All the arguments made by senior counsel Mr Parasaran in
supreme court in the Sabarimala issue can used to interpret the
existing practice in another way too . First, it is not a case of
anybody that all hindu ladies SHOULD visit the temple in spite of their
age. The plea is, if at all a lady aged between 10 and 55 is desirous of
visiting the temple and praying there SHE SHOULD NOT be prevented in
the name of practice.
Other than saying about age
old practice, nobody says what is the logic in preventing ladies of a
particular age group . If it is based on the menstruation period, two
three issues arise. Is menstruation an impurity? Isn't it only a
biological process? What is the guarantee that ladies below 10 and above
55 do not menstruate? There can be a lady whose uterus has been removed
before 55 and hence does not menstruate. Similarly there can be a lady
who menstruate even after 55 years. So it is a question of
interpretation.
When we talk about practice
followed, the same arguments were raised about opening of temple.
Earlier it used to be opened during mandalam and makaravilakku only. Now
it opens for five days during the start of each malayalam month.
Nothing untoward has happened after this was started (I wonder why
nobody is asking for opening the temple on all days just like any other
temple)
It is also argued that there are any number
of ayyappa temples elsewhere where ladies are not prevented and ladies
could go to these temples. So if other temples can permit why not
sabarimala, the pratishta everywhere being ayyappa. There cannot be
different ayyappas.
I really wonder why the people who seek the entry and those who oppose the same do not touch upon these points.
I hope the so called custodians of Hindu faith do not pounce upon me for penning my thoughts .
