1. Women used to enter sabarimala!. The evidence was actually presented in the supreme court. So this is not a long held tradition as claimed. 2. Lower caste people were not allowed in temples until 1936.. ( temple entry proclamation). This was a long held belief and tradition!. So should we bring it back now? 3. There are so many rituals/tradition/customs that have been banned before. These have a longer history than the sabarimala case. Large number of women protested when they banned Sati too. So should we bring it back? So just saying it is 'tradition or ritual' is never a valid or logical argument and is just completely ignoring the history.
Pinakin Patel, If you file a pil, the same SC will dismiss the case. I think 100 Hindus should get together & file a pil to abolish Nikah e halala. No verdict will be passed for 100 yrs. It will be "under consideration" till the world comes to an end. SC is the most biased institution today.
@@Iamlatha you are absolutely correct about that the observation about SC. This the result of one party rule for 50 odd years. Time for course correction for at least 15 years.
Pinakin Patel, Excuse me. This verdict is instigated by the BJP thinking that by dividing men & women in Kerala, they can get a foothold in the South where they have no presence what with women rushing to vote for them which simply backfired. Central institutions are their toys. Look at CBI.
Dear Sir/madam A women bishop is always welcome But if sabarimalayi or Lord Ayappa doesn't want Women to come to his temple It is women who has understand to accept what is not permitted to them. Whereas Jesus Christ doesn't prevent anyone from being his devotees whether it is women or men or Transgender
@@Iamlatha either you uninformed or mistaken, the suit was brought by couple psuedos out of which one was not even hindu. Upon questioning from court they try to withdraw the petition but court went ahead.
Supreme court has erred in this issue in my opinion. May be people of kerala were not properly represented at court by CPI. Its not a gender issue at all. There are lacks of temples where women can visit. In most families (like mine), religious activities/pujas are actually led by moms. This issue like me protesting against Karva chaut. I understand that its a women thing. Its not discrimination.
Anil Nadella It’s about women’s choice. She should have freedom to choose to go to temple or not to go temple. Not a single temple in India legally bans men from entry. Then why are woman banned from Sabrimala? The supreme court just removed this legal ban.. it has not infringed belief system. Woman who don’t want to go can wait but who want to go should be allowed to go. In case of Karva Chauth, women have choice to do the diet/Pooja or not. Men can do Karva Chauth too. No one is restricting them.
Absolutely wrong this is extremely leftist foreign ngo pope and jihadi trying to destroy culture so that they can divide India never possible u antinational maggot
@@binithasurendran8977 Hey boss issue is more complicated than that. This tradition has been there for centuries but the legal ban was put in place by a court in 1991. It should not have interfered then so it didn't have to make a mistake now. In matters of faith, sometimes logic does not apply. For example, we leave footwear outside a temple. Its a belief. There are no legalities there. If someone gets a court judgement saying even footwear wearing people should enter the temple, then it becomes a problem like we are seeing now. My point is court should not interfere here. Regarding womens choice, I will only say that there are around 400 Ayyappa temples in Sabarimala itself where women can visit and pray. There is even a lady sabarimala place where men can't enter. Its only in this one temple that has this tradition. Why so hell bent on destroying it?
Anil Nadella Rahul Easwar feds non-keralite’s with a lie that Lady Sabrimala temple does not allow men. Here is the TRUTH.. The Atukkal temple is often a case of counter-argument to Sabarimala. Infact, its true, this temple is known as Sabarimala of Women. But essentially none of its rituals or customs or laws are similar to Sabarimala. The priest is a MALE. On Pongala day if a man wishes, they can place a stove anywhere in the city and cook the Kheer/ Payasam. But essentially it will be bit embarrassing to see a man doing so and often our society has a concept of machoism where men are mocked for doing ladies things. So due to this reason, men don’t do so. There is no law that prohibits a man from offering pongala. Infact for last 3 to 4 years, several Transgenders (who are officially identified as male by birth, but they believe to themselves as female) do offer pongala and no one has blocked them from offering. So its a case of the voluntary decision by men for not cooking. It's never a case of law that prohibits so. And once again reassure, the temple doesn’t ban male entry even for one day at all. Also, woman of all ages entered Sabrimala before 1991 for monthly Pooja and kept away during Mandala pooja voluntarily due to crowd. Those days huge crowd used to assemble during Mandala Pooja to see the “ divine” makera Villakku. In 2006, post a stampede that killed many ..later it was revealed that “ makkara” villakku is lit by police+tribals. Post the reveal about non divinity of makkara lamp the crowd has substantially come down. So in short.. it’s not about customs . It’s about menses untouchability. There is no scripture validity. The customs were written by Brahmnical Patriarchy . Supreme Court is the only resort for minority and backward to have equality in India.
