In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India has settled a long-standing debate of women's entry into the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. In a 4:1 verdict, the SC declared that the doors of the temple will be open to women of all ages. The verdict has been a definitive step towards levelling the gap of gender inequality in the country.

The Sabarimala temple is one of the world’s largest annual pilgrimage sites in the world, seeing a whopping 40-45 million pilgrims visiting the shrine of Lord Ayyappan. The temple is known for its non-discriminatory approach to people of all religions and castes. It is often compared to Guruvayoor, the other famous pilgrimage spot in Kerala where there’s a strict ban on people of other faiths. Devotees will also tell you about the shrine for Vavar Swamy, a Muslim ally of Lord Ayyappa, where pilgrims make a halt en route to the Sabarimala to pay their respects.

Despite the egalitarian approach of Sabarimala, the temple does restrict one group of people from visiting it – women of childbearing age (10 years to 50 years). Allowing women belonging to this age group is considered an insult to Swami Ayyappan, who is a Naishtika Brahmachari (someone who has sworn to eternal celibacy).

In the last few years, the Right to Pray moment has gathered momentum ever since a woman breached the barricade at Shani Shingnapur in Maharashtra in 2015. But years ago, in July 2006, a PIL was filed by the Indian Young Lawyers Association against Sabarimala restricting women’s entry.

Ever since the topic was broached, it has been a thorn on the conservatives’ side. It inspired heated debates in the state of Kerala, where the voices supporting the women’s entry into the ancient shrine was few and far between. Some of the arguments to uphold the temple’s undemocratic decision don’t hold water and expose some seriously problematic issues. Here’s refuting each of them.

“Entry of Women Into Sabarimala Challenges Tradition”

The most common argument is that women’s entry will challenge the centuries-old tradition upheld in the temple. There were many such traditions in the past; Sati, restricting the entry of Dalits in temples, child marriage and human sacrifices were all done in the name of culture. Most of these practices are done away with today, thanks to the efforts of social reformers. If a tradition takes away the right to equality from a citizen, he or she has the freedom to challenge it. No tradition is bigger than democracy in India.

“Women Pilgrims Won’t Feel Safe Among So Many Men”

Another seemingly well-intentioned argument is that women’s safety cannot be assured at a place which sees 40-45 million pilgrims every season, which sounds sensible. But to visit the Sabarimala shrine, the devotees undertake a rigorous vratam, which includes abstinence from anything carnal. Drinking, smoking, eating nonvegetarian food, using expletives, thinking impure thoughts and indulging sexual activities are completely avoided during the forty-one day period. It's rather ridiculous to argue that women won’t be safe around the swamis who have taken the rigorous vratam.

If the men can’t control their sexual urges around women even after being sworn to celibacy for forty days, that speaks more about men’s shortcomings than women’s. In that case, men are better off staying at home. Supreme Court Judgement Allowing Entry of Women of All Ages in Ayyappa Temple Disappointing, Says Head Priest Kandararu Rajeevarau.

“I Won’t Go, Even If The Ban is Lifted”

Women are the best drivers of patriarchy. They act not only as executives of sexist traditions but also as enforcers. Some of the most vociferous arguments against letting women inside Sabarimala comes from the women themselves. The common argument is: “I am a woman. Even if they allow women inside the shrine, I won’t go.” Fair enough. That’s your right. More power to you!

But if another woman wishes to visit, I shall not hold her to my standards. She has every right to do as she pleases, irrespective of where I stand on the issue.

“Women Can’t Take the 41-Day Vratam Because of the 28-Day Cycle”

One of the biggest arguments supporting women’s restriction into temples is that she cannot follow the rigorous 41-day vratam because her menstrual cycle may interfere. This opens up the larger argument of menstruation and impurity. Back when the Right to Pray campaign was gathering momentum, the Sabarimala board president made a rather crass remark, saying that until a machine to scan women for her menstrual cycle was invented, they cannot allow women inside the temple.

A 20-year-old Nikita Azad asked the president through a Youth Ki Awaaz article that how menstrual blood that nourishes women can be considered impure. Additionally, the 4:1 landmark SC judgement has stated that “no biological reason can be given legitimacy” to restrict women’s entry. I'm a Woman, I Bleed And The Right to Pray is Mine as Much as It's Yours.

“There Are Many Temples That Restrict Men's Entry”

During a heated debate on the topic on a news channel a few years ago, Rahul Eashwar a prominent religious activist justified the ban on women in Sabarimala saying that the Attukal Bhagawati Kshetram in Kerala restricts men of all ages. But defending one wrong with another wrong doesn’t help the argument. Women took up cudgels against an undemocratic tradition because it violated their constitutional rights. These Temples in India Still Do Not Permit Male Entry! The men who feel the same way about Attukal Bhagawati Kshetram are well within their rights to revolt. Isn’t that the best part about democracy?

The SC verdict is a sign of things to come. By challenging a tradition that has lasted for centuries, the message relayed by the apex court is loud and clear: There is no place for antiquated beliefs that promote gender inequality in a democracy.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Sep 28, 2018 01:49 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).