People's comments on the Sabarimala Controversy

View Comments on SABARIMALA INCIDENT

taken from Chennaionline

///////////
every one should be punished
Posted by:prabu, chennai

---

WHY SUCH A BIG HUE & CRY??
I do not understand why this is made into a big issue. She claims she has entered the shrine and touched the idol. So what? I dont think it is a big sin. After all it is the Lord she had touched. Is the Lord only for men? C'mon it's time we realize women are more pure than men . I am sure all this women should not enter is man made. The Lord is above all this and would never differentiate.
Posted by:sameer, chennai

---

SHE SHOULD BE PUNISHED
she was make temple as bad
Posted by:s.kadeswaran, coimbatore

---

TRUTH
As far as i have known young ladies would not be allowed in sabari mala. Secondly i dont think any lay man can touch the god so easily at the main shrine. As you have to enter into the sanctum to do the same. Even if there was a large crowd i dont think it would be that easy. If at all she had breached then wat ever poojas to be performed for the sanctum purification had to be borne by her. We should make sure that certain things dont happen again. We as people should realize not to bring politics in gods place. People go there to temple to have some peace of mind. So we should not involve god in all sorts of politics. The crowd at sabarimala is huge during nov to jan. So the Devaswom board has to plan its activity so that all the devotees are able to have good darshan.
Posted by:Srikrishnan, Chennai

---

INSULTING GOD AND WOMANNHOOD
Ms Jayamala need not be punished for WORSHIPPING GOD. The accusers have ignored the basis of Hindu philosophy. Hinduism is the only religion that worships God in WOMAN form. Motherhood, womanhood are revered so much by Hinduism than any other religion. Such being the case, if they claim the idol would lose sanctity if a ’female’ touches, then it is an INSULT to God first and an INSULT to WOMOANHOOD next. God never discriminates mankind on sex, caste, creed, or power. But regards souls on purity, love and readiness to shun sins. Even if it is a sin Laws, Courts, Governments and Men have not authority to punish anybody for sins. Only God is the authority to punish for sins. If one says Ms Jayamala should not have entered as she is a sinner, then NOBODY would be eligible to go to any temple. It is absurd to say that she went inside without the knowledge and permission of the temple authorities.
Posted by:AXN Prabhu, Chennai

---

UNBELIAVBLE
According to my point of view,she is telling for this her popularity.no one believe it.iyyappa and sabarimala is different from other god and temples.bcoz we still see the heriditary of iyyappa family following their processions even today.no women can go inside and touch the idol.she will get an judgement from iyyappa
Posted by:Manikandan, Chennai

---

EVERYBODY IS EQUAL BEFORE GOD
There is nothing wrong in Jayamala visiting Sabarimala and worshiping Lord Ayyappa. Other controversies of whether she touched the idol or not is immaterial. The Devosom and the Priwst should wake up to the fast changing values and treat women equally.
Posted by:vc barathi, Chennai

---

AYPPAN
It is a silly and superstious matter.
Posted by:Natarajan, Chennai

---

ABSURD CLAIM
I wish to inform that the claim made by the actress is absurd as she could not have entered the shrine.
Posted by:V.Kannan, Chennai

---

COMMENTS
she should be sentenced for the unforgettable time in her whole life. first she knows very well ladies not allowd in the temple. then why travelled to sabarimala. for what. either she is lying so that she can be popular to contest election or.
Posted by:kkknum, naaa

---

UNWANTED ATTENTION
It is not possible for someone to get inside.Its is just an idea by the actress to be on the news headlines and create popularity for herself
Posted by:sandhya, Chennai

---

JAYAMALA SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED
Let's keep our conscience straight and clean, to begin with! Jayamala's a lady and does that make her a sinner to believe that there's nothing wrong in wanting to visit the revered temple and worship the serene statue of the Lord? C'mon, give us a break and get a grip of the realities in life! The temple authorities must "wake up" and let the female worshippers visit the temple too.
Posted by:thamizh arasan, madurai

---

SABARIMALA INCIDENT
The reality is no one can touch lord Ayyappan Statue in Sabarimala, except the priests. the actress just want to gain publicity by creating such an illusion. If at all she had touched, then she should be punished sevearly.
Posted by:iutqw, Not Given

Should women be barred from Sabarimala?

I am writing this not just to add fuel to the controversy now prevailing. Let wisdom overtake emotions among devotees at this time.

Sabarimala is the only temple in India where religious harmony is prevaling.

It is most unfortunate that Kannada cinema actress Jayamala's reported revelation that she had touched the idol of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala temple when she was 27, has sparked a controversy all over India. All media are giving due importance to this. It is customary that women between the age-group of 10-50 are not allowed inside the Sabarimala temple. This custom is being practised considering the celibacy of Lord Ayyappa.

