Unity of Nairs and Ezhavas essential: Vellappally Natesan

Vellappally Natesan's call for unity between the Nair and Ezhava communities, coupled with his clarification regarding the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), offers a crucial lens into the intricate socio-political fabric of Kerala. This statement is not merely a local political utterance but reflects deeper historical, social, and constitutional currents relevant for understanding India's diverse democracy.

**Background Context and Historical Roots:**

Kerala's society has been shaped by powerful social reform movements and community-based organizations. The Ezhava community, historically marginalized, found a powerful voice through the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam), founded in 1903 by the visionary social reformer Sree Narayana Guru. Guru's philosophy of "One Caste, One Religion, One God for Man" challenged the rigid caste hierarchy and untouchability prevalent in early 20th century Kerala. Similarly, the Nair Service Society (NSS), established in 1914 by Mannathu Padmanabhan, emerged as a formidable organization safeguarding the interests of the Nair community, a historically dominant caste. These organizations played a pivotal role in the Kerala Renaissance, advocating for social justice, education, and political representation. While both communities have historically vied for influence, periods of cooperation and conflict have marked their relationship. The political landscape of Kerala has always been significantly influenced by these and other community organizations, often acting as powerful pressure groups or even kingmakers in elections.

**What Happened and Key Stakeholders:**

Vellappally Natesan, as the general secretary of the SNDP Yogam, holds significant sway over the Ezhava community. His call for Nair-Ezhava unity suggests a strategic move to consolidate a powerful Hindu vote bank in Kerala. This unity, if achieved, could potentially shift traditional political equations. His subsequent clarification, stating that his criticism was aimed at the "communal tendencies" within the IUML, rather than the Muslim community itself, is equally significant. The IUML is a prominent political party with a strong base primarily among the Muslim population in Kerala, particularly in districts like Malappuram. It has historically been a crucial ally in the United Democratic Front (UDF) coalition. By singling out 'communal tendencies' within the IUML, Natesan attempts to differentiate between the broader Muslim community and a specific political entity, possibly to avoid alienating Muslim voters entirely while still critiquing a political rival. The key stakeholders here are Vellappally Natesan and the SNDP Yogam (representing Ezhavas), the Nair Service Society (NSS) representing Nairs, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) representing a significant section of Muslims, and by extension, the major political fronts in Kerala – the Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the UDF – whose electoral fortunes are heavily dependent on these community alignments.

**Significance for India and Constitutional Relevance:**

This development is highly significant for India, especially for understanding the nuances of identity politics and secularism. In a multi-religious, multi-caste democracy like India, community leaders often play a crucial role in shaping political discourse and electoral outcomes. Kerala, often lauded for its high social development indicators and unique brand of secularism, presents a complex interplay of caste, religion, and politics. Natesan's statement underscores the persistent challenge of balancing community interests with national integration. The call for unity between specific Hindu communities, while simultaneously critiquing a Muslim-dominated political party, can be viewed through the lens of electoral strategy aimed at consolidating votes along religious and caste lines. This raises questions about the definition of 'communalism' and how it is perceived and articulated by different political actors.

From a constitutional perspective, India's Preamble enshrines 'Secularism' as a fundamental tenet. Articles 14, 15, and 16 guarantee equality before law, prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment. While community organizations are a part of India's vibrant civil society, their political rhetoric must align with these constitutional principles. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Section 123, deals with 'corrupt practices' during elections, including appeals to voters on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language. Any attempt to polarize the electorate along communal lines could fall afoul of these provisions. Furthermore, Articles 25-28 guarantee freedom of religion, while Articles 29 and 30 protect the cultural and educational rights of minorities, ensuring that all communities can preserve their distinct identities without facing discrimination.

**Future Implications:**

Natesan's statement could have several future implications. Firstly, it might lead to a realignment of political forces in Kerala, potentially pushing the LDF and UDF to recalibrate their strategies to appeal to these consolidated community blocs. Secondly, it could intensify the debate around 'soft Hindutva' and 'minority appeasement' narratives in Kerala politics, impacting the state's traditionally secular discourse. The BJP, which seeks to expand its footprint in Kerala, might view such calls for Hindu unity as an opportunity. Lastly, it highlights the enduring power of community leaders and organizations in Indian democracy, where identity remains a potent force in electoral calculations, often overshadowing broader developmental agendas. The success or failure of such unity calls will significantly influence the political trajectory of Kerala and serve as a case study for identity politics across India.