@@binithasurendran8977 So what if the preist is male? Its an Ayyapa temple where females go predominantly. You did not seem to get my point at all. Temples do not work by legalities. Faith and belief works there. Where is the legal rule that you should cover your head when you enter gurudwara? If women entered before 1991, why did kerala high court put a ban in the first place? In that judgement it seemed to follow the custom since time immemorial. Now supreme court says its discriminatory. Reforms should be society led rather than court led
“If a woman of menstruating age goes to the Sannidhanam [sanctum sanctorum], it must be because of Ayyappa’s invitation,” who are we mere mortals to stop Ayappa’s wish?
Who is aiyappa he is Idol in which people are believe ok the temple is made by whom is it made by aiyappa no it is made by people so if the temple is made by people so rules made by people of there according to their culture and history so what do you know about temple what do you know about the deity you're saying that who are these people who stop me these are the people beacause the tradition is alive beacause of people rules made by people
Haha ... At 22.00 the KhabraNDTV tv asked the question to Rahul and question was longer than the answere which they cut short in middle.. such a hypocrit channel.
1. Women used to enter sabarimala!. The evidence was actually presented in the supreme court. So this is not a long held tradition as claimed.
2. Lower caste people were not allowed in temples until 1936.. ( temple entry proclamation). This was a long held belief and tradition!. So should we bring it back now?
3. There are so many rituals/tradition/customs that have been banned before. These have a longer history than the sabarimala case. Large number of women protested when they banned Sati too. So should we bring it back?
So just saying it is 'tradition or ritual' is never a valid or logical argument and is just completely ignoring the history.
Can we have a women bishop please.
Pinakin Patel, If you file a pil, the same SC will dismiss the case. I think 100 Hindus should get together & file a pil to abolish Nikah e halala. No verdict will be passed for 100 yrs. It will be "under consideration" till the world comes to an end. SC is the most biased institution today.
@@Iamlatha you are absolutely correct about that the observation about SC. This the result of one party rule for 50 odd years. Time for course correction for at least 15 years.
Pinakin Patel, Excuse me. This verdict is instigated by the BJP thinking that by dividing men & women in Kerala, they can get a foothold in the South where they have no presence what with women rushing to vote for them which simply backfired. Central institutions are their toys. Look at CBI.
Dear Sir/madam
A women bishop is always welcome
But if sabarimalayi or Lord Ayappa doesn't want Women to come to his temple It is women who has understand to accept what is not permitted to them. Whereas Jesus Christ doesn't prevent anyone from being his devotees whether it is women or men or Transgender
@@Iamlatha either you uninformed or mistaken, the suit was brought by couple psuedos out of which one was not even hindu. Upon questioning from court they try to withdraw the petition but court went ahead.
Why NDTV calls BJP if they don't want to give them fair time to Express always gets interrupted
That's the only way they can say it's a balanced show in reality its opposite. National Deshthrohi T V.
Supreme court has erred in this issue in my opinion. May be people of kerala were not properly represented at court by CPI. Its not a gender issue at all. There are lacks of temples where women can visit. In most families (like mine), religious activities/pujas are actually led by moms. This issue like me protesting against Karva chaut. I understand that its a women thing. Its not discrimination.
Anil Nadella It’s about women’s choice. She should have freedom to choose to go to temple or not to go temple. Not a single temple in India legally bans men from entry. Then why are woman banned from Sabrimala? The supreme court just removed this legal ban.. it has not infringed belief system. Woman who don’t want to go can wait but who want to go should be allowed to go.
