Cong rallies behind Satheesan after Samastha asks him to mind his words

KOZHIKODE: On a day when a harshly worded editorial in ‘Suprabhatham’, the mouthpiece of the EK faction of Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, lambasted Chief Minister V D Satheesan for criticising Sunni scholar Kanthapuram A P Aboobacker Musliyar’s remarks on women’s participation in public events, the state Congress rallied behind the CM, defending his stand on the issue.

Titled “Mind your words”, the editorial published in the Sunday edition questions Satheesan’s interpretation of the issue, while also revisiting several of his earlier political positions. While acknowledging that Satheesan has every right to disagree with Kanthapuram, the editorial argues that the CM’s interpretation of the remarks stems from an inadequate understanding of the Islamic perspective on women.

Satheesan’s response, it said, reflected only a partial understanding of the issue, akin to the parable of “blind man touching an elephant”, shaped by inputs from certain sections within the Muslim community rather than a broader engagement with Islamic teachings and history.

Meanwhile, extending support to Satheesan, several Congress leaders maintained that there would be no retreat from the position he has taken in defence of women’s equality and freedom. State Congress president and Electricity Minister Sunny Joseph described Satheesan’s disagreement with Kanthapuram as legitimate.

Sunny told TNIE that the Congress, as a secular political organisation, respected the freedom of individuals and communities to practise their faith, but that freedom did not prevent political leaders from questioning views they considered contrary to equality and social progress.

He stressed that women’s empowerment remained an important component of the Congress tradition, pointing to women’s representation in local governments as evidence of the party’s approach. He cited the presence of women presidents in all six panchayats in the Peravoor constituency as one example. Health Minister K Muraleedharan also endorsed Satheesan’s position, making it clear that neither the government nor the Congress intends to change their stand. He said freedom of expression was not under threat but maintained that freedom could not be used to justify treating women as inferior.

However, the ‘Suprabhatham’ editorial has not received an open endorsement from the IUML, which had earlier sought to downplay Kanthapuram’s remarks.

League distances itself from kanthapuram issue

Instead, the party chose to distance itself from the attack on Satheesan, signalling that it does not intend to enter into a controversy that could acquire wider religious and political dimensions.

When contacted, IUML general secretary P M A Salam told TNIE that the editorial was directed at Satheesan’s position on the issue and, therefore, the party had no reason to respond to it or endorse its criticism.

“The IUML does not intend to get involved in such controversies or take a stand on matters that could indirectly hurt the religious sentiments of a large section of people. We do not see any reason to endorse or oppose the editorial’s criticism of Satheesan,” Salam said.

One of the central arguments raised in the ‘Suprabhatam’ editorial is the apparent contrast between Satheesan’s present advocacy of women’s freedom and his earlier opposition to the entry of young women at Sabarimala. The editorial asks why a politician who had opposed the entry of young women at the hill shrine is now taking such a strong position on women’s freedom.

It also referred to other contentious issues, including the Munambam Waqf land dispute and the implementation of the PM SHRI scheme, alleging that Satheesan has taken firm positions on matters even while related proceedings or examinations were still under way.

On Munambam, the editorial refers to Satheesan’s position that the disputed property should not be treated as Waqf land. On PM SHRI, it questions his insistence that the scheme could not simply be abandoned after the state had entered into an agreement concerning its implementation.

The editorial also refers to Satheesan’s pre-election interactions with Jamaat-e-Islami and the political debate over Muslim support for the UDF.

Against this backdrop, the editorial questions whether Satheesan’s current positioning is also aimed at countering criticism that the UDF’s political strength depends heavily on Muslim support.