Kerala Community Leader Sparks Controversy Over Religious Demographics And Birth Rates
During a leadership gathering of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam in Kottayam on Saturday, Natesan made statements that have since sparked intense debate across Kerala's political and social circles. His comments addressed what he perceives as shifting demographic patterns and their implications for political influence within the state.
Natesan expressed concerns about both major political coalitions in Kerala, claiming that the ruling Left Democratic Front and opposition United Democratic Front were providing preferential treatment to the Muslim community. He argued that these political alignments necessitated greater unity among Hindu communities to maintain their influence in state governance.
The SNDP leader specifically addressed members of Kerala's largest Hindu caste group, suggesting that their collective action could determine electoral outcomes. He emphasized the potential power of unified community voting, stating that coordinated efforts could significantly impact who governs the state.
His remarks included criticism of what he characterized as religious considerations influencing public policy decisions. Natesan referenced a recent educational controversy where extending school hours was discussed, citing objections from religious organizations about reducing holidays for traditional festivals as evidence of growing religious influence in administrative matters.
The community leader invoked previous statements by former Kerala Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan regarding potential demographic changes by 2040, suggesting that such shifts might occur sooner than anticipated. He pointed to specific examples from electoral constituencies to support his assertions about changing population patterns.
Natesan drew attention to constituency delimitation changes in different districts, arguing that seat reductions in some areas contrasted with increases in others, which he attributed to varying demographic trends. He specifically mentioned Alappuzha district experiencing constituency reductions while Malappuram district gained additional seats.
This recent controversy follows earlier statements by Natesan that generated criticism in April, when he made contentious remarks about Malappuram district during a convention speech. His previous comments characterized the Muslim-majority district in terms that many found divisive and inappropriate for public discourse.
The leader's statements reflect ongoing tensions in Kerala's complex religious and political landscape, where community identities intersect with electoral calculations. His appeals to specific demographic groups highlight the sensitive nature of religious representation in state politics.
These remarks have prompted responses from various political parties and community organizations, with critics arguing that such statements promote divisiveness rather than unity. The controversy underscores broader debates about secularism, demographic representation, and political mobilization along religious lines.
The SNDP Yogam, which represents significant portions of Kerala's Hindu population, plays an important role in the state's political dynamics. Statements from its leadership often carry considerable weight in community discussions and electoral considerations.
Kerala's diverse religious composition has historically been a subject of political attention, with various communities seeking to maintain their influence in governance and policy-making. The current controversy adds another dimension to ongoing discussions about representation, demographics, and political strategy in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
'Would you worship Bhagwa terrorist?': Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand says 'don't link terrorism with colour'; questions failure to find Malegaon blast culprits
Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand NEW DELHI: The debate over the use of the term 'Saffron Terror', that resumed after the July 31 verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, has refused to die down. Commenting on the term, Shankaracharya Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Maharaj said that colour should not be linked with terrorism. He said those who associate a colour with terrorism are supporting terrorism. The Shankaracharya said, "A terrorist is a does colour mean with the word terrorism? Terrorism is terrorism, and a zero-tolerance policy should be adopted against it... The Malegaon blast happened, but you could not find the person who committed who look for colours in terrorism are supporters of terrorism." The term 'Bhagwa Aatank' or 'saffron terrorism' was first used after the 2002 Gujarat riots, as per a report by the news agency ANI. It was later used again after the 2008 Malegaon blasts. Some political leaders and parties used the term in their statements. The term was also mentioned by then home minister P Chidambaram in an official meeting with police officials. Congress leader Digvijay Singh also used the term in reference to the blasts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The Hindu pontiff also raised questions as to why the government is still unable to catch the culprits of the Malegaon blast case. "We do not wish to comment on the court's proceedings; whatever was done in court, we believe, must have been correct. If these people were found innocent in the court's view, then it is right they were acquitted. But the bigger problem is that the blast did not happen on its own — someone must have done it. Who was it? Where is the Government of India, the state government failing, that someone comes, carries out a blast, and leaves, and despite having vast resources and plenty of time, we are still unable to catch the culprit? This is a big slap on our capability that we cannot apprehend the guilty," he said. On July 31, a special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case. The court said that the prosecution could not prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also directed the Maharashtra government to pay Rs 2 lakh compensation to the families of the people who died in the blast, and Rs 50,000 to those who were injured. The seven accused were former MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, retired Major Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhankar Dhar Dwivedi (also known as Shankaracharya), and Sameer Kulkarni. "All bail bonds of the accused are cancelled and sureties are discharged," the court said. The court examined 323 witnesses from the prosecution and eight from the defence before giving the verdict. All seven were acquitted of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Arms Act, and other related charges. The blast occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Bhikku Chowk area of Malegaon. An explosive device placed on a motorcycle went off, killing six people and injuring 95 others. Initially, 11 people were named as accused, but charges were framed against seven. The lawyer representing the victims' families has said that he will challenge the acquittal in the high court. Earlier, on the eve of the judgment in the Malegaon blast case, Union home minister Amit Shah had said in Parliament that no Hindu can ever be a terrorist. "I am proud to say, no Hindu can ever be a terrorist," Shah had said in Rajya Sabha. Meanwhile, after the NIA court judgment, former Maharashtra CM Prithviraj Chavan also spoke on the matter last week and said that he does not support the use of the term "saffron terror." "Don't use the term 'Saffron terrorism'. If you want to describe such acts, use 'Hindu fundamentalist' or 'Hindu terrorism' instead."