In case of Karva Chauth, women have choice to do the diet/Pooja or not. Men can do Karva Chauth too. No one is restricting them.
Absolutely wrong this is extremely leftist foreign ngo pope and jihadi trying to destroy culture so that they can divide India never possible u antinational maggot
@@binithasurendran8977 Hey boss issue is more complicated than that. This tradition has been there for centuries but the legal ban was put in place by a court in 1991. It should not have interfered then so it didn't have to make a mistake now. In matters of faith, sometimes logic does not apply. For example, we leave footwear outside a temple. Its a belief. There are no legalities there. If someone gets a court judgement saying even footwear wearing people should enter the temple, then it becomes a problem like we are seeing now. My point is court should not interfere here.
Regarding womens choice, I will only say that there are around 400 Ayyappa temples in Sabarimala itself where women can visit and pray. There is even a lady sabarimala place where men can't enter. Its only in this one temple that has this tradition. Why so hell bent on destroying it?
Anil Nadella
Rahul Easwar feds non-keralite’s with a lie that Lady Sabrimala temple does not allow men. Here is the TRUTH..
The
Atukkal temple is often a case of counter-argument to Sabarimala.
Infact, its true, this temple is known as Sabarimala of Women. But essentially none of its rituals or customs or laws are similar to Sabarimala. The priest is a MALE.
On Pongala day if a man wishes, they can place a stove anywhere in the city and cook the Kheer/ Payasam. But essentially it will be bit embarrassing to see a man doing so and often our society has a concept of machoism where men are mocked for doing ladies things. So due to this reason, men don’t do so. There is no law that prohibits a man from offering pongala. Infact for last 3 to 4 years, several Transgenders (who are officially identified as male by birth, but they believe to themselves as female) do offer pongala and no one has blocked them from offering.
So its a case of the voluntary decision by men for not cooking. It's never a case of law that prohibits so. And once again reassure, the temple doesn’t ban male entry even for one day at all.
Also, woman of all ages entered Sabrimala before 1991 for monthly Pooja and kept away during Mandala pooja voluntarily due to crowd. Those days huge crowd used to assemble during Mandala Pooja to see the “ divine” makera Villakku. In 2006, post a stampede that killed many ..later it was revealed that “ makkara” villakku is lit by police+tribals. Post the reveal about non divinity of makkara lamp the crowd has substantially come down.
So in short.. it’s not about customs . It’s about menses untouchability. There is no scripture validity. The customs were written by Brahmnical Patriarchy . Supreme Court is the only resort for minority and backward to have equality in India.
@@binithasurendran8977 So what if the preist is male? Its an Ayyapa temple where females go predominantly. You did not seem to get my point at all. Temples do not work by legalities. Faith and belief works there. Where is the legal rule that you should cover your head when you enter gurudwara?
If women entered before 1991, why did kerala high court put a ban in the first place? In that judgement it seemed to follow the custom since time immemorial. Now supreme court says its discriminatory. Reforms should be society led rather than court led
Thomas laugh laugh this is your last tenure, your party will be defeated in upcoming elections, then we will laugh
Hahahahahaha you fool
Finally a balanced debate by NDTV. Can we have more of soni singh?
“If a woman of menstruating age goes to the Sannidhanam [sanctum sanctorum], it must be because of Ayyappa’s invitation,” who are we mere mortals to stop Ayappa’s wish?
Who is aiyappa he is Idol in which people are believe ok the temple is made by whom is it made by aiyappa no it is made by people so if the temple is made by people so rules made by people of there according to their culture and history so what do you know about temple what do you know about the deity you're saying that who are these people who stop me these are the people beacause the tradition is alive beacause of people rules made by people
It seems non-hindus talk about hindu tradition. No bindhi on the forehead including the moderator
Empty brain of that young guy.
Even you Sonia Singh like other anchors of NDTV ???
this woman nothing to say but only aggrieved did not go to the SC but non believer
Let there be one day in a week exclusively for women to enter the temple for worship !
Haha ... At 22.00 the KhabraNDTV tv asked the question to Rahul and question was longer than the answere which they cut short in middle.. such a hypocrit channel.