Sabarimala Flashpoint: Who Led The Agitation And Who Cashed In Politically?

In Keralam, Sabarimala goes beyond being a place of worship. It carries emotional weight, cultural meaning and a sense of identity that resonates deeply with Malayalees. Over the years, it has also become an issue that periodically intersects with politics, especially during election season.

Between November and January, during the annual pilgrimage period, crores of devotees travel to Sabarimala. Yet the importance of the shrine extends far beyond the journey itself. For many, it represents continuity, tradition and shared belief. As a result, any development related to Sabarimala tends to move quickly from being a religious matter to a wider social and political discussion.

Why Sabarimala Remains Politically Relevant

As the 2026 Kerala Assembly elections nears, the issue is once again part of public discourse. However, this time the conversation appears more reflective, focusing not only on past events but also on how different political parties responded to them.

A defining moment came in 2018, when the Supreme Court permitted the entry of women of all age groups into the shrine. The verdict led to strong reactions across Keralam, leading to protests, debates and strong expressions of opinion from various sections of society. What began as a legal development soon evolved into a broader public movement.

The LDF government chose to implement the apex court verdict firmly, turning a sensitive issue into a visible confrontation between administration and belief. For its supporters, this was about constitutional duty and gender equality. But for many devotees, it was seen as interference in a long-standing practice. This gap between legal enforcement and public sentiment soon became political talking point.

What followed next went far beyond statements or symbolic opposition and evolved into a sustained public movement.

It was during this phase that the BJP stepped in strongly. The party aligned itself with protesting devotees and positioned the issