Kerala chief minister V D Satheesan
It said Satheesan, who opposed the entry of young women in Sabarimala, is now being vocal about women’s freedom. Also, he was showing interest in implementing PM Shri scheme in the state, it said. Kochi : Suprabhaatham, the mouthpiece of the Muslim scholarly body Samastha, has come down heavily on chief minister V D Satheesan over his criticism of Sunni leader Kanthapuram A P Aboobacker Musliyar’s controversial remarks on the participation of women in public programmes. The editorial also recalled the objection raised by Satheesan against women of menstruating age entering Sabarimala Lord Ayyappa temple. The editorial cited that Satheesan publicly declared that Munambam land was not a waqf asset when the case is sub judice at a tribunal.
The criticism against the CM was raised in an editorial titled ‘Maryadaykku Samsarikkanam’ (Mind Your Tongue) on Sunday.
The editorial says that Kanthapuram’s statement has its own standards and that it is an opinion from a centre that mobilises the community of believers. The editorial said that Kanthapuram had the freedom to state his stance, and Satheesan too has the freedom to say that his (Kanthapuram’s) remark was uncivilised thinking from the 19th century. Suprabhaatham also said that the support chief minister received for disowning Kanthapuram’s stance stemmed from ignorance about Islam’s concept of women. The editorial also mocked that Satheesan’s stance on the issue was like “the experience of a blind man touching an elephant”. Satheesan had said that a woman was not one who should be confined to the house and said that Islamic history tells it. The newspaper also said that making such remarks against religious leaders and later withdrawing Facebook posts did not befit a chief minister.
Suprabhaatham has used chief minister’s own remark of ‘Maryadaykku Samsarikkanam’, made in the issue involving Congress functionary Chenthi Anil, to criticise him. The editorial also alleged that ignorance about Islamic history prompted the CM to make such remarks. Satheesan’s argument was that the history of the Prophet’s wives engaging in various occupations was also proof of this. It is this stance that Suprabhaatham has strongly criticised through the editorial. The article alleged that Satheesan’s move against Kanthapuram was part of a deliberate effort to change the image of a ‘chief minister with Muslim support’ that he received.