Crimson Rot

For decades, Kerala’s Marxists had cultivated an image of ideological austerity by speaking the language of class struggle and public morality while portraying their opponents as corrupt bourgeois opportunists. The CPI(M), particularly under former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, had perfected this moral theatre. Today, with its political fortunes on the wane, the party’s carefully constructed halo is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. The Enforcement Directorate raids...

min read

For decades, Kerala’s Marxists had cultivated an image of ideological austerity by speaking the language of class struggle and public morality while portraying their opponents as corrupt bourgeois opportunists. The CPI(M), particularly under former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, had perfected this moral theatre. Today, with its political fortunes on the wane, the party’s carefully constructed halo is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions. The Enforcement Directorate raids connected to the CMRL ‘monthly payment’ scandal symbolise the unravelling of a political mythology built over generations. The raids at the residences linked to Vijayan, his daughter Veena Vijayan, and former minister Mohammed Riyas expose a deeply embarrassing spectacle for a party that lectured the nation about probity and ideological purity. The case concerns Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd, which allegedly paid Rs. 1.72 crore to Veena Vijayan’s firm, Exalogic Solutions between 2017 and 2020 for consultancy and software services that investigators allege were never actually rendered. According to findings flagged by the Income Tax Settlement Board, these payments allegedly continued because of her “relationship with a prominent person.” This is the oldest form of capitalist cronyism, family connections functioning as political currency. The comrades who once thundered against “bourgeois exploitation” by the likes of Adani now find themselves defending precisely the ecosystem of privilege they claimed to despise. The hypocrisy is staggering. Under Vijayan, the CPI(M) had increasingly ceased to resemble a cadre-based ideological movement and instead acquired the traits of a tightly centralised family enterprise. Despite Kerala’s Marxists fiercely denouncing personality cults, they constructed one of their own around Vijayan’s dominating personality. The most revealing aspect of this scandal has been the collapse of moral legitimacy. The Indian Left long claimed that while others amassed wealth, communists alone stood with clean hands. That illusion has steadily eroded across India, but nowhere is its collapse more dramatic than in Kerala. The party that once romanticised workers now appears inseparable from elite privilege. Its leaders move within circles of influence, patronage and dynastic entitlement strikingly similar to the political classes they once condemned. Kerala’s Marxists increasingly resemble what George Orwell warned revolutions often become: new aristocracies wearing the vocabulary of equality. Vijayan may continue to dismiss the allegations as attempts to tarnish his image. His loyalists may continue shouting conspiracy. But public perception has irrevocably shifted. The image of ED officials entering the former Chief Minister’s residence while probing payments linked to his daughter is politically devastating, irrespective of eventual legal outcomes. Skeletons are tumbling from the cupboard because the cupboard itself was built on deception. The tragedy is that a movement which once promised moral seriousness and ideological discipline has descended into the very decadence it spent decades denouncing. Kerala’s self-proclaimed moral vanguard now stands exposed by the very decadence it once claimed to fight. The comrades preached revolution. What they perfected instead was entitlement.

Sacred Attire

Correspondent
Jan 29, 2025
2 min read

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.

The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.

Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.

To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.

Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.

In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Crimson Rot

Sacred Attire

Recent Posts

Comments