The Wire
3 hours ago
- The Wire
Malegaon Terror Blast Judgment: How the Crucial Witnesses Prosecution Dropped Impacted the Case
Government Sukanya Shantha Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. Mumbai: Since the trial for the 2008 Malegaon terror blast commenced in 2018, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses over a span of seven years. In the process, it dropped several witnesses, without providing any explanation as to why. The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court felt that these witnesses had been 'crucial' in establishing the chain of events. The decision to drop these witnesses, said special NIA judge A.K. Lahoti, gave the scope to draw an 'adverse inference' against the prosecution. The 1036-page judgement was made available on August 1, a day after the court acquitted all seven accused – including BJP leader and formed member of parliament Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army officer Prasad Purohit. In it, the court has raised questions about the prosecution's intention to drop several crucial witnesses who the court observed would have helped connect the missing dots in the case. Besides Thakur and Purohit, five other persons – Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi were also acquitted by the NIA court on July 31. The acquittal, the court has observed, was an outcome of the prosecution's failure to bring sufficient evidence. Even with 'grave suspicion', the court was not able to punish the accused persons, as 'mere suspicion is not enough', the court observed. According to the Anti-Terrorism Squad's case, which was later taken up by the NIA, Purohit has allegedly founded an organisation 'Abhinav Bharat' in 2006 and had attempted to establish a 'Hindu rashtra [nation]' which would have its own constitution, flag and 'government in exile' to be run from either Israel or Thailand. As a part of this agenda, the accused persons had come together and carried out the terror blast in Malegaon. Special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over the case soon after the earlier special public prosecutor Rohini Salian made a dramatic exit from the case in 2015 claiming that she was given instructions to 'go soft' on the accused persons charged in the case. She had claimed that she had received the instructions from 'higher ups'. Since Salian's exit, Rasal has been involved in the case for close to a decade. Among the many witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop are those who could have helped establish the movement of the alleged bombers days before the blast occurred. Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange One of the witnesses that the prosecution decided to drop without any cogent explanation is the person whose user ID and phone number was used to book tickets. According to the ATS's case, which was later taken over by the NIA which eventually filed a chargesheet in 2016, one witness named Vilok Sharma had used his account and his phone number to book the train tickets for two absconding accused persons, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, to travel from Pune to Indore. The two, according to both the ATS and the NIA, were accused of planting the bombs. Another person, Praveen Takkalki alias Pravin Mutalik, who the ATS had earlier accused of participating in the blast along with the two absconding accused was eventually discharged from the case after the NIA did not find any evidence against him in 2017. The judgment, narrating the NIA's case, points to Sharma's role in getting the tickets booked under fake names – Balwant Pathak and Mansingh – instead of their real names Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Their travel to Pune, where the RDX explosive was allegedly procured from Purohit and then to Indore where the absconding accused had allegedly assembled, planted, fitted the explosive on the LML Freedom motorcycle, were fundamental to the investigation. Also read: Malegaon Blast Trial: 1,087 Hearings, Inexplicable Orders and Victims Who Refused to Relent The court said although the facts of the case create 'grave suspicion' against the accused, mere suspicion was not enough to convict them. The court finally had to give the 'benefit of the doubt' and acquit the seven persons facing trial in the case. The travel to Pune and Indore was crucial not just to establish the movement of the absconding accused but also their otherwise loosely hanging links with army officer Purohit, who now stands acquitted in the case. 'Thus, Vilok Sharma from the aforesaid point of view was a material witness who could narrate about ticket details, booking details and traveling history. But, the prosecution has not examined Vilok Sharma. The prosecution has dropped the said witness... Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on this point, it cannot be said that, from his account the railway tickets were booked in the name of two fake persons and those were actually booked by AA-1 (Kalsangra) and AA-2 (Dange).' It is not just Sharma's statement but also the fact that an absolutely essential certificate, to be procured under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, was not produced before the court. Without this certificate, electronic evidence is not admissible. The prosecution's case was that Kalsangra and Dange were in Pune around the same time as when Purohit had allegedly procured the RDX, i.e. August 8 to August 11. These finer details of the conspiracy and procurement of the explosive needed step-by-step building up of the evidence. The prosecution, according to the NIA judge, had dropped that. Sharma was dropped from the list of witnesses even though his name cropped up in the examination of other witnesses, especially a senior railway executive and an ATS officer. The judgement says: 'Thus, only Vilok Sharma was the witness who could say about the booking of the aforesaid ticket. The material witness Vilok Sharma is not examined by the prosecution. Non examination of material witness without any explanation give rise to draw the adverse inference against prosecution.' Another witness Pramod Deshmukh, who according to the investigating agency had seen Kalsangra and Dange had seen them in Pune around August 8 and 11, was an 'eye witness' but dropped by the witness. Another important witness, the court points out, was the policeman who diffused the detonator but was not examined as a witness. Judge Lahoti writes: 'Officer API Sachin Gawade who has actually diffused the detonator as per the case of prosecution is not examined as witness. He was the only person who could narrate the exact condition of the detonator, the procedure carried out by him for diffusing the detonator and collection of remnants after diffusing. The non-examination of material witnesses give rise to adverse inference." 'Missing' In 2016, the NIA had informed the court that around 13 witness statements, recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before a magistrate, had gone missing. The central agency had attributed this sudden and suspicious disappearance of documents to their constant ferrying between the trial and the higher courts. While the original copies of these statements had gone missing, the NIA had sought permission before the NIA court to use the photocopies of the document – which the court had granted. This permission was challenged by one of the accused persons in the Bombay high court, which later stayed the trial court's order and had directed the NIA to file a fresh application authenticating that the photocopies were indeed a replica of the original. Interestingly, the NIA did not file that application, and the witnesses were examined solely on whether their testimonies were recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. In the absence of these Section 164 statements, the magistrate who recorded them should have been examined. However, the prosecution decided against it. The judgment notes, 'The aforesaid statements (recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.) were neither presented to the witnesses nor was the concerned magistrate examined in such circumstances.' These 13 statements were crucial for proving the conspiracy meetings, the movements of the alleged bombers, and other key aspects of the case. At least two of these witnesses were essential to prove the conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims were discussed. While it is incumbent upon the prosecution to present important witnesses in court, when the prosecution fails to do so, the court could have done it. Section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses it deems essential for the case. Just as the prosecution's reasons for suppressing certain key witnesses are unclear, it is equally unclear why the court did not exercise its authority to summon these witnesses. The prosecution examined a total of 323 witnesses in the case, of whom 39 turned hostile. However, public prosecutor Rasal did not initiate perjury proceedings against them, and nor did the court make any significant observations regarding the witnesses who refused to adhere to their original statements. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Repeal 1987 Act to liberate Hindu faith in Telugu States
The 1987 Act significantly impacted Telugu Brahmanas and Hindu institutions, fostering deep disillusionment with the TDP. Politicians and bureaucrats colluded to exert strict control over temples, enabling mismanagement and misappropriation of temple lands, wealth, and income. Their increasing interference in religious practices undermined temples' spiritual authenticity, endangering cultural continuity and community cohesion. These changes continue to weaken temples' financial stability and disrupt traditional rituals This commercialisation starkly contrasts with other faiths. Muslims enter mosques and Christians attend churches without fees, as these spaces remain free from state control. Yet, the unconstitutional takeover of temples has imposed a financial burden on Hindus, effectively turning spirituality into a transaction. This modern 'temple tax' surpasses even Aurangzeb's infamous Jizya, discouraging poorer Hindus from visiting temples due to costs. The result is