Shashi Tharoor writes | In LDF’s Sabarimala U-turn, a lesson for religious reform
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The article by Shashi Tharoor analyzes the Kerala LDF government's decision to reverse its stance on the Sabarimala temple entry issue, now supporting the traditional customs that restrict women of a certain age. This is a significant shift from its 2018 position of actively implementing the Supreme Court's verdict that allowed entry for all women. The controversy began with the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in the case, which sparked massive protests and a deep societal divide in Kerala. The author uses this political 'U-turn', which he attributes to electoral compulsions, to discuss the larger conflict between judicial reforms and religious traditions.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity & Governance
The Sabarimala issue highlights a fundamental tension within the Indian constitutional framework between fundamental rights. The Supreme Court's 2018 verdict prioritized the right to equality () and non-discrimination () over the specific religious practices of the temple. The 4:1 majority held that the exclusion of women was not an essential religious practice and therefore not protected under the freedom of religion (). The Court invoked Constitutional Morality—adherence to the core values of the constitution like equality and liberty—to override what it considered a discriminatory social practice. However, the dissenting opinion and subsequent public backlash emphasized the rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs (). This case forces an analysis of judicial review in matters of faith: should courts act as social reformers through 'top-down' legal decrees, or should they exercise restraint? The article argues for the latter, suggesting that when law moves too far ahead of the community's beliefs, it can lead to resentment rather than reform. For UPSC, this is a classic case study on the limits of judicial intervention and the clash between individual rights and group rights.
Social
From a social perspective, the controversy demonstrates the deep complexities of enacting social reform in a pluralistic society. The article argues against a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to reform, distinguishing between clear social evils like Sati or untouchability, which demand state intervention, and internal religious practices that may seem exclusionary to outsiders but are central to the faith of devotees. The author posits that the Sabarimala restriction, from the devotee's viewpoint, stems from the naishtika brahmachari (celibate) nature of the deity, not misogyny. The LDF government's initial attempt to enforce the verdict with state power is presented as an example of top-down secularism, which failed because it alienated the community it sought to reform. This led to a massive, spontaneous mobilization of devotees, feeling their traditions were under attack. The lesson highlighted is the need for reform to be driven from within a community through dialogue and consensus. This 'middle path' respects both constitutional values and the 'freedom of the devotee,' ensuring that progress is a genuine evolution of societal consciousness, not just a legal mandate.
Ethical (GS Paper 4)
The Sabarimala saga serves as a compelling ethical case study involving a conflict of values for multiple stakeholders. As the author, an elected representative, describes, it pits four admirable principles against each other: gender equality, respect for the Supreme Court, the right of religious practice, and democratic responsiveness. A public servant or judge faces a dilemma between upholding Constitutional Morality and respecting the deeply held beliefs of millions, which can be termed 'social morality'. The judiciary's duty is to interpret the law based on constitutional principles, even if unpopular. Conversely, an elected government's dilemma involves balancing its constitutional duty to implement court orders with the political imperative of maintaining social harmony and responding to the will of its constituents. The LDF's 'U-turn' illustrates a pragmatic, if electorally motivated, choice where political survival and social peace were prioritized over dogmatic adherence to a legal principle that lacked social sanction. For UPSC, this case raises questions about probity in governance: is it more ethical to enforce a progressive law at the cost of social strife, or to seek a middle ground that accommodates faith, even if it seems to compromise on abstract legal equality?