CPM's trapezium act, manages to stand both 'for' and 'against' Sabarimala women's entry

For now, at least till the 2026 Assembly elections are over, the CPM has decided to dodge the Sabarimala women's entry issue.

The party will not explicitly state that it is against the entry of women, and risk the political consequences of ideological infirmity, but will hold on to a part of its original stand that the Supreme Court should abide by the advice of a "commission" of reputed religious experts and social reformers on the issue.

Such a balancing act was on show at the press conference of CPM state secretary M V Govindan in Thiruvananthapuram on Friday. "The State Secretariat has asked the government to examine the various constitutional issues and offer a suitable response to the Supreme Court," Govindan said. Kerala government has to file its response to the seven questions framed by the nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala women's entry issue.

"The Supreme Court's question is not whether women should be allowed entry or not. The government has been asked to respond to seven questions related to larger constitutional issues. And women's entry is not part of any of these seven questions," Govindan said.

Nonetheless, the CPM state secretary said that the party had no intention to change its stand. In the same breath, he added: "We have told the government to make the appropriate moves after examining the constitutional issues in the present context," he said.

The reference to "present context" hinted at the massive backlash against the 2018 Supreme Court verdict that allowed women's entry. During the trial, the LDF government had firmly supported women's entry. Probably, he was suggesting that the popular mood of the faithful should be factored in?

Fortunately for the CPM, a particular clause in the original affidavit, filed in 2007 before the Supreme Court when V S Achuthanandan was Chief Minister, will help the LDF government to insulate itself from any further criticism in the Sabarimala issue.  

The fourth paragraph of the affidavit said that the non-entry of menstruating women was a long-held tradition and, therefore, proposed the constitution of a commission made up of Hindu scholars and social reformers of impeccable reputation to study the issue. Though it was for women's entry, the LDF government told the apex court that it should bow to the recommendations made by the 'commission'.

This "commission" has now come in handy for the CPM. It has allowed the CPM to claim that the party had not changed its stand on the issue. "We will adhere to what was stated in the original affidavit," he said.

Govindan said that it was not governments and courts that should function as arbiters of questions related to traditions and social customs. "These are better left to people with deep knowledge of religion. Even earlier we had said that a decision should be taken only after discussing these issues with such people. We stand by it," Govindan said.

So, do you mean to say that the feelings of the faithful should be respected, he was asked. "Have we ever disrespected the feelings of the faithful," came Govindan's quick response.

Fact is, the LDF government's stand on the women's entry issue was always clear. It had staunchly backed the move and had revised the affidavit filed by the Oommen Chandy government that opposed the move. The 2018 Sabarimala verdict mentions how the Kerala government had changed its opinion over time.

In the first affidavit submitted in 2007, the Kerala government said: "It was not in favour of discrimination towards any woman or any section of the society". On February 2, 2016, during Oommen Chandy's tenure, the affidavit was revised to convey that the government was against the entry of menstruating women into Sabarimala. 

However, on November 13, 2016, after the first Pinarayi Ministry came to power, it restored the original affidavit that stated that no laws stood against the entry of women into Sabarimala. Here is what the 2018 SC order said: "On a query being made by the Court, the learned counsel for the State submitted that it wanted to place reliance on the original affidavit dated November 13, 2007."

During the argument in the Supreme Court, Kerala's senior counsel Jaideep Gupta said that the state "was going by the original affidavit of November 2007". Chief Justice Dipak Mishra then pointedly asked: "So that means the State government supports women of any age entering the temple?" Kerala counsel's reply: "Our stand is that women of all ages should, and I say should, be allowed to enter the temple and worship. There should be no bar."