1. The question of menstruating women entering the Sabarimala temple lies in the domain of society, not state. So, those who want it must discuss with the temple, not the state. It’s a different matter that our state likes to poke its nose everywhere. The Supreme Court has proved it time and again. But that doesn’t take away the fact that this is state transgression into society. Social transformation is none of the state’s business. It is because we don’t understand this fully that we allow all sorts of social disasters — Hindi imposition, for example.

2. Even if one were to allow the state’s transgression into society for argument’s sake in this case, of what value is a protest against men’s clubs in a democracy? That’s what the Sabarimala temple is. You can’t oppose it without looking like a medieval lawmaker. What’s wrong if a set of males want to gather, climb a hill, and offer prayers to a certain deity, without letting menstruating women come near?