Our school had recently executed a debate contest, and the issue given for the finalists was the gender disparities within the Sabarimala and Triple Talaq case. First of all the topic given to the final contenders was incorrect because the Sabarimala and Triple talaq are entirely two different entities. The second point to be noted was that the number of pseudo-feminist comments about the Sabarimala case was quite a large number compared to Triple Talaq which was relatively ignored within the debate...I had enough so I decided to present my views on it as well.

I for one don't think that the verdict for the Sabarimala case is constitutional and as far as Triple Talak is examined it is a slightly distinct question...One is a question of personal laws while the other is a question of admission to a temple, one is a question of parity in a relationship whereas the other was a question of entry to a place of worship where other sentiments have to be esteemed. I defend the conclusion of the court with Triple Talaq whereas I think that there is no basis for drawing similitudes with the Sabarimala case...

It is also surprising that none of these pseudo-feminists are fighting on behalf of the women who want to protect the traditions of the temple. If you call yourself a feminist shouldn't you consider fighting for the whole gender instead of a small specific group? More importance is given to sections of the people who want to challenge the traditions of the temple. All I am saying is if you wish to respect sentiments, respect sentiments all across the board and not selectively. Secondly, whenever you bring in tradition, it is always going to be at loggerheads with modernity, but most importantly a traditional place such as a place of worship cannot be expected to cater to the whims and fancies of modernity, it's loyalty it's towards tradition and only tradition.

Thirdly, most of these pseudo-feminists seem to be "constitutional patriots", which looks like the new buzzword to be thrown around leftist liberal debates, the constitution from its origin recognizes that: 1) Whether a temple is a private property or not, it is certainly not public property, in a sense when you enter a temple you cannot enter it as a matter of right, but as a matter of privilege and there is a reason for it. You can practice your faith in the private confines of your home in whatever way you want to. If you choose to establish a temple even that could offend sentiments, if it goes against traditions people have a right to object to it. But you are going a step further, which is to say I will enter a place of worship of a certain community and I shall impose my individual will on that particular institution at the expense of everyone else's sentiments.  The constitution is crystal clear on this " All fundamental rights are subjected to the rights of other people, particularly when it comes to religious institutions your right as a believer is subjected to the right of the institution and the rights of other believers".

When this point is being brought up , pseudo-feminists argue that we are also defending practices like Sati, Child marriage and Untouchability. Let me debunk that real quick.None of the above mentioned practises were abolished by the judiciary by the way, they were abolished by the legislation which was through a consequence of social will, that is the society says I have had enough of this practice. I challenge these pseudo-feminists to find me one judgement of the supreme court which has struck down untouchability, it was actually struck down by the legislation through the Article 17 of the Constitution. If it is a consequence of legislation it is a consequence of social cogitation . Now if the parliament brings out a particular law allowing the entry of woman into the temple , believers have the right to challenge that particular legislation and the judiciary's right is limited to only examining what the parliament does. The judiciary cannot pick up a practice from the society and say I will sit and decide the legitimacy of this practice through the lens of Constitutional morality. Let me clarify, there is no jurisdiction in the world which allows the judiciary to decide the judgement of religious practice independent of state action.

Let me clarify again , the right of an individual when it comes to a common place of worship is subserviant to the rights of the believers . When you are sitting in your house and watching a movie , you can throw your coke and Pepsi on your or anyone else's head , nobody cares. But when you are at a movie theatre , you are at a common place so must follow the rules and respect the rights of others who had come to see that movie as well!

One more thing to be noted that the practice of Sati used to be a voluntary act done by the wife. It showed her utmost devotion to her husband . But after the introduction of the codes of Manu the practice became forced just as how the caste system became more rigid.

The fundamental issue here has been the inability to strike a difference between diversity and discrimination , between uniformity and equality and between pluralism and standardisation. I have seen over a several case studies and news articles written by pseudo-feminists with references to Sati , Widow remarriage and untouchability. Let me tell you one thing clearly . There is only one temple dedicated to a specific diety who happens to be Brahmachari and in that particular place there is a restriction for a particular age group not because of menstruation but because he is a Brahmachari and we are being told that practice needs to compared with untouchability , Sati and Child marriage. Can someone tell me where is the sense of proportion in this debate? It doesn't matter if India is a secualr country or not ...You know why? A place of worship is not a secular place by definition. So please refrain from applying secular logic to religious places because you will not tolerate religious logic being applied to secular places!

When it comes to the Hindu faith it belives in the diversity of spaces, there are specific spaces which are dedicated to a specific form of energy and there are specific spaces which are open to everyone. If this faith's diversity is finished through the weaponised form of equality which is nothing but standardisation , I am sorry to say it will lead to the unwarranted abrahmisation of the Hindu faith and it will lose it's originality which I think it's against the concept of Article 25 and 26.

You know it's very easy to muddle this entire argument by comparing it with something terrible. Nobody has been able to answer this specific question. When you say that this temple does not allow women and it has a problem with women, it is based on misogyny and patriarchy I  want ask each of these pseudo-feminists " What do you know about the temple before you had come to this conclusion , what had you read before you made that comment , are saying that you are better than centuries of people who have worshipped at that temple and practiced that faith!? Unless and until you have a specific position , do not make yourself the representative of the entire female community, you are not.Secondly you can't speak on behalf of the believers , you cant speak on behalf of the diety , to simply put it in the language of game of thrones:

There are approximately 108 Ayyapan Swami temples in Kerela and only in one where the women are not allowed, not because they are impure but because the diety in that temple wishes to be a Brahmachari. Lord Ayyapan is same in any temple for worship, so if you want to worship Lord Ayyapan you are more than welcome to visit the other temples and no one is stopping you! 

There is a temple in Kerela known as the Attukal Bhagavathy , where a Pongala takes place and women are worshipped and done the Nari puja for 10 days! It is in the Guiness book of world records for the largest gathering of women. Do you see the men protesting and forcefully entering the temple exclaiming that their rights are being denied? It can be compared to a female going to a men's collage and demanding that she gets an admission there since it is her right ! When patiently explained that there are other collages in which she can study she exclaims that she must study in this collage amongst the men only then her right to education is fulfilled! Those this look reasonable to you guys!

Now coming to Triple Talaq , it has no religious basis since it is not mentioned in any of the Islamic religious texts , so the Supreme court has full right to take up this issue without legislation and condemn it according to judgement !

That's it for today guys, I hope you enjoyed it . More topics to come in future...If you guys want me to cover any topic let me know and I shall do the needful.