is much like the agitation in Tamil Nadu against a ban on Jallikkattu.
* Has the court been influenced by the state government stand that it was not against the entry of women?
Definitely. We have to think so. We should have argued the case on the basis of the age restriction to win the case. I have no disrespect for people who argue otherwise. But our case was not presented properly. The Travancore Devaswom Board could not even hire a good lawyer for a temple with so much assets and revenue. The case might have taken a different course had they picked a better advocate. Imagine what would have happened if the temple was in Tamil Nadu. Tamil people would have sacrificed their lives to protect this. We did nothing. That is my peeve.
* The Congress and the BJP initially welcomed the court order. There is no consensus on the issue even inside Kerala. How can you blame the Supreme Court order in this context?
It is true that Malayalis are not united for the cause. Justice Indu Malhotra saw no basis for the case. One of the litigants, Prerana, backed off when she realised the facts. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy said that the case could be the starting point for a Uniform Civil Code. The intent behind this is evident.
* As several impartial parties have said, women can choose to go or not.
Many people have said so. But that would mean that Sabarimala would eventually be branded as a public place. Temples and churches are not public property. Those are places for public worship. Since Sabarimala is not in a public place, the pilgrims have to abide by some rules. About 95 per cent of the temples lack proper ownership records. No one knows how they came into being or when. What if someone encroaches into the temple properties tomorrow?
* Are you against the entry of women because of their perceived inability to observe a penance?
I do not want to create a controversy by saying it is not so, but that is not the main reason. In 1991, Kerala high court judges, Justice Paripoornan and Justice Marar, observed that that reason behind the restriction is Ayyappa's bachelorhood. Each deity has a different expression. We go to a temple to receive that. God has no difference but deity has. That is why each temple has its own character. What if someone wants to perform pongala at Sabarimala? Every temple has its own set of rules. Of course, it can be changed. But that is for the gurus and persons concerned to decide.
* How can the central and state governments overcome a Supreme Court order?
I have no problem with the CPM. My father was a party member. I have ideological differences with the party but the left and right have to stand united in this case, like all parties joined hands against jallikkattu in Tamil Nadu. There, all parties asked for an ordinance in the assembly and the chief minister went to Delhi and sought the implicit consent of the prime minister. We do not have much time. Once young women go to Sabarimala, the case will be weakened.
* There were reports of attempts to reach a compromise that young women could be allowed to go to Sabarimala in the leaner seasons. Are they true?
We are not ready for any compromise. I knew that we were going to lose the case in the court. This was an attempt to turn all places of worship into public places by using Sabarimala as a cover. At a particular point when we seemed to be losing the case, I talked to the lawyers. I sought the possibility of mooting such a compromise only to protect the interference into the places of worship. I did not proceed with the idea because I was told that could further weaken the case.
* The Supreme Court said it was not the obligation of a woman to keep the abstinence vow of a man. What do you say?
That is right. But the situation is difference here. When a man has gone inside the forest to keep his vow of abstinence, is it right to pursue him there? The court was right in saying that the penance is to abstain from intoxication, sex and worldly affairs. But it is being used out of context. These arguments seem correct initially. Many people challenge us by asking where in Bhagawat Gita have you seen a prohibition on women to enter temples. Gita is not the basis on which temples are run. Temples are run on tantric rules.
* Can you envisage a future when it is normal for young women to go to Sabarimala, say after 50 years?
I can't say that. We had seen an unprecedented move by four Supreme Court judges to meet the press. They said they were not sure if their move would be a success. They said that they did so because they did not want to regret their inaction later. Years later, everyone will realise that this judgment was wrong. Then nobody should say that no one had objected to it. We will stand by the truth even if we lose.
