Every hotelier wishes to witness not just a good crowd in the dining area but a crowd of descent looking people. You don't need to be a genius to understand the reason behind it. None of us wish to be surrounded by people who are dirty and shabby while we dine in an restaurant. You can't decline entry to someone just on the grounds of their looks or caste or gender or religion or region, because it amounts to discrimination and against conscience and constitution.
A pregnant woman is prohibited from hearing some of the hymns of vedas as they are said to be affecting the growth of baby.
None is supposed to read or even to keep at home a particular purana (garuda purana) except during certain prescribed periods.
Women are prohibited from entering the pooja room or to do regular worship during the menstruation period even in their own house.
Can we consider all this as discrimination?
The feeling that they are discriminatory comes only because someone treats hotel and temple pari passu.
A temple in Sanathana dharma parlance is not a place of worship as is commonly seen. It is more than that. A temple can't be compared to any other religious place where you place a few tables and chairs and make people assemble to pray the god. Aagamas don't consider the temple as a place with four walls around to be used to pray the god.
A temple is a place where the omnipotent power is believed to be invited (avahanam) and was requested to be in a particular idol or yanthra or any other substance or just in the air (prana prathistha).
You can find no idol in Chidambaram Temple where lord siva is considered to be in the form of cosmos. You find just a flame in jwalamukhi temple and nothing else. Not every temple is same and not the rules of worship are the same in each temple.
And most importantly the so called "rational principles" can't be applied to a temple as praying god itself is not considered rational in the common rationality parlance.
Supreme court of India was right when Shabano case was upheld by it applying the principles of law of land adjudging that the law takes an upper hand when deciding on matters where there is a conflict between religious laws and constitution. Because there was material loss to the complainant which can't be justified by citing the religion as reason.
But in case of lakshs of temples that exist in India there are a few handful of temples that are special because of their origin, religious practices or the specific rules that govern them. By denying the entry on a particular ground to women, none of the women are going to lose anything substantial.
If the the basis of going to the temple itself is "faith" then if you don't have faith in the very religious practices of the said temple and argue in the court of law or shout slogans on the roads, then where is the point of entering the temple for the sake of worship?
The sooner we come out of this sick paradigm of applying secular constitutional provisions to temples the better the life will become.
