Vellappally Natesan says unity between Nair and Ezhava communities is essential for Kerala’s social progress.
Clarifies he is not opposed to Muslims, but only to the alleged communal politics of the IUML.
Launches sharp criticism of Opposition Leader V.D. Satheesan, without detailing specific charges.
Unity Of Nairs And Ezhavas Crucial For Kerala, Says Vellappally Natesan
SNDP Yogam leader asserts community collaboration will not harm minority rights; criticises IUML’s “communal tendencies” and targets Opposition Leader V.D. Satheesan.
Summary
Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam General Secretary Vellappally Natesan on Sunday emphasised that greater unity between the Nair and Ezhava communities was essential for Kerala’s socio-political future, asserting that such cooperation would not infringe upon the rights of other communities.
Speaking to mediapersons in Alappuzha, Natesan said collaborations between the two communities should be viewed as efforts to strengthen social harmony rather than as moves against minorities. “The coming together of Nairs and Ezhavas is the need of the hour. It will not harm any other section of society,” he said.
The SNDP leader sought to clarify his stance on the Muslim community, stating that he had never opposed Muslims as a whole. His criticism, he said, was directed only at what he termed the communal tendencies within the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). “My disagreement is with political positions that encourage divisiveness, not with any community,” he added.
Natesan also launched a sharp attack on Opposition Leader V.D. Satheesan, though he did not elaborate on the specific issues that prompted his criticism. The remarks are likely to add to the ongoing political debate in Kerala over community equations and electoral alignments.
The SNDP Yogam chief has, in the past, advocated closer coordination among Hindu communities, arguing that fragmented social groups weaken their collective bargaining power. His latest comments come amid renewed discussions on caste and community dynamics in the State’s politics.
Published At: