Sabarimala: The perfect example of imperfect society?
Multiculturalism is a common discourse in contemporary politics and political philosophy that addresses methods of understanding challenges associated with cultural and religious diversity. While this largely originated in a Western Liberal context, there isn’t a dearth of examples within India. Rochana Bajpai, in her paper Multiculturalism In India: An Exception presents the various prospects in which Multiculturalism can be seen here[1]. Some aspects can be seen clearly in the legal discourse within the country and also autonomy for several linguistic and tribal groups.
The recent 2018 Sabarimala judgment has facets of multiculturalism that can be drawn on, from various angles. There is the very obvious angle of women’s entry and who has power in these decisions, the aspects of the brahmanisation of the deity Lord Ayappa himself and the various myths that have rendered rubbish with a newer more upper-caste narrative, and the complete denouncing of the god himself as being “secular” for having a close Muslim friend - Vavar and to have found a Christian companion in Fr Jacomo Fenicio[2].
The 2018 ‘historic’ judgment led by a 5 person bench ruled in favour of women entering the temple. Deepak Mishra one of the judges who ruled in favour of letting women into the temple used Article 25 2(b) as one of his arguments, the section allows - providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus[3]. Under this act, the Travancore Devaswom Board can not deny entry of women between the ages of 10- 50 from entering the temple.
Depending on the version you would like to believe there are two main narratives of how the temple is situated within the Periyar tiger reserve. The royal version (read upper caste) version of it states that the Pandalam royal house had possession of the land there and had to give it up - the land and the temple on the hill as a price when the Travancore Kings went to war with Tipu Sultan. With the land moving to the Travancore family, it eventually became a part of the Travancore Devaswom Board.
The King of the Pandalam royal house stumbled upon a bell throated (hence the name Manikanda[4]) young boy on the banks of the Pumba river. He brings him back to his childless wife. This boy grows into becoming Lord Ayapa of the temple. In history, however, the Pandalam kings were never given a lot of importance. They were considered to be part of folklore[5].
The alternate version, the one that has been buried deep under the upper caste narrative is the version told by the Mala Araya tribe who completely denounce the above story, their version of Manikanda, is that he was born to a childless couple Kandan and Karuthamma who went on a 41 day fast on the advice of a tribal priest[6]. The name Manikanda comes from the boy being the child of Kandan.
The versions of Mala Araya tribe have been long erased from the upper-caste narrative of Lord Ayappa. The version is solely controlled by the Travancore Devaswom Board along with the Pandalam Palace Management Committee. The latter comes with the ability to control the upper caste narrative as they are the ones in the custody of the ‘thiruvabharanam’ which is the jewels in which Ayappa is clad in during the pilgrim season.
One of the largest arguments that the Travancore Devaswom Board made against the entry of women into the temple is that- they would not be able to practice the 41-day ‘vratham’ because a woman’s period would start during that time frame. However, the Mala Araya’s version has both man and wife taking that same ‘vratham’ for 41 days for the birth of Lord Ayappa.
If you were to continue to contrast the two different tellings of how Ayyapa comes into being, then there are multiple points where both versions have drastically different narratives. The upper caste version has Ayappa take the vow of celibacy when the daughter of his Kalari guru proclaims her love for him. The version told by the Mala Araya’s state that he never actually states that he will continue to have a celibate life, but that he must fight his ‘gotra’. The girl who falls in love with him is the daughter of the Kalari guru of the Ezhava family.
Her existence is tackled in both versions very differently, the Thazhamon family[7] representatives have completely ignored the narrative of a romantic interest of the god, instead have attributed her as a motherly figure. This is a phenomenon that is commonly seen among women in power even today, where, by either representing themselves as mothers or sisters have stayed in positions of power. This notion of her being a motherly figure further strengthens the argument that the Travancore Devaswom Board tried to make in court. It stands well for them as it paints a picture of the Lord without any possible menstruating women around him.
Indu Malhotra, the only dissenting judge for this verdict stated that a court can not judge morality or enforce maintainability when religious institutions have freedom under Article 26[8] [9]. This section gives religious institutions the freedom to manage their affairs. In her argument, she states that only a true devotee can state if praying at the temple is an essential practice.
So far, I have explained two of the most commonly known versions of how the temple, the lord and its pilgrims have come into power. The devotees of the temple vary for each group. The upper caste puritan notions deny women entry into the temple. In the Malay Araya version fertility of women is considered sacred. Both groups very dearly hold on to their legends, however, Indu Malhotra’s judgment seems to suggest that only the devotees that the Travancore Devaswom board approve of are worthy of going to the temple.
Multiculturalism often deals with how one acts, or ways of living of one group of people come in the way of living for another group. This is a common affair in secular democracies. The example of Sabarimala, in my opinion, can be used to argue every aspect of multiculturalism. It holds as a solid example as there are multiple lenses through which you can look at it. The arguments made based on how this judgement has been victorious for women is a common narrative, however, it is only inclusive of Savarna women[10]. It fails to question how the process of entering the temple and the many mental and physical obstacles that come along with it are still controlled by Upper Caste male groups.
References :
1. “CADIndia.” CAD, www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/27/articles/Article 26.
2. “CADIndia.” CAD, www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/fundamental_rights/articles/Article 25.
3. Correspondent, Our. “Pandalam Royals and Ayyappa Myths.” OnManorama, Onmanorama, 1 Nov. 2018, english.manoramaonline.com/news/kerala/2018/10/30/pandalam-royals-and-ayyappa-myths.html.
4. Gurukkal, Rajan. “Sabarimala through the Ages.” The Hindu, The Hindu, 6 Feb. 2019, www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/sabarimala-through-the-ages/article25952897.ece.
5. Nair, Janaki. “The Pilgrimage's Progress.” The Hindu, The Hindu, 6 Feb. 2019, www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-pilgrimages-progress/article25280301.ece.
6. Pti. “Sabarimala Pilgrimage: The Tale of a Hindu Deity's Muslim-Christain 'Friendships'.” @Businessline, The Hindu BusinessLine, 9 Dec. 2018, www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/variety/when-a-hindu-deitys-muslim-christian-friendships-set-a-pilgrim-tradition-in-kerala/article25703635.ece.
7. “There's No Reason for Women to Celebrate Their Entry to Sabarimala.” The Wire, thewire.in/women/theres-no-reason-for-women-to-celebrate-their-entry-to-sabarimala.
8. Song, Sarah. “Multiculturalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 12 Aug. 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/.
9. Multiculturalism in India: An Exception? www.bu.edu/cura/files/2015/06/bajpai-paper-formatted.pdf.