This Sabarimala temple is situated atop a hill in Kerala and houses a bachelor God called Ayyappa. It is purported that around January 14, every year, a celestial fire - a jyothi with healing powers - glows in the sky near the Sabarimala shrine. A controversy exists about this also.

What is the relationship between religion and women's rights? Should we care about the treatment of women by religions of the world? Should we be bothered when we see, even in the 21st century, a woman being prohibited from doing certain things, like becoming ordained or entering a temple, just because she is a woman?

But why does the temple board tell her so? It gives a smorgasbord of reasons: The 8 km trek to the temple along dense woods is arduous for women; Ayyappa is a bachelor God and his bachelorhood will be broken if he sees a woman; the 41-day penance for the pilgrimage, where one must live as abstemiously as a saint, cannot be undertaken by women - they are too weak for that; men cohorts will be enticed to think bad thoughts if women joined them in their trek; letting women into the temple will disrupt law and order; women's menstrual blood will attract animals in the wild and jeopardise fellow travellers; menstruation is a no-no for God.

And so the list of lame reasons grows. Don't think that no one has ever questioned the inanity of those reasons. Several Indian feminists have fought, and keep fighting, with the temple board in favour of the women devotees. But the temple board remains implacable. It is backed by enormous political clout, and poor Indian feminists, like feminists almost everywhere, must fend for themselves. It doesn't help that many Indian women are disinterested in any feminist struggle. They think that it is presumptuous for women to defy established customs. It is hard to rally them, especially when it involves flouting tradition or religion.

Nevertheless, many brave and, sometimes, distressed women, boldly try to go where no young woman has gone before.

Here is a report from a publication called 'Hinduism Today': "The ban was upheld by Kerala's High Court in 1990, but the issue is now being raised by a 42-year-old district collector, K B Valsala Kumari, who was ordered to coordinate pilgrim services at the shrine. A special court directive allowed her to perform her government duties at the shrine, but not to enter the sanctum sanctorum."

In December 2002, 'Khaleej Times' reported, "Women have made this year's Sabarimala pilgrim season controversial by entering the prohibited hill shrine...Kerala High Court has ordered an inquiry to find out how a large number of women had reached the shrine in violation of court orders." Strange, isn't it, for the court to scribe such discriminatory orders?

Fifty-four years ago, when the Constitution of India was framed, "Untouchables" - the lower-caste Indians who were believed to be "impure" and hence objectionable to God - won the right to equality and broke open the gates of temples that were closed to them thus far. Article 25(2b) was instituted specifically for them; to ensure that they could pursue their religion unhampered.

This article gives State the power to make laws for "the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus".

Sabarimala is a public temple: Article 290A of the Indian Constitution entails the state of Kerala to pay, yearly, Rs 4.65 million to Sabarimala's temple board. Nevertheless, it has so far remained shut to one section of Indians - the young Indian women. And the state, instead of opening it for them, works to ensure that it remains shut to them. Now it is the best time that all concerned should sit together and discuss whether permission can be given for women to enter Sabarimala.

It is ironic that this shrine, praised as "an unmatched instance of religious tolerance", a temple open to men of all castes and religions, doesn't tolerate most women. Society, that has grown, at least outwardly, to breach "God's decree" to keep lower caste men out of His vicinity, is still struggling to defy "His despise" for women, especially, menstruating women.

Is it so because women are still regarded impure and detestable, at least during certain times? Is it because none in power is disposed to champion women's causes? Is it because women themselves are disinclined to unite against their discrimination? Is it because caste discrimination is accepted to be viler than gender discrimination? Is it because society is averse to disturbing the male-dominated hierarchy in India? This ban on women in Sabarimala, while it appears to be a religious issue, at its core, indicates an uglier problem - the oft-dismissed and court-sanctioned oppression of women in India.

What were the reasons and sentiments behind the human belief in the worship of God? Belief in the concept of God and worship of God are not one and the same.All those who worship God cannot be said to have belief in the concept of God. There are many people who think that there is no loss in worshipping God, even if such a God does not exist; but if there is one, it will bless them.

The basic reason for the belief in the concept of God is the fear of death. Inability of mankind can be attributed as the next reason. Man who set foot on the Moon and who was able to send a mission to Mars, could neither defeat the phenomenon of death, nor could stop natural disasters like earthquake, volcanic eruption, cyclone or floods.

Apart from all these, during the bad cycle of life, many people have to suffer from unexpected sorrows aroused from close family members, friends and colleagues. Then a majority of them will start believing that this is the curse of God. Comparatively, humanity’s sufferings, disasters and losses are more than the benefits it derived from the concept of God and religion. Great wars fought, people killed or harassed in the name of God are numerous. In this context it is better to highlight a verse from Bhagavad Gita:

Mind is very restless, forceful and strong, O Krishna, it is more difficult to control the mind than to control the wind ~ Arjuna to Sri Krishna.

M P Bhattathiry
(Retd chief technical examiner to the Govt of Kerala)
Radhanivas,
Thaliyal,
Karamana P O
Thiruvananthapuram - 695002

Source: Chennaionline.com

Women in Army

SOUTH ASIAN MEDIA NET

Lt. Gen (retd) Harwant Singh Friday August 18, 2006

Source : The Tribune

Intense competition amongst the press and TV channels makes them pick up the most innocuous incidents and stories and sensationalise these to no end. Headlines appear and chat shows and surveys are organised, opinions obtained and instant reactions demanded, leaving little scope for sober, deliberate and rational examination of issues. The vice chief of the army was quoted out of context and the defence minister took the exceptionable step of making him tender a public apology. Sushma Swaraj lost no time in leaping on to the bandwagon. Gauging the public mood the defence minister went overboard and talked of inducting women into the combat arms of the army in the hope of drawing some political mileage out of the issue.

Speaking to a group of air force officers, Pranab Mukherjee forgot, or perhaps, did not know, the rank of the Chief of Air Staff or his name. Possibly, he does not know much about combat either; the extreme violence, brutality, privation, suffering; limbs being torn apart, scattering of pieces of flesh, burning alive and bayonets piercing bodies is all part of combat. It is into this hell that the Indian defence minister wants to push our women.

It was General Rodrigues who, as the Chief of Army Staff, opened the gate to women for entry into the officer cadre and to start with, only in certain wings of the army and in the WSES category. It was a wise decision and these women have done well and measured up to the expectations. In a recent order the government has done well in bringing their service conditions, pay and allowances at par with male short service commissioned officers.

There have been a few teething problems with lady officers, but nothing abnormal or alarming. One of them had preferred a false TA/DA claim and had to face the wrath of military law. The presiding officer of the General Court Marshal was a woman, of the rank of a brigadier. Yet the accused and the press tried to bring in extraneous issues, little realising that a false TA/DA claim in the defence services can send the accused to prison for a few years, while the lady in point was merely dismissed from service. There is no gender bias whatever. Quite the contrary, women are shown the highest respect and deference.

It is not to say that there have been no administrative problems in the management of lady doctors in the army. The DG Army Medical Corps once told me that he could not post lady doctors to remote areas where she would be the sole female or to units as medical officers. Thus the load of field postings and to remote areas was borne entirely by male doctors. Once married, they want to be posted along side their husbands, which, very often is not possible.

Women have done well in most fields and in some, even excelled men, such as in civil services, the corporate world and the police. However, the army is a different ball game altogether, more so the combat element of it. Then there are the stresses, strain and pressures peculiar to the defence services. In fact these start from the day one enters the academy. Some break down within days of joining.

Our company at the IMA was free of ragging of new entrants and the relations between seniors and juniors were friendly. So there was no pressure or stress, off parade hours. Yet some cadets could not take the pressure of the routine schedule of the initial few weeks and would throw up their hands and ask for release. As a senior, I tried to persuade one such cadet to hang on and to put up with the pressure for a few more days as the tempo by then would considerably ease, but his will-power had deserted him and he was totally finished. This run-away cadet from the IMA later became the defence secretary. The point is that military service is quite different from the civil services.

Not many are aware of the conditions under which those in the combat arms have to operate and live. During training and combat, physical stress apart, these women will have to share small tents, bivouacs or bunkers with the men. Sharing a blanket with a soldier may have to be accepted. Then there is the issue of isolation and loneliness for these women. Using common toilet facilities with no privacy what-so-ever is another feature during training and combat. Wounded are attended by companions and the unit medical officer. Wounds can be anywhere on the body. Remember women entrants into the IAF had refused to be subjected to medical tests by male doctors.

Then there is the other angle of working conditions, where constant body contact is unavoidable. The potential for allegation of sexual harassment is inbuilt into the situation. Take the case of a modern tank, particularly the type that the Indian army is equipped with. The space within the fighting compartment is extremely restricted. Thus in the ‘closed down’ mode, as it would be in combat and during training, the tank commander’s knees grip the arm pits of the gunner.

I do not know of a tank commander who can carry on with his onerous duties and the main job of locating the enemy and engaging him while there is a woman between his knees (as young officers these women will have to function as tank gunners too). Or a gunner who can shoot straight at the enemy tank while he sits straddled between the knees of his young lady tank commander. So this will not work, Mr Mukherjee. Combat apart, such working conditions alone make the entry of women in the armoured corps, one of the two combat arms of the army, inappropriate.

Admittedly there is a case for induction of women into the defence services in increased numbers. However, their entry into the combat arms, if at all, needs rational examination, attitudinal changes in Indian society and time.