Court is not courting controversies but setting right what was
left to it to do.
Lot of humorous as well as hyper emotional
reactions on some of the recent SC judgments are going around.
Excuse me for all typographical errors as I have
typed most of it during a very jerky ride amid very busy meetings, though I
have been reading most of the stuff while travelling.
But SC has been, in my opinion, quiet right in
what it did to whatever was brought to its doors.
Sex is a physical issue that need not come under
the ambit of socio-religious morality.
Similarly, the right to visit any place of
worship is a belief issue why bar a particular gender.
Periods [menstruation] is
just a biological discomfort which need not be punished with either social or
religious boycotts and taboos or spatial ostracization.
Do we do it for diarrhea or running nose or
contusion related urination, then, why for menstruation alone.
None of the reasons put forth for doing so are
either scientific or rational or sane and therefore need not be over
sanctified.
It is something that the religion/ tradition
itself could have corrected long back ( like sati) instead of waiting for a
legal forum to intervene and instruct.
Resorting to comparative justification that
some other religion does not allow is irrelevant.
I knew this was coming or going to come
anytime as this was long overdue.
In modern times religious sentiments and
sensitivities cannot have overriding rights over humanitarian concerns,
rational debates, gender justice, environmental safety, social welfare etc.
I knew or had almost a premonition- like apprehension
that both the judgments may go the way they did.
There is no need for religious, political
debates here.
Certain Right decisions must not be Left to
hangover nor must be Left to others to claim Right credit for making such
decisions. (when I tend to write like this I become nostalgic about great
essays in The Spectator in 17th century by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele)
Justifying or rationalizing everything under a
broad umbrella of highly sensitive aspect called tradition or religion is not
correct and cannot be sustained in the long run due to inevitable obligations
of growth of civilization and social evolutionary trends.
The fact historically is that sex got inserted
into morality somewhere in the 16th century and periods got secreted into
religious practices in the 18th century that too among less than 0.0000001% of
the population and hence, cannot be a sustainable argument under any constitutional
law.
I wish all those who feel that they can listen
to other opinions and see reason beyond sentimental affinity [ which I am not
saying is wrong] to go through in detail the following links and re-dictate to
your PA [ Perspective and Attitude].
On Morality:-
On Periods:-
On Sex:-
As we are very near International Day of Peace
let us seek peace beyond the recalcitrant right wing and the radical left wing
both of which suffer from Ostrich
syndrome and therefore may not facilitate rationality to fly high.
Restraint, respect and reverence must evolve
as innate responsibility and not enforced through any extraneous instructions as
a socio- religious-morality.
Sensing this I wrote just 5 days ago the following
