The news of the Kerala LDF cabinet’s decision to reverse its earlier position and support the traditional ban on women below 50 entering the Sabarimala temple, informing the Supreme Court that long-standing customs should be preserved, is as significant as it is transparently electoral. After years of dogmatic adherence to a court order that ignored the nuances of lived faith, the ruling coalition has finally recognised that the sentiments of the devotee cannot be steamrolled by the state. Yet, this reversal provides a critical moment for us to revisit the broader tension that has defined this saga: The delicate, often precarious relationship between constitutional morality and the sanctity of religious tradition.

When this controversy first erupted, I found myself in an invidious position. As someone whose life has been dedicated to the defence of individual rights and the progressive evolution of Indian society, my instinctive response was to champion the principle of non-discrimination. However, Sabarimala is not a simple matter of gender equality in the secular sphere; it is a matter of the specific, localised sanctity of a deity in a particular manifestation. It is an issue that leaves instinctive liberals torn, forcing us to weigh the abstract elegance of legal rights against the profound, visceral reality of faith.

As I explained at the time, there were four principles at stake in Sabarimala, all of which I normally have no difficulty adhering to: Unconditional respect for the equality of women and men; respect for the Constitution and the Supreme Court;........

© Indian Express