𝒞𝒽𝒶𝒾 𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑒𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓂𝑒

𝚂𝚊𝚋a𝚛𝚒𝚖𝚊𝚕𝚊 𝚟𝚜 𝚃𝚛𝚒𝚙𝚕𝚎 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚊q: 𝙰 𝙶𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 S𝚝𝚞𝚍𝚒𝚎𝚜 C𝚊𝚜𝚎

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.