Why the Sabarimala verdict allowing women into the temple differs from the hijab ‘ban’

Religious scriptures and associated traditions have rarely been kind to women. If scriptures would have it, we would still be legally allowed to stone an “unchaste” woman to death or enslave a harem of women for sex or class one’s wife alongside cows, mares, ewes and female camels.

As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says, while responding to an audience member’s question on atheism and morality, “people in the 21st century believe in the equality of women and in being kind to animals”. These are things that are entirely recent, says Dawkins.

“They have very little basis in (religious) scripture. These have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy,” said Dawkins. “These do not come from religion.”

What is unthinkable in modern society was perfectly acceptable before because religious scriptures and traditions permitted it. It is thanks to reasoned debate and deliberation that we eventually became sane enough to reinterpret problematic verses in sacred texts and reject misogynistic traditions.

Even if extreme patriarchal practices like female foeticide and dowry continue without qualm in India today, reasoned debates, leading to laws, ensured that in a civilised society these can never be considered as legitimate.

A hot topic in India occupying the minds of the legal, the rational, and...

Read more