The battle against Sabarimala: Is it really necessary?

Riots, blood soaked pads being flung around, death threats and court verdicts.
All over a place of religious worship. A place of tranquility and spiritual awakening. Some would say that it shouldn't even matter and people should stop worshipping imaginary superheroes altogether, but this is a very real problem to the rest of us, and apparently, the government of this country.

Let us, by the way, conveniently ignore the fact that the supreme court is being involved in a conflict of opinion over an entirely religious matter.

For those who are unaware of the situation, Sabarimala is a temple in Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala where Lord Ayyappa is worshipped by his male devotees. The age old tradition of it being a place of worship exclusively for men has been abolished by the Supreme Court of India  as of September 2018 after an uproar by activists, resulting in an uproar by the temple and its devotees. It's just all very loud and everyone wants to talk, but neither of the two parties want to listen.

And now for my completely irrelevant opinion on the battle that this has turned into.

Places of religious worship, in a place like India, are more dense and distributed than  good hospitals and proper roads. There is an abundance, if not an overload of religious congregations, ashrams, festivals, rituals, movies, music (i could keep going) in our country. Although it is a rather recycled answer to all the questions being raised by the activists fighting for women's right to pray in a temple, that has for many decades been exclusively for men, it still holds relevance and reason. Other temples exist.
It takes very little thought to come to terms with the fact that it is a political statement more than 'the right to worship'. Sabarimala is (now) an option among millions for women to go and worship. It definitely is an attempt at making everything more inclusive for women. And I've never been against empowering women, I've never been against inclusiveness (which is a conversation for another day) as long as it is really necessary.

So is it really necessary? Is it really that blasphemous to leave a bunch of men minding their own business in some forest worshipping away their sins alone?

I've been one to go by 'Don't do to others what you dont want done to you'. We could apply this especially to the changing gender dynamics of today.  If we reverse the genders in this scenario in particular, what would transpire?  Would people be okay with men 'fighting' to get into a place of worship that has been, since forever, according to tradition, exclusively for women? Would the government even survive if they lift a ban on men entering places that were meant only for women? Maybe men wanting to enter womens ashrams, for example? Even though they have more than a million other places for options? Why hypersensitize and glorify a sense of community in women and do the exact opposite for men? A congregation of thousands of men or women alike need their privacy and space from the opposite gender, especially with people of the kind of mindsets our country has. Is that really so difficult to understand or respect?

There are a lot of factors to this, and even if you manage to debunk the claims raised above, many other questions remain unanswered and ignored.

  We can be sure of the fact that a lot of the women who want to worship in Sabarimala are actually religious and most of them participate in a lot of the gender exclusive and sometimes discriminatory practices Hinduism has to offer. Why then, do they refuse to respect the story that lies behind Sabarimala's ban on women? Why the selective commitment to the religion they want to fight so hard for?

What is more bothersome than this is that even the people who are opposing the lift on the ban don't seem to entirely understand the motive behind the ban.
It was never about menstruation. Or at least it wasn't originally. The Lord at Sabarimala is meant to be celibate, waiting for his devotees to finish worshipping him so he can marry his lady love who waits for him at a temple nearby. Hence, women weren't allowed in the temple so as to not do a disservice to their lord and provide him with 'distractions'.
Now you could argue that women aren't distractions. One could argue that Ayyappa isn't real. But people believe in what they believe in. And if someone claims to be religious enough to put up THIS BIG a fight for the right to worship, one would find it hard to believe that the same someone would conveniently ignore the same religion's mythology and traditions.

There have also been cases of activists allegedly attempting to bring (not wear but bring by hand) blood soaked sanitary pads into the temple. Also note, without any rhyme or reason, that many of these activists and speakers arent Hindus.

It becomes imperative to question ourselves, Is this really necessary? What point are we trying to prove? There are a thousand other places more boisterous and beautiful, brimming with spiritual energy and cultural relevance in India and the world. When there is no reason for a fight, what good is the fight going to bring?

Women should be treated as equals because they are. But that does that mean we abolish mutual respect among the genders in the process? Since when did inclusiveness mean we squirm uninvited into any nook and corner available without reason or incentive?

If something is unnecessary, it is not productive. But everyone is angry, everyones yelling, and nobody wants to listen.