Opinion: ‘Perseverance is a mandate in the fight for gender equality’

Only after great efforts that were met with stiff resistance that laws deemed these evil practices as crimes within the ambit of criminal law,all enacted at various pointsof time.

For instance, in 1829, Sati was abolished by Bengal Sati Regulation - one that declared practice of Sati in essence, burning or burying alive the widows of Hindus as illegal and punishable by the criminal courts. Despite this, even in September 1987, Roop Kanwar was subjected to death on her husband’s pyre in Rajasthan in the presence of thousands of onlookers cheering the brutal act.

A temple was built to commemorate her killing and a pro-sati movement justified the killing. Her own natal-family was proud she brought honour to the family by her death.

Another example was the efforts made to get equal rights for Devadasis to marry and make the practice of dedicating girls to temples illegal. Dr Muthulakshmi Reddy moved a private bill as early as 1930, but The Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act came to be passed only in October, 1947. 17 long years in the assembly and many more decades outside the floor ensured the act was framed, but even now, we find the prevalence of this practice, albeit in a hidden manner.

Dowry as a social evil is a classic example as it continues to be in existence despite the Dowry Prohibition Act that was passed in 1961 making the offering of it and receiving of it an offence. The Indian Penal Code was also amended, making husband and his relatives responsible if death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury that occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Also, if before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ‘dowry death’, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. The offender could be subjected to imprisonment from seven years to life.

As more and more women stepped out to work, sexual harassment issues at workplaces became a common issue. This even led to the famous Vishaka judgment in 1997 rendered by the Supreme Court wherein a set of guidelines were given to protect women who faced sexual harassment at workplace and the passing of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Despite the said guidelines and the Act, the reality is that women are still not totally safe at workplaces just as in other spheres.

Of late, the Me Too movement has brought to fore the various kinds of sexual harassment women have been subjected to from their colleagues, bosses, relatives and other acquaintances. The movement is met with the usual resistance and even countered with threats of cases of defamation and damages against the victim by the alleged perpetrators, except for the few men who have chosen to confess and apologize.

This movement seems to be misunderstood by both the victim and those who are exposed –even as such revelations help the victim get rid of the repressed emotions, the perpetrator could seek amends by his grace and acceptance which would then lead to the reconciliation of both parties without seeking criminal actions and punitive sentences as amends to the issue on hand. Acrimonious procedures lead nowhere when a crime is time barred to seek legal actions. Therefore, one must be careful to exercise the rights if barred by limitation.

Being careful to exercise rights brings me to the question of the hard-won battle conferring right on women within menstruation age group to enter Sabarimala.

The Supreme Court in its wisdom has given a beautiful judgment upholding the right of women to have equal access to the Sabarimala Temple. Having won the war, it is only necessary for women to first reach out to the ardent devotees with reason and logic; slowly permeate into their fold and ensure that the judgment becomes a reality. Attempting to enter the temple only to prove the point of equality will only hurt religious sentiments and spark resistance. It is also not right for atheists or those who are not devotees of Ayappaswamy to abuse this judgment. When there is a rigour of customary practices to be observed before the entry into the temple that are accepted by convention, the same must be respected.

Defying the traditional norms of practice and barging into the temple just to prove a point belittles the very freedom obtained through the order of the apex court order. The hard-earned freedom must not result in bloodshed and disharmony. Recently, the Devaswam Board has accepted that they are “duty bound to implement the judgment”, but that they are “facing practical difficulties” and has sought time for implementation of judgment. The Supreme Court is going to hear the review petition.

Patience and appeal to the good senses in the Gandhian way of ahimsa would lead ardent women devotees into the temple with peace and goodwill that any temple is sought to shower on their entry into the Sanctum Santorum of the Ayappaswamy Temple.