Is tradition over Constitution?

This one has been long pending. But I wanted to write about this issue at leisure so that I can fully express myself on this.

An interesting development unfolded at Shani Shingnapur temple in the Maharashtra. A group of female activist led by Trupti Desai under the banner of Bhumata Rangragini brigade broke the age old tradition of ban on female entry in the inner sanctum of the temple. This is a watershed moment in Indian socio-religious and feminist history of India.

The next logical development is entry of women in the inner sanctum of Sabrimala and other temples. This reminds us of Guruvayur movement by K. Kaleppan in Kerala in pre-independence era wherein he sat on a hunger strike for 12 days. Eventually Maharaja of Travancore decreed a temple entry proclamation in 1936 which led to entry of backward classes in the temples.

However, as put by anthropologist L.P. Vidyarthi, separating humankind from religion, culture and nature is very slow and difficult task. Many people like Kerala CM Chandy are unwilling to assume activist stance on the issue. Its a virtual fight between customs-rituals vis-a-vis progressive-feminist-liberal thoughts in the society. The orthodox section claims that customs should be respected. Some even cite a possible increase in violence against women in the society due to female worshiping god Shani. But progressive section calls for greater equality, rationality and constituionalism in the society.

Demographic transition theory explains, change in social attitude is a slower than change in economic or technological orientation of the society. Despite 150 years of Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and Raja Ram mohan Roy, we still witness large scale atrocities against Dalits and other socially marginalized section of the society. In this context, the achievement of Bhumata brigade holds immense significance.

However, this development alarms danger bell for part of my identity as well. It poses existential threat to the practice of Digambar Jains. Digambar jains has a custom where only male member can perform 'tirthankar abhisheka'. For that too, they needs to bathe and wear particular dress. As this movement will gain full steam, it would definitely spill over in Jain temples as well. I wonder, how this is going to play out in such situation.

The society is definitely not prepared. Those who advocated this in past have turned shwetambars, thus resulting in schism in the religion. Even from constitutional perspective, we have article 25 to counter article 15. If article 15 prohibits any discrimination only on race religion caste sex and place of birth only then article 25 allows minority to profess, propagate and practice their religion in free manner.

The general argument regarding prohibition on females in performing such ritual is rooted in mythological stories and cleanliness. The cleanliness argument would certainly stand defeated but mythological argument is entirely a matter of faith and belief. How would the court or legislative arm of the state counter this is yet to be seen?

The matter of sabrimala temple entry is sub-judice and pending before supreme court. It would be interesting to see how supreme court would try to steer the matter. This again raises a oft repeated fundamental question before us which is "Is the law made for society or Society made for law"?

In simple terms, Should law try to steer a process of social change at all? Is this top down approach going to be sustainable? Should we not wait till the time society matures enough to accept these changes? And alternatively should we not steer the change in social attitude through long term channels like education which can help in preparing the society for this custom evolution?

I remember writing a book review for Zia Mody's book: Ten judgement which changed India. I am eagerly waiting for supreme court doctrine in this case which has the potential of bringing a social revolution and at the same time causing social havoc in Indian socio-religious-cultural landscape.