a growing disconnection from spiritual roots, fostering cultural deracination The relationship between Telugu Brahmanas and the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a major political force in Andhra Pradesh (AP), has been fraught with tension due to conflicting views on historical policies, particularly the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987 (here after the 1987 Act) enacted during Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao's (NTR) tenure. To understand this dynamic, we must examine the socio-political context, the policies' implications, their impact on Hindu communities, and propose solutions to address persistent grievances. Historical context - AP's socio-political evolution: AP's political landscape has been shaped by caste dynamics and ideological differences. Established in 1953 from Telugu-speaking regions of the Madras Presidency and expanded in 1956 with parts of Hyderabad State, the state has been influenced by two prominent land-owning castes: Reddys and Kammas. Historically, both communities were torchbearers of Sanatana Dharma, patronising Brahmanas and Hindu institutions. However, their political trajectories diverged over time. While the Reddys gravitated toward the Indian National Congress (INC), the Kammas, seeking a counterbalance, aligned with the Justice Party, a Dravidian movement that was critical of Hindu religion and the role of Brahmanas. This ideological influence shaped the perspectives of some Kamma intellectuals and leaders, though many continued to engage with Hindu practices personally. After the 1953 division of the Madras Presidency, the Justice Party's influence waned in Telugu regions, and the Reddy-dominated Congress gained prominence. Many Kammas turned to entrepreneurship, including the film industry, becoming an economic powerhouse but remaining politically marginalised until the 1980s. Rise of Telugu Desam Party: In 1982, the public humiliation of Chief Minister T. Anjaiah, a Reddy, by Rajiv Gandhi during a Hyderabad visit sparked widespread outrage, perceived as an insult to Telugu pride (Atma Gauravam). NTR, a charismatic film star and devout Hindu, founded the TDP, capitalising on this sentiment. In 1983, the TDP won a landslide victory in the AP Assembly elections, ending the dominance of the Congress party. NTR's spiritual persona and patronage of Brahmanas initially inspired hope among Telugu Brahmanas, who viewed him as a champion of Hindu traditions. However, policies shaped by a coterie of Kamma intellectuals and bureaucrats, influenced by the Justice Party's ideology, soon led to friction with the Brahmana community, particularly through the enactment of the 1987 Act. Challa Kondaiah Commission- A turning point In 1984, the TDP government established the Hindu Endowment Commission, led by Retired Chief Justice Challa Kondaiah, a Kamma from Anantapur district. Educated in Madras during the peak of the Dravidian movement, Kondaiah's perspective reflected its ideology. Tasked with reviewing temple and endowment administration, the commission's 1986 report proposed sweeping changes, culminating in the 1987 Act. While framed as a governance reform, the Act's provisions were perceived as an assault on Brahmanas and Hindu religious traditions, echoing the Justice Party's critique of Hindu traditional structures. The 1987 Act: Key provisions and harms: The 1987 Act introduced measures that disrupted long-standing temple traditions and marginalised Brahmanas in several ways: • Section 16 abolished hereditary roles such as trustees, mutawallis, or dharmakartas, changing traditional temple governance structures. • Section 25 mandated bureaucrats to set schedules of articles and requirements for worship and offerings, undermining priests' autonomy and subordinating religious practices to state control. • Section 34 terminated hereditary roles for Archakas, Mirasidars, and other functionaries, stripping them of traditional responsibilities and livelihoods. • Section 144 abolished priests' shares in hundi, ritual fees, and income from other services. It also abolished rights to temple lands allocated for their sustenance. These provisions impoverished Brahmanas, disrupted sacred practices, and subjected temples to bureaucratic control, raising concerns about the erosion of Hindu traditions under the guise of reform. Undermining of Brahmanas and Hindu institutions: The 1987 Act significantly impacted Telugu Brahmanas and Hindu institutions, fostering deep disillusionment with the TDP. By eliminating hereditary rights and temple incomes, the Act deprived priests of their traditional livelihoods, leading to financial hardships and a shortage of trained Archakas as many pursued other professions. Politicians and bureaucrats colluded to exert strict control over temples, enabling mismanagement and misappropriation of temple lands, wealth, and income. Their increasing interference in religious practices undermined temples' spiritual authenticity, endangering cultural continuity and community cohesion. These changes continue to weaken temples' financial stability and disrupt traditional rituals. Telugu Brahmanas felt betrayed by the TDP, especially by NTR, whose spiritual persona and support for Hindu traditions had initially inspired expectations of protection for their community and religious roles. Instead, the Act's reforms economically and socially marginalised Brahmanas, diminishing their livelihoods and roles as spiritual leaders. Although amendments in 1990 and 2017 by Congress-led governments offered some relief, they failed to fully address the Brahmanas' economic struggles, reduced roles, and exclusion from temple governance. Ongoing political and bureaucratic interference has further eroded their social prestige and the integrity of Hindu institutions, weakening their spiritual authority in Hindu society. Broader impact on Hindu society: The 1987 Act has profoundly reshaped Telugu Hindu society, undermining the sanctity of temples, which have long served as vibrant hubs of spiritual and cultural life. Under the guise of reform, the Act has turned sacred temples into profit-driven commercial enterprises. From shoe stands to prasadam, darshan to special sevas, every aspect of temple worship is now monetised. Devotees increasingly feel like they're buying movie tickets rather than seeking divine connection. A fundamental question arises: what right does the government have to charge Hindus for darshan of their own deities? This commercialisation starkly contrasts with other faiths. Muslims enter mosques and Christians attend churches without fees, as these spaces remain free from state control. Yet, the unconstitutional takeover of temples has imposed a financial burden on Hindus, effectively turning spirituality into a transaction. This modern 'temple tax' surpasses even Aurangzeb's infamous Jizya, discouraging poorer Hindus from visiting temples due to costs. The result is a growing disconnection from spiritual roots, fostering cultural deracination. Worse, this environment emboldened Christian missionaries, who exploited the situation by contrasting the paid access to Hindu temples with promises of financial aid and free worship in churches. This predatory tactic has fuelled conversions, luring vulnerable Hindus away from their faith. By taking-over and commercialising temples, the government not only undermines Hindu spirituality but also threatens the cultural fabric of Telugu society, paving the way for Christianisation. Restoring secularism and Hindu rights: Secularism, a cornerstone of the Constitution, mandates a clear separation between State and religion. Yet, the State's control over Hindu temples casts a dark shadow over its commitment to secularism. Articles 25 and 26 enshrine the fundamental rights of all citizens to freely practice their religion and manage religious institutions without State intrusion. By selective control of temples while leaving churches and mosques untouched, the State flouts constitutional equality, denying Hindus equal religious freedoms granted to Muslims and Christians. To address these grievances and restore secularism, the following steps are essential: • The 1987 Act must be repealed to eliminate state control over Hindu temples and rectify its detrimental effects on Brahmanas and Hindu society. • A new legislative framework should establish inclusive temple management through Temple Committees comprising religious figures (Archakas, Pujaris, and Dharmacharyas) and devotee representatives. • The new Act must explicitly prohibit bureaucratic or political interference in temple affairs, liberating Hindu institutions from state oversight and aligning with the constitutional principle of secularism. • By restoring the rights of Hindus to manage their religious institutions, the new framework will uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26, ensuring parity with Christians and Muslims. This approach will restore the sanctity of temples, empower Hindu society, and safeguard Telugu Hindus' spiritual and cultural heritage. Conclusion: The 1987 Act remains a deeply painful chapter for Hindu society and Telugu Brahmanas, who rightly view it as an assault on Hindu traditions. Rooted in the Justice Party's anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmana legacy, the Act impoverished Brahmanas, subjected temples to bureaucratic and political control, and undermined the Hindu cultural ecosystem. Its lingering effects—pauperisation of Brahmanas, erosion of spiritual traditions, and increased vulnerability of Hindus to Christian missionary activities—continue to weaken Hindu society. To uphold the constitutional principles of secularism and equality, the 1987 Act must be repealed, and a new Temple Act enacted to liberate Hindu temples from state control. By empowering religious figures and devotees to manage temples in accordance with their sampradaya, this reform will restore the sanctity of Hindu institutions, protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26, and preserve the rich spiritual heritage of Telugu Hindus for future generations. The time has come to act decisively to safeguard Sanatana Dharma. (The author is a retired IPS officer and former Director of CBI. Views are personal)
