How much you know about Wayanad

Congress president Rahul Gandhi is contesting 2019 Lok Sabha polls from Wayanad seat apart from his regular parliamentary constituency of Amethi.

For many people particularly those in North India, Wayanad was a new word in their political lexicon when Rahul Gandhi 'agreed' to allow himself as the Congress candidate from this Lok Sabha seat in the upcoming parliamentary election. 

For starters and believers, Wayanad has a significant place in the legendary history of the Ramayana. Lady Sita spent her final years here after Lord Rama deserted her unable to bear being mocked by a commoner, a washerman, now politically sensitive ones identify the caste among the Dalits. The actual place is Palpully in Wayanad.

Some of the activists or activist-type enthusiasts must have heard about Palpully. Due to recurring droughts, Palpully earned a dubious pet name of Vidarbha of Kerala. Those who followed last year's infamous Kerala floods must also have heard about Wayanad, which lost most of its remnants that could indicate any kind of modern-day development. 

The slate of Wayanad is almost clean.

During the age of Ramayana, Sita, living-in-exile, gave birth to Luv and Kush, the twins inheritors of the throne of Ayodhya. Now, it is superfluous to state that Sage Valmiki, another Dalit by modern understanding, had his hermitage or ashram here where he gave shelter to Sita, ensured she had a healthy pregnancy and birthed the twins under proper care. 

This janmasthan of twin princes of Ayodhya is relatively less famous but has a temple in the memory of Sita, Luv and Kush. The existing temple was built during the reign of Kerala Varma, better known as Pazhassi Raja, made famous by superstar Mammootty, who played the lead character in the 2009 Malayalam film, Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja.

Pazhassi Raja was a revolutionary and nationalist leader by today's standard. He was among the first in the entire country to take up arms against the British merchant mercineries. For 34 years between 1774 and 1808, he waged war against the British. 

Now, a little about the geography of Wayanad.

Wayanad is a hilly forested district. It is safe to say that it forms a tri-junction of Kerala, Tamilanadu and Karnataka. This geography explains its political significance in the Lok Sabha election 2019. 

Located in the Western Ghats, Wayanad could be the apple of any nature lover's eyes. It's one of the most beautiful places in Kerala. Reading about Wayanad's geography and looking at the pictures makes one feel that it could be a Shimla before its pristine beauty fell to the list of humanity.

And, the coffee lovers must love it if they already don't know that the undulating hilly farms of Wayanad produce one of the best, if not the best, coffee seeds in the country. Don't crib if you find out that big corporates have secured their stranglehold over the best coffee seeds here. But, Wayanad coffee can be very refreshing.

It seems now we can also slip in something on the economic state of Wayanad here.

If you have come this far in this story, your brain must have pictured an image of Wayanad. Let me tell you that the picture in your mind is not different from the actual. Wayanad is really a place outside time and history. Kerala's wheel of progress has simply bypassed it. It may be living the same comparative status as it did in the Ramayana age.

Wretchedness and backwardness are the definitive words to describe the economy of Wayanad.

Wayanad has one of the lowest per capita incomes, lowest literacy rates, poorest infrastructure and possibly the worst medical facilities in Kerala. 

Neither remittances from the Middle East nor the local government's development schemes have come Wayanad's way.

True, Wayanad is the least populated district of Kerala but over 8 lakh people living here surely need enough schools, colleges, government-run dispensaries (private ones are less profitable, so, better doctors stay away), and also power and water connection. Saubhagya Yojana of the NDA government is yet make some impact in LDF-ruled and Congress-led UDF-coveted Kerala's Wayanad.

If you are still reading this, you must be thinking about the people living here.

As we all know, names give away, with only a few exceptions, the religion of a person. So, to cut a long story short, Muslims are in majority here. They constitute roughly 45 per cent of Wayanad's population. Hindus follow next with around 41 per cent. Christians might have outsiders believe that Kerala is a state of Christians but they are only about 13 per cent in Wayanad.

