Justice Markandey Katju states -Amit Shah is right

Justice Markandey Katju states -Amit Shah is right

I am no supporter of BJP, rather I am usually very critical of it on many issues. But I agree with the BJP President when he said of the Sabarimala verdict that the Court should not pass unimplementable orders.

As Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenting judge on the bench wisely said, religion is a matter of faith, and Courts should not ordinarily intrude or intervene in it.

To test religion on the anvil of reason is a gross mistake. For example, there is a shrine in Srinagar called Hazratbal, which is believed to have in it a hair of Prophet Mohammed. Now to ask whether it is really the hair of the Prophet is not a question which can be legitimately put. The only question one can ask is : do most Muslims in Kashmir believe that it is the hair of the Prophet ? The answer is yes, and that is the end of the matter. Many years back when the hair disappeared there were massive disturbances in the Kashmir Valley, and peace was only restored when the hair was recovered.

Similarly, a Buddhist temple in the town of Kandy, Srilanka is believed to have Buddha's tooth. One cannot put the question whether it is really Buddha's tooth or not, because most people believe it is. Similarly, in Chitrakoot in UP there is a Sita's rasoi ( kitchen ), where it is believed Sitaji used to cook food for her husband Rama and his brother Laxman during their exile. In Goa in Bom Jesus Church there is a body of St. Francis Xavier who died over 4 centuries ago but the body is believed to be still fresh. In Velankanni in Tamilnadu there is a church which is regarded as 'The Lourdes of the East', where it is believed a shepherd boy saw Jesus and Mary, and where miracles occurred.

These, and many others, are matters of deep faith, and one cannot question them by applying reason. Religion is not a matter of reason but of 'shraddha ' or faith.

As regards the Sabarimala temple, it is believed that the presiding deity Lord Ayappa is a Naishthik Brahmachari, a celibate, and that is the reason menstruating women are not allowed in his presence. Devotees ( Ayappans ) abstain from sex, partially fast, wear black clothes, and pray for 41 days before departing for the pilgrimage to Sabarimala. Therefore to allow entrance to menstruating women would destroy the fundamental nature of the temple, which Ayappans ( Ayappa devotees ) would fight tooth and nail against, some, including women, even willing to give their lives for it.

With respect to the majority Judges who delivered the Sabarimala verdict, they did not understand this, and were instead carried away by their abstract, theoretical, avant garde notions of gender equality, womens' dignity, etc, not realising this was India, not America or Europe.

Most Indians are deeply religious, and Court verdicts which go against their basic faith will simply not be accepted. For example, if the Court directs that Muslims will not read namaz or not go to mosques, can such a directive be implemented ? Far from being implemented it will only result in widespread bloodshed. So Amit Shah is right here. Courts should not pass unimplementable orders.