Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2) Constitution alone cannot fight social evils. Comment in the context of the Sabarimala temple controversy.(250 words)

Topic-Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

2) Constitution alone cannot fight social evils. Comment in the context of the Sabarimala temple controversy.(250 words)

Indianexpress

Why this question

The recent Sabarimala controversy highlights the deep social divides still relevant In Indian society. In this context it is essential to discuss whether constitution alone can help India in solving its social problems.

Directive word

Comment- here we have to express our knowledge and understanding of the issue and form an overall opinion thereupon.  

Key demand of the question.

The question wants us to express our knowledge and understanding of the Sabarimala controversy and express our opinion as to whether constitution alone can help us in fighting social evils like the one being exposed by the Sabarimala controversy.

Structure of the answer

Introduction– write a few introductory lines about the  Sabarimala controversy. E.g throw some light on the nature of the dispute and how it affects women’s rights.

Body-

  1. DIscuss the SC judgement allowing all women to visit the inner shrine.
  2. Discuss whether Constitution alone is enough to fight social evils in India. E.g
  • By cheering on the Supreme Court ramming through of changes that cut across deeply- held beliefs of Ayyappa devotees — rather than engaging with them, we are actually compromising the prospects for religious reform.
  • We are therefore risking the credibility of the courts and undermining our secular democracy.
  • By relying on the SC, we have a missed opportunity for how Sabarimala doors might have been opened to all women by drawing on its richly liberal heritage rather than dissing it.
  • The issue needs empathetic and respectful engagement, accompanied by moral pressure and even peaceful protest.
  • When we cross into the terrain of illiberal — but not obviously harmful — beliefs and practices, the courts and the government need to exercise restraint.
  • By wading into thorny matters of doctrine and tradition, on which it has little expertise, the Supreme Court will only damage its credibility. We can see this in the tortured reasoning in the Sabarimala verdict, for instance, on whether or not Sabarimala worshippers constitute a distinct religious community or whether they are part of the multi-layered, diverse, and overlapping strands that make up the Hindu tradition etc.

Conclusion– based on your discussion, form a fair and a balanced conclusion on the given issue.