Sabarimala Dwarapalaka pedestal missing case: Devaswom minister suspects conspiracy
Mail This Article
Thiruvananthapuram: Minister for Co-operation, Ports & Devaswoms V N Vasavan on Monday said a larger conspiracy might be behind the disappearance of the pedestal (peedam) of the Dwarapalaka idols at Sabarimala. His remarks came a day after the Vigilance wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) recovered the additional pedestal from the house of a sponsor, Unnikrishnan Potty's relative, at Venjaramoodu, six years after it went missing.
Potty’s sister Mini Devi, from whose house the pedestal was recovered, claimed that craftsman Vasudevan had taken it for repair but failed to return it to Sabarimala. However, Vasavan dismissed these explanations as unreliable. “For over four years, the pedestal was hidden, and only later was it declared missing. Such a move deceives the public and raises suspicion of a conspiracy,” he said.
Potty’s worker also admitted to keeping it in his custody before shifting it to Potty’s relatives’ house. The recovered pedestal has now been returned to Sabarimala. A detailed report will be submitted to the Kerala High Court on Monday.
The controversy first surfaced in 2019 when Potty, who had sponsored the gold-plating of the pedestals and idols, alleged that an additional pedestal he donated had gone missing. His revelation led the Kerala High Court to direct the TDB’s vigilance wing to investigate the disappearance as well as the reported reduction in weight of the gold-clad copper plates.
Meanwhile, Devaswom Board president P S Prasanth accused Potty of defaming the institution. “By alleging that the pedestal was missing, he painted the board as thieves. Why did he make such a false claim just before the Ayyappa Sangamam? We suspect an attempt to tarnish the event,” he said.
Former Board president A Padmakumar also called for a thorough probe. “Neither Potty nor Vasudevan stood to gain from hiding the pedestal. The motive behind this act must be uncovered,” he said.
Vasavan reiterated that further action would depend on the High Court’s directions.