The second headline that has recently dominated international news about India is the ban on the entry of women from the ages of 10 – 50 from entering the Sabarimala Hindu Temple in the southern state of Kerala. In September of 2018, a five-judge panel struck down an allegedly centuries-old, custom-based law. This action led to widespread, violent protests by the more fundamentalist sections of Keralan society, resulting in an onslaught of threats to those who defied the ban, as well as at least one death. Due to this, the Keralan government has had to provide armed escorts for women seeking to enter the temple.
A narrative has been established by many of these fundamentalist groups regarding the law and its history. It’s often claimed that this law may have originated in an informal fashion as far back as two centuries ago, based on the European-established Madras government’s report “Memoir of the Survey of the Travancore and Cochin States”. Two things are important about this report. Firstly, it was only recorded some three-quarters of a century after the actual report, in the 1890s. Secondly, while it denotes a formal ban, records of the earlier half of the 20th century are alleged to have recorded female pilgrims, unaware of the custom, visiting the temple without retaliation.
The modern form of the ban was first examined by a constitutional court panel in 1965 as a provision of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, entering the law books seven years later in 1972. Another nineteen years later, a court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the law, firmly cementing its place in Kerala. This places the legislation, without any doubt, in the immediate postcolonial era of law in India, possibly influenced by the recently cast-off British Raj. Regardless of British influence, however, the law is more likely a modern invention of the State and the reactionaries who supported it than a long-held traditional custom. This does not, however, necessarily deter the protesters. Merely, it serves as a counter to one argument.
What does this mean for wider trends in India, however? Particularly with the Hindu, nationalistic BJP holding the national government and coming out so strongly against rulings such as this, one would think that a reactionary trend would be occurring throughout the subcontinent, with particular regards to legislation. Yet, the judicial system seems opposed to that notion, electing instead to lean into progress, striking down laws as discriminatory, engaging in decolonization, and generally serving as the legal liberator of many marginalized groups. On the non-state end, despite the cries of fundamentalists, support for the ruling seems widespread, garnering support from the left-wing coalition government of Kerala in a sharp contrast to the policies of Prime Minister Modi.
The evolution of Indian culture is likely far from over, and I suspect we will continue to observe this trend for several decades onwards as the massive, populous nation rises to its new place as a world power, and takes on the associated responsibilities.