Hindu organisations slam CPI(M) in Kerala over Padmanabha temple issue

Prices|Financials|Company Info|Reports
THIRUVANATHPURAM: Hindu outfits in Kerala have come down heavily on CPI(M) for opposing the proposals submitted in the Supreme Court by amicus curiae in the Padmanabhaswamy temple case on dealing with the riches found in its vaults.

Seizing on CPI-M leaders’ argument that suggestions of amicus curiae Gopal Subramaniam are essentially meant to help the Travancore royal house regain control of the temple, RSS and allied organisations as well as some other community outfits held that the CPI(M) had no locus standi to interfere in the temple issue.

CPI(M) state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan and party stalwart and state opposition leader V S Achuthanandan had yesterday asked the state government to reject Subramaniam’s proposals, alleging they would only lead to restoration of control of the grand temple and its invaluable wealth to the royal family.

They also slammed the Congress-led UDF government for not taking a firm position in the case pending in the apexBSE 0.00 % court. Reacting to the development, BJP state president V Muraleedharan said the CPI(M) leaders’ views only betrayed their eagerness to convert the temple assets into public property. “Would they have done this in the case of assets of other religions”, he sought to know from the Left parties.

The BJP was opposed to the government takeover of the temple or bringing it under control of a trust on the lines of Guruvayoor temple. Instead, the temples should be governed by a panel comprising nominees of the royal house and devotees, Muraleedharan said.

Leader of pro-RSS Hindu Aikyavedi, Kummanam Rajasekharan, alleged that the CPI(M) move was meant to destroy temples and the contention that the total control of the shrine should be vested with the government was unconstitutional.

General secretary of Nair Service Society G Sukumaran Nair said the invaluable assets in its vaults should be kept in the temple itself by declaring it as the wealth of Lord Padmanabha.

Responses