Judge or Hindu Guru?

As part of the verdict on the allowing women to the Sabarimala temple, the Supreme Court stated:

“In Hindu dharma there is no denomination of a male or female. A Hindu is a Hindu.”

Now, don’t get me wrong: I am in favour of the verdict and am opposed to all such discrimination against women by all religions.

That said, is that statement true? Not according to the Vedas, says Gayatri Jayaraman:

“The Vedas contain entire texts devoted to women… To say Hindus have no gender and are but Hindus, makes a mockery of much great philosophy.”

And rightly points out:

“The Supreme Court also seems to be reducing Hindu philosophy to a single absolute certainty. Something Hindu sages, the progenitors of the philosophy themselves, never did.”

So she pours her scorn on the judge:

“He had clearly studied it, decoded all the caste links and structures, schools of knowledge, expounded it, and was only thus explaining it in open court. Which is an amazing feat, considering all commentaries and bhashyas on Hindu texts differ, even from sage to sage and commentator to commentator on the same line of Hindu text… The honorable judge, has defined all of Hindu Vedic dharma with the clear exposition of advaita, non differentiation. Where do the Visishtadvaitins, and the Dvaitins, who believe in differentiation, and other things, from Yogins to Nastikas, which Hinduism allows them to, apart from several other schools of thought, go?”

But why on earth did the judge even want to interpret Hinduism? Why not just rule based on the far less controversial principle of gender equality? Because the constitution of India allows it! Article 25(2)(b) of the constitution provides for:

“Social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character.”

Did you note the key phrase there? It applies only to Hinduism; not any of the other religions.

Such rules that only allow for the targeting the majority of the country are unheard of in any other country in any part of the world. But sadly, that’s what passes for secularism in India…