There is another division here. Tribal and non-tribal. You must have read about Malabar and the tribes in school text books on Indian history of British period. Tribals, cutting across religious beliefs, are 18-19 per cent. At this demographic density, Wayanad becomes the Kerala district with largest tribal concentration.

These indigenous people - many of whom must be tracing their history to the days when Sita, Luv and Kush learnt various ways and truths of life here at Sage Valmiki's ashram - still live in non-concretised houses, made of cane and clay. They mostly walk barefoot in the district.

And, finally let's talk politics a bit, after all this is the reason why Wayanad is being discussed.

Rahul Gandhi's poll promise of providing cash support of Rs 6,000 a month to five crore yet-to-be-defined and identified families will have many takers in Wayanad. In fact, too many. If one goes by the Socio Economic and Caste Census, 2011 - the latest available, the average income of the lead earner of in nearly 80 per cent families in Wayanad is Rs 5,000 per month. 

The election promise is to provide cash support to every family with average monthly income less than Rs 12,000.

This means, if Rahul Gandhi becomes the prime minister after Lok Sabha election 2019, and stays true to his word, nearly 80 per cent families in Wayanad would get Rs 7,000 cash support a month from the government provided such a central government and the PDF Kerala government don't fight over the modalities of implementation of the NYAY scheme. If you don't know about NYAY, you are politically docile. And, it is almost certain that you wouldn't even google it. Maybe, some of you would do now.

This also means Rahul Gandhi, purely on the basis of poll promise, has every chance/right to win Wayanad Lok Sabha seat. The Congress has traditionally won the seat, which was carved out only in 2008. 

But once he wins Wayanad, Rahul Gandhi would have to make sure he doesn't let Wayanad fall behind Amethi on the score of development. Many observers have stated that at the current value, Wayanad is better off compared to Amethi. However, if Rahul Gandhi wins both Wayanad and Amethi, he is almost certain to vacate Wayanad and represent Amethi in the Lok Sabha.

But if he decides otherwise, maybe taking a leaf out of Narendra Modi's 2014 poll book and stays as Wayanad MP, he will have, at the earliest, to put the district on the map of Indian Railways. Wayanad is one of the only two districts of Kerala that doesn't have railway connectivity. Google yourself to find out the other one.

One of the commentators has pointed to the state of roads or rather 'rod-ways' of Wayanad. If a car breaks down on a Wayanad road, it can delay your journey by hours should you be found tailing that vehicle. Clearing up traffic jam has never been an easy task in any of the Indian cities. Why should Wayanad be an exception!

PS: Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency is spread over three districts of Wayanad, Kozhikode and Malappuram and seven assembly segments. Wayanad and Malappuram have three assembly segments each. 

Four of these assembly seats were won by UDF in 2016 state polls. Three others went to the LDF. Muslims and Christians, particularly of Malappuram are understood to be a vote banks of the LDF.

MI Shanavas, who won this seat for the Congress in 2009 and 2014, died in November last year during liver transplant in Chennai. Rahul Gandhi will need some sympathy votes, if the BJP improves its performance, to be in a situation of relinquishing.

Arun Jaitley says Priyanka Gandhi 'won't take off'. Is BJP really nervous?

Is Priyanka Gandhi Vadra really a threat to the BJP's prospects in 2019 or in the years to come?

Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitely has taken a dig at the Congress party which recently appointed Priyanka Gandhi Vadra as the party general secretary in-charge of Uttar Pradesh East in his latest blog post. Jaitley hit out at the Congress saying that the party has been trying “to convert India to a dynastic democracy.”

“Generation after generation, the Congress Party’s leadership berth is reserved for a member of the preferred family. When the Party is now in doldrums, another member of the family has entered the scene,” said Jaitley referring to Priyanka Gandhi’s entry into politics. He, however, did not mention Priyanka Gandhi’s name.

Priyanka Gandhi was given the responsibility of eastern Uttar Pradesh in January this after the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party left the Congress out of their alliance for the Lok Sabha election. Priyanka Gandhi’s political activities were limited to only two constituencies of Amethi and Rae Bareli, represented by brother and Congress president Rahul Gandhi, and mother Sonia Gandhi, the UPA chairperson.

Her appointment assumes significance with the Congress emphasising on rebuilding the party’s organisation in Uttar Pradesh, especially in the eastern part. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath are elected to the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha respectively from this region.

Many in the Congress described Priyanka Gandhi’s entry into active politics as a “game-changer” for the Lok Sabha election in April-May. Jaitley, however, dismissed the enthusiasm of the Congress party.

He said, “It (the Congress) believes that two owners are better than one…One failed. The other won’t take-off.”

The Union finance minister’s comments were made in the fifth part of a series of blog posts on “Agenda 2019”, wherein he claimed that “Prime Minister Modi and aspirational India will prevent India from becoming a dynastic democracy”.

This is a typical news piece. But why denounce someone whom you consider a non-starter? And, why worry about some rival who has "failed"?

I firmly believe that Sonia Gandhi and the Congress led by her gave Narendra Modi the stature that he enjoys today. After the 2004 electoral loss of Vajpayee-Adani's BJP, Narendra Modi was reeling under pressure. A leader no less than Vajpayee had indirectly blamed Narendra Modi's failure to effectively bring riot situation under control with the speed expected of the government for the loss in 2004.

After Vajpayee-Advani, Sushma Swaraj was their biggest leader. Shivraj Singh was fast gaining control over Madhya Pradesh BJP after becoming the chief minister in 2005. His state was bigger than the one under Modi, who was still facing challenges in Gujarat.

The 2002 assembly election win in Gujarat had been credited to the surcharged atmosphere in the backdrop of Godhra incident-2002 riots. The next election was being considered as a tough ask for Modi in 2007 as even Advani, who was a tall leader from the state capital was on a downslide. Modi was not believed to be on good terms with the RSS leadership.

In came Sonia Gandhi and spoke those words - Maut Ka Saudagar. The rest is history. Modi, now we all know what he can do with phrases - Achchhe Din was not his invention, it was a phrase coined by Manmohan Singh for 2014 polls - turned the Maut Ka Saudagar comment into the last nail in the Congress's coffin in the state for years to come.

The Congress has not been able to remove that nail from its coffin in Gujarat. It was not 2002 but 2007 Gujarat election that established Narendra Modi as a leader with a 'mission', the next poster boy of the Hindutva brigade.

Not too many people can actually distinguish between Hindutva and Hinduism. Modi became the pole bearer and 'saviour' for the Hindus in Gujarat. Sonia Gandhi created a wedge and forced it down the fissure between two communities who were coming to terms. She opened up the wounds and left them open.

The situation simply paved the way for Modi's political growth. Advani had practically lost the sheen and was wavering. Sushma Swaraj was mild to the Hindutva followers. Modi appeared acceptable because even those who thought he was 'hard core' did not have an acceptable alternative.

Practically, Sonia Gandhi created TINA (there is no alternative) factor for Narendra Modi. This also explains why he keeps targeting Sonia Gandhi and her family. He attained all his success till 2014 election that way.

Arun Jaitley may be doing a Sonia to Priyanka Gandhi. However, one big difference is that Jaitley is one of those rare politicians in India who still believe in subtlety while targeting their opponents. When he calls Rahul Gandhi a "liar", Jaitley makes sure he does not take his name. His common refrain in such situations is "this gentleman".

One can easily see the difference between Jaitley and others when they brand their opponents as liars. I initially thought Rahul Gandhi would be different. He is not. He claims he does not hate Narendra Modi. But his temper flies when he talks about Modi. You can easily notice the change in his tone. "Narendra Modi jhooth bolta hai", you must have heard him telling his audiences many a time. "Saare choron ke naam Modi kyon hote hain," is another example. Just notice the anger when he says so. He looks no different from Modi's disdain towards Nehru-Gandhi family.

Priyanka Gandhi may be a little different. She has been brief and more subtle in her short career as an electioneer. Jaitley might have noticed this. I clearly remember that Jaitley was one of the early promoters of Narendra Modi.

In 2006/07 or 2008, I don't recall the date, Jaitley had told an informal gathering of BJP reporters - I was part of that group then - that Narendra Modi's "biggest strength is his brain". He is very sharp, Jaitley had said then. Now, many officers say that he would ask questions which most politicians fail to notice.

Does this explain why Jaitley is targeting Priyanka Gandhi? Does he believe that she might have a sway over people of India, if not in 2019 then over the next few years? Read his blog and make up your own mind.

Opposition vs Modi vs TINA

Photo: Twitter/@INCIndia

For record, I have not been able to have 'respect' for politicians. In my experience of political reporting and writing, I have found politicians to be extremely opportunist and mean people at business. Humans are, it has been my impression, just tools for politicians across the spectrum from extreme left to ultra right.

But as things stand today, only politicians can rule the country and since we have a self-proclaimed democracy, we are required to choose a leader. Choosing a leader is a process, which must be a decision akin to an informed choice.

Since politicians have been able to acquire more right to privacy than We, The People of India, knowing their true character has become difficult. Income tax department can place your financial details in public domain but an RTI application about a politician will return saying the information sought is very personal in nature. And, then the same politician will go about hankering about transparency in public life. They make every attempt to keep crucial information required for making an informed choice.

So, as the election approaches, the people have minimal information about the leaders and parties they may be forced to elect to power for next five years. On the available evidence, Narendra Modi appears more convincing. Not because he is a better leader but because he is a better communicator.

Modi appears to be in lead not because of his policies adopted or ignored in the last five years but because of the fact that the Opposition simply doesn't inspire enough confidence. Modi, to my understanding of politics, became Modi because of myopic politics of Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party. There were too many challengers to Modi within the BJP. But, Sonia Gandhi, when she was the most powerful politician of the country, targetted and attacked Modi so much, right from her Maut Ka Saudagar comment, that she brought him at par with the top national leadership. Modi cashed in on his criticism by the top politicians of the then ruling party and turned it to his advantage because he was a better communicator.

Sonia Gandhi's son and successor in the Congress party Rahul Gandhi seems to have not learnt from those mistakes. He doesn't seem to have learnt the lesson properly from the history. Pay some attention to his speeches and one would know that he is playing into the hands of the BJP. The way he has been addressing, mind it addressing not campaigning against, Modi, there has been rudeness - Narendra Modi bolta hai...kahta hai...jhooth bolta hai... This looks surprising given the support Rahul Gandhi and the entire Opposition is getting from the intelligentsia in media and academia.

Plus, Rahul Gandhi and his Congress party keep embarrassing themselves and their supporters. Perhaps calling Pulwama terror attack an accident by Osamaji and Hafiz Sayeed Sahab-fame Digvijaya Singh was not enough for the Congress party that the president Rahul Gandhi himself called Jaish-e-Mohmmed chief as Masood Azharji.

And, if you said it, it is better to admit that it was a slip of tongue. India is changing. Indian youth has changed a lot over the last one decade. Admitting to one's fault is now appreciated even if Modi-like opponent would try to cash in on it. Nitish Kumar in Bihar and Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi - both incidentally in 2015 - have proved this.

Instead of admitting, a spokesman of the party is spent on it to make people believe that it was sarcasm. Dear Congress, when the video is in public domain, anyone can hear it and call your bluff. Trying to cover upa faux pa is bad politics which only may satisfy a feudal lord not the subject, if you still treat the people of India that way.

The Congress already had people like Mani Shankar Taiyar, Digvijaya Singh and Kamal Nath, Rahul Gandhi need not enter the competition if he is serious about harbouring the dream of leading the country as a prime minister. Modi is far superior a communicator to use rewire the defused verbal salvos to bomb the Congress party back. :Achchhe Din' should remain fresh in the Congress's memory.

It's for people like Rahul Gandhi, who fail to show any consistensy in their public politics, that Modi appears to be armed with TINA - there is no alternative.

To me, five years of BJP-led government has been no different from the Congress-led regime for previous ten years. All are the same. Only the faces have changed not the facets.

Vote on account or budget?

A vote on account is Parliament’s permission to the government to use money from the exchequer to pay for essential expenditures for a few months, usually three to four, during a period when regular permission to use the money, through budget, is not available, as happens in an election year. It also allows the government to collect taxes from the people and businesses beyond March 31 in the absence of any law governing taxation during that period.

Every budget is a law, whose validity exists from April to March for a year. Budget becomes a legal instrument only after Parliament gives its approval of the proposals - of taxes to be levied on the people and businesses and expenditure made for welfare and security of the nation - contained in it.

In the election year, the government or Parliament is not authorized to propose or vote for a revenue collection or expenditure plan beyond March 31 due to absence of sovereign mandate, i.e. authorization from “We, the people of India”. People vote for a Lok Sabha for a period of five years. The Members of Parliament (MPs) cannot vote for a period beyond their tenure or loosely said validity. So, a regular budget is proposed and approved by those comprising freshly elected MPs of the Lok Sabha.

Vote on account is a provision devised for interim period like this. However, the first vote on account was not presented in an election year. It was presented in 1948 by then Finance Minister RK Shanmukham Chetty, who followed it up with a regular budget. The practice continued since then.

Going by the logic of democracy, a vote on account should not alter tax regime or make fresh policy decisions for the next fiscal. But in recent times, the outgoing finance ministers have not strictly adhered to this principle.

In 1991 before Manmohan Singh announced his economic reforms as finance minister of the PV Narasimha Rao government, the outgoing Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha of Chandrashekhar government made the policy announcement of 20 per cent disinvestment in certain public sector units (PSUs). At that time, India was facing its worst balance of payment crisis. This was the first policy on disinvestment. Manmohan Singh followed it up with more nuanced liberalized economic policy of India.

In 2004, Jaswant Singh allowed Indians travelling abroad or returning home from abroad to carry up to Rs 25,000 as baggage allowance. It was a major policy decision of the time. He also reduced certain customs duties – peak duty on non-farm goods slashed to 20 per cent from 25 per cent, special duty on customs duty of 4 per cent was abolished. He also merged dearness allowance of the central government employees with their basic salaries. The government was going into election equipped with a feel-good factor for its employees.

In 2009, Pranab Mukherjee, as finance minister, revised fiscal deficit target from 2.5 per cent to 6 per cent. He presented a vote on account in February but before that in January he had announced tax cuts worth Rs 40,000 crore.

In 2014, P Chidambaram, then finance minister, altered indirect tax rates related to capital goods and consumer non-durables. Excise duty on small cars, special utility vehicles (SUVs) and two-wheelers, and mobile phones was slashed.

In 2019, the stand-in finance minister Piyush Goyal does not have much elbow room to maneuvre as indirect tax rates, the large part of taxation, can now be altered only by the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council). What all he may announce include income tax concessions, customs duty, special agriculture or farm package, stimulus to employment generation or a special provision similar to one promised by Congress president Rahul Gandhi for minimum income guarantee to unemployed youths – the scheme was originally proposed by former chief economic adviser to the government, Arvind Subramanian.

There could be another scenario should Goyal decides to make some policy announcements. He may do so expressing confidence that the government would be voted back to power and under the circumstances, the general elections cannot be considered as a disruption or obstruction in the path of government’s welfare or corrective/reform policies.

10 per cent reservation for general category poor untenable

Neo-poor among the middle-class may soon, if Parliament and half of state legislatures give their nod, get 10 per cent quota in jobs and educational avenues. Photograph shows fliers waiting to board their respective airbuses at Terminal 2 launge of the IGI Airport, Delhi. (Photo ©Sindhustan)

India devised a unique way of dealing with social inequality with the adoption if Constitution. It implemented a policy to economic empowerment of thosefound to be weak in their social status. It provided for reservation in jobs and education to those found to be socially and educationally backward. It was the time when only a few Indians were earning enough to sustain themselves. A handful had the resources to run businesses and business houses. Less than 12 per cent Indians were educated to take up government or corporate jobs. 

Practically the whole of India could easily have been categorised as socially and educationally backward. 

Economically, per capita income of an average Indian was less than Rs 250 in 1947. Economic backwardness was as universal throughout the country as illetracy and social backwardness. The framing of Constitution saw intense yet open minded debates. The result was provision to give economic power to those socially and educationally backward. It was considered okay for a period of 15 years to rein in talent and power in the matters of jobs and education. 

But who should be given this benefit? The whole of India was backward and upbeat after Independence. The British were there earlier to be blamed for all the ills and ailments. Providing earning through jobs or private vocation was the most difficult task. A commission called the Kaka Kalekar Commission was set up by the government in 1953 to decide who could be considered socially and educationally backward. The commission had to evolve its own criteria for identifying the people who could be classified as backward. 

Identifying individual backwardness would have been a mammoth task only to be matches by an honest conduct of census process. Not possible in 1953. Focus, that's why, must have shifted to community identification of backwardness. India's old communities had already classified itself in castes and the boundaries were invisibly thick. Kalekar Commission couldn't have pierced through these walls and formed new communities or future caste groups of people suffering from backwardness. Team Kalekar, hence, proceeded to identify 2,399 castes who could be termed backward.

But Kaka Kalekar was not happy with the findings. He penned a letter to the President of India requesting him to look for other alternative for economic empowerment of socially and educationally backward people. He argued that caste-based reservation in jobs and education was not in the interest of the nation. Incidentally, the government, too, didn't find the report convincing and it was rejected.

But those running the government were convinced that Indians needed protection and should be given concession in jobs and educational avenues as the topmost political leaders of the time were from socially and educationally forward class and also had relatively better economic background, they believed the have-nots were not capable enough to make a mark for themselves in generally backward society of India despite having seen the likes of BR Ambedkar establishing themselves as stalwarts of the same society. The problem was that the decision makers were not confident of their own ability to work for creation of enough jobs, education and earning avenues. 

Fearing a backlash from society, well-trained, by now, in Gandhian way of demanding rights, in the same way as against the British administration, a formula for reservation was enforced. Needless to state that only the forwards among the declared backwards benefitted from the limited earning and learning avenues that India has generated under the guidance of the government. 

There has never been enough in India, at least in the living memory. Population growth was organic due to societal belief and lack of other entertainment alternatives. This theory doesn't need any further authorisation after recent experience from Nepal, where massive power outages a few years ago coincided with unusually high number of pregnancies and child-births. 

While population kept rising, the penetration of scientific temper eroded people's belief in the theory of karma. Globalisation and internet fuelled their aspirations further. Money, muscle, sex, youthfulness and remaining central in and under all circumstances became the focal points of life. This aspiration was not compartmentalised by the invisible thick walls of castes. The cumulative effect is putting pressure on the government to provide for everything that the people can't get themselves. After all, the freedom was won in the name of prosperity, now better worded as achchhe din. This achchhe din is missing from everyone's life, almost everyone. 

If SC/ST or OBC individual gets an earning or learning avenues and a person from the other community sees this happening, she feels strongly agitated. Then she learns that it is the government which facilitated it. She first rallies for abolition of inequal rights failing which she demands such a right for herself. 

If elections are to be won to run government, people need to be on the side of ruling or aspiring to be ruling group, the party. Jobs and educational avenues are not enough to be offered to every desirous individual. So, what should a government do. Offer equalising proposal of reservation.

The government announced 10 per cent quota I'm jobs and education for non-reserved category aspirants. This means the offer is valid for all religious grouping, a secular offer. But this offer came on a ground that was first rejected, by virtue of its omission, by Constitution and then by the Supreme Court.

Nearly 25 years after the Kaka Kalekar Commission report was rejected, another commission came up in 1979, called BP Mandal Commission to decide on the proposal of provding reservation. 

Mandal commission reported in 1980, an election year, that caste-based reservation should be given to uplift socially and educationally backward people. For 10 years, the report was wrapping itself in dust before VP Singh facing threat to his PMO chair and a certain loss of power, brought the quota report out and issued an Office Memorandum to implement reservation for identified and declared OBCs. Reservation, 27 per cent, to OBCs failed to save Singh from losing power. 

The next in line, PVN Rao tried to counterbalance it in 1991 by giving another 10 per cent quota to the poor from general category people. 

Both the decisions were challenged in the Supreme Court, where Indra Sawhney case of 1992 still Stan's out as a landmark judgment. The court herein rules that caste-based reservation is constitutional, quota on the basis of economic backwardness not valid under constitutional arrangement and that total number of reserved seats can't breach the ceiling of 50 per cent. 

The new proposal, the 124th Constitution Amendment Bill, provides for raising the ceiling to 60 per cent. It is bound for a test in the Supreme Court. 

The Bill, interestingly, proposes to declare those having annual income for their nuclear family less than Rs 8 lakh may avail this quota benefit. Commensurate arrangement has been prescribed for land and property ownership. But taking one earning person per family, the Rs 8 lakh cap translates into asalary/income of Rs 65,166 per month. Compare this criterion of economic backwardness with the existing cap for BPL identification, just for fun 😊

It wouldn't take a genius of Chanakya to understand that the target community of this reservation scheme is a major chunk of middle-class, who is said to be angry with the government. In any case, if jobs in public sector are dwindling, what good use this 10 per cent cap can bring to the neo-poor community of the general category people?

When women used to visit Sabarimala temple

Woman protesters at Sabarimala temple. (Photo: Twitter/@iamsrp007)

Huge uproar followed today after two women aged below 50 years reportedly entered the Sabarimala temple. Identified as 42-year-old Bindu -  a CPI(ML) worker from Kozikhode and Kanakadurga – a Kerala governemnt employee from Malappuram claimed to have entered the Sabarimala temple at 3.45 this morning.

Protests erupted in various parts of Kerala with the BJP joining chorus. The BJP has called a shutdown in Kerala on Thursday to protest entry of women in the Sabarimala temple, which was allowed by the Supreme Court last year in a majority judgment by a bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The full ban on entry of women aged between 10 and 50 years was enforced after a Kerala High Court judgment in 1991. The order came on a petition that was filed after Devasam board commissioner held traditional rice feeding ceremony for his child at the Sabarimala temple in 1990. The ceremony was attended by women of the family and also some relatives. 

The petitioner challenged that entry of women in the Sabarimala temple for which there was a law passed by the state assembly. The law was not strictly imposed and women used to visit the Sabarimala temple, sometimes raking up controversy while at other without much notice. 

The first documented record of ban on entry of women in the Sabarimala temple is found in a survey by two British officials. They conducted the survey in 1820s but the report could only be published in 1890s and 1900s in two volumes. 

The report talked about the belief that Lord Ayyappa should not be visited by women of menstruating age. However, the belief did not necessarily translate into a complete ban on entry of women. 

Records have it that women from the Travancore royal family visited the Sabarimala temple. The queen of Travancore visited the Sabarimala temple in 1940s. It continued, though sporadically, till 1991. 

In 1986, a Tamil film was shot at the Sabarimala temple where actresses including Jayashree danced on a song. It led to a controversy and a fine was also imposed both on the film shooting party and the Devasam board. 

Former Karnataka minister Jayamala later claimed that she had visited the Sabarimala temple the same year. In 1995, a woman district collector visited the Sabarimala temple in order to gather first hand information from the priests and officials of the shrine. 

The matter of entry of women into the Sabarimala temple started making national headlines after a group of activists filed petitions seeking lifting of ban and quashing of the Kerala law that prohibited women from offering prayers at the Lord Ayyappa shrine.