December 13, 2015
Array

Thinking Together

a) It seems some people in Kerala are disappointed with our approach to Hindus and this may be one of the reasons why the RSS, BJP and caste organisations are growing. Is this true? b) When the Left comes to power, the minister for education is a minority community person or a party that is representing them. Why is this so? c) Many Hindu temples were taken over as government property, but not even a single mosque or church were taken over either by the LDF or UDF governments. S Muralidharan, Coimbatore The impression that is sought to be created that the CPI(M) in Kerala favours the minorities over the “majority Hindus” is part of the campaign of the BJP-RSS. It is wrong and baseless. The CPI(M) is a party which champions the cause of the working people of all religious communities. Being the single largest political party in the state, the Party has the support of workers, peasants and middle classes having different religious affiliations. Being a staunch upholder of secularism, the Party is opposed to communalism of all varieties, whether of the majority or minorities. There is a false campaign that the CPI(M) is opposed to religious belief and observances. This is untrue. The Party upholds the rights of citizens to practice whichever religion they believe in. What it is opposed to is the interference of religious leaders in politics and the State. If anyone uses religion to infringe upon the rights of women or any other category of people, that cannot be tolerated. The Party strongly criticised the recent remarks of a Muslim religious leader in Kerala against gender equality. As for persons belonging to a minority community becoming the education minister, the question is misplaced. Anyone – a Hindu, Muslim or Christian – can hold such a ministerial position. The question is, what are the policies that are implemented. If a minister adopts policies which are communally motivated, that would be wrong and will have to be rejected. In the case of the last LDF government (2006-2011), the education minister was M A Baby (That is what is alluded to in the question). It is significant to note that the education ministry under Baby adopted policies regarding regulation of private professional colleges and self financing institutions which aroused the ire of the managements of the minority educational institutions. The strengthening of a democratic and secular educational system in Kerala is opposed by all the communal elements, including the RSS. No Hindu temples were taken over by either the LDF or UDF governments. The management of major Hindu temples through the Devaswom Boards supervised by the government is a historical development. Before independence, there were the princely states of Travancore and Cochin. The feudal rulers had taken over the control and running of temples over a long period of time. Earlier, the zamorin (samoodiri) of Calicut had taken control of various temples which were later appropriated by the Cochin ruler. There were constant conflicts and change-over of control of the temples and their assets by feudal lords and satraps. That is why the Maharajas began centralising ownership in their own hands. It was, after British rule was established in the whole country, that interventions under British directive began for Devaswom Boards to be set-up. These were earlier under the princely rulers and were later taken over by the government after independence. There exists in Kerala today, Devaswom Boards for the major temples which were in the hands of the princely states. The principle that they were State property was established much before. There are also private temples owned by families or trusts in Kerala. Unlike this historical evolution of the administration of temples which were intertwined with State power, the religious places of worships of Muslims and Christians have always been in private hands and they continue to do so. It is, therefore, not correct to equate the question of State running of Hindu temples with that of the churches and mosques.