Members of the Pandalam palace have decided to stay away from the Global Ayyappa Summit organised by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to explore investment opportunities for the development of the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple in Kerala. In a press release issued on Wednesday, September 17, the Pandalam Palace Managing Committee cited the demise of a family member as the reason to stay away from public events. However, the statement expressed strong objection to the government’s inaction in withdrawing cases against people who agitated against women’s entry into the temple in 2018.
To be held on September 20, the Global Ayyappa Summit — according to the LDF government — is a platform for devotees to participate in the development of the Sabarimala temple.
As per legend, the Pandalam dynasty was the foster family of Lord Ayyappa, the chief deity of the Sabarimala temple. The palace committee said that Thiruvonam Nal Rama Varma, the head of the Pandalam family, has no objection over the Global Ayyappa Summit. However, it added that the delay in withdrawing cases filed in 2018 related to women’s entry, along with the government’s refusal to change its stance on matters pending before the Supreme Court, is both unacceptable and deeply painful for devotees.
“The major demand of the Pandalam palace was to withdraw cases. The government and TDB should function without changing the beliefs and rituals related to the temple. Any other decisions are totally unacceptable,” the committee said.
SC refuses to intervene
The Supreme Court on September 18 refused to intervene in the Kerala High Court order, which allowed the TDB to conduct the Global Ayyappa Summit on the banks of the Pampa river. A group of petitioners had first approached the Kerala HC requesting intervention to stop the event. As per the petition, the event was not related to religion or spirituality and thus should not be allowed on the banks of the Pampa. In an interim order issued on September 11, the High Court allowed the event, with certain conditions.
The SC refused to entertain the petition, citing that it is pending before the High Court.