The Plight of a Man

 

Of late the Sabarimala issue has been playing on my mind, sometimes mildly and sometimes wildly.

That's how it is with most HSPs (Highly Sensitive Person, yes, there really is such a thing as this. The theory of HSP was propounded by an American Psychologist- Dr. Elaine Aron)

So before we go ahead it's important to let you know what the issue is, if you still don't know what it is. 

This is an old issue as I got to know through Youtube, where videos on this issue have been there for the last 5 years or so, so it clearly is an old issue but I only woke up to this recently. Even though I had heard of it on and off through the news and read of it in the newspaper I had never really thought of going deep to understand what it is.

The issue is of a temple of Ayyappa Swamy in Kerela where women of certain age groups, like the SC put it, 10-50 years of age, are not allowed to enter. Now the court explicitly stated this age bracket to make things clear in black and white. However, the real issue was not pronounced here and that's what has irked women from all over India especially the non-believers because the believers have been following the faith for centuries and it's easy for them to accept it. 

The real issue, as per believers (and we have to listen to them here because they are the ones who really matter in this issue) is since the presiding deity of that particular temple is a Naishtika Brahmachari he has decided to stay away from women. Mind you, he never said anything about the menstruation of a woman, he only said that he doesn't want to see any woman because that is a rule he has imposed upon himself. The clear focus here is not on the menstruation of the woman but the nature of celibacy of the presiding deity of the temple who has set a rule for himself.

And, this rule is only for this particular temple and that's the reason He chose to stay in the jungle, away from the civilization. 

There are 4 other temples of this God where everyone is allowed. And, one temple where only women are allowed, and the poor men are not even protesting. 

There are certain temples (general, not Ayyappa specific) where only transgenders are allowed and they have made it very clear to both men and women to stay away from their sacred private spaces, and it would be in the best of our interests to respect their decision regarding this.

A girl child under the age of ten or till the time she comes of age is considered a Goddess and all the cultures across India worship them in Navratri especially and even on other days. And the women beyond the reproductive ages are considered Mothers to all so that makes them mothers. And that's the reason these two groups are allowed in the temple after they have followed all the other rules of the temple. 

So, I hope the issue is clear here. It has nothing to do with the menstruation of the women but the oath taken by the deity to keep away from all women who are not children or Mothers.

Now, let's see this. What is it that makes rape a crime? Even if we keep aside the moral, social, political, and constitutional rights aside, the ONE thing that makes it sacrilegious is the fact that the wish of a woman has been trampled upon. She did not wish to have sex with a certain man and yet he forced himself on her. This woman surely has sex with another man/men but in this particular instance, this sexual activity becomes a rape because a man has FORCED his will on her. Whether it's a sex worker or a wife the rule of rape is the same- if a woman is unwilling to have sex with a man and yet that man forces himself on her that's rape. Technically, it is. I don't think there is a counterargument to this.

It is like Amitabh said in Pink " No means NO"

Now, let's reverse the case, what if the same thing happens to a man? Will we say, it's not rape? Well, it still is, because in this case the wish of that man has been trampled upon.

Forget about any other man, even if your own husband or father has to ask you to stop meeting him because he doesn't want to meet you will you not stop it for the sake of his choice and your self-respect? Even if you still have the moral and legal right to force yourself on that man will you not keep away from him for the simple fact that as a normal human you respect his wish?

Now, let's forget we are talking of a God or any other man, let's make it even more real. Will you accept a woman forcing herself on your father, brother, husband, friend, boyfriend, son, uncle, any man, just think of any man you love, how does it make it different? A rape is a rape for the sheer fact that someone's wish has been trampled upon by the other. 

Then shouldn't the same logic be applied to Ayyappa Swamy? 

I am not even talking of religion, constitution, female insensitivity, or anything else I am just talking of someone's will. Must we sacrifice our human traits in the name of progressiveness and modernity? 

How can women, who are so sensitive to their own privacy and modesty, crush someone else's right to privacy and justify it in the name of human/women rights? 

Out of the 6 Ayyappa Swamy temples women are not allowed only in this one because this particular God wants to follow his oath of celibacy. It has got absolutely NOTHING to do with the menstruation of a woman. 

And the right to enter the temple is falsely claimed by women to whom that God is not even dear because those who see Ayyappa as their son/friend/God etc still respect his oath and keep away from the temple.

Must we really trample upon and mercilessly crush the traditions, which are sacrosanct to thousands of devotees, in the name of being progressive? Is the sensitivity of women who don't even love this God greater than the emotions of those who have loved him since times immemorial?

Must we exercise our rights even when we don't really need them?

In Nagesh Kukonoor's "Dor" when Gul Panag gives money to her father-in-law and he asks her to keep some of it because he thinks that her husband has earned it and so it's her right to keep some of the money, she gives a beautiful reply - "Haq hai, zarurat nahin." It is my right but not my need. 

Do we cease to remain humans when we progress? Does our need to claim our false rights become greater than the true emotions of scores of others? 

If sacrificing being human is the cost of modernity and progressiveness then were we not better off in Adam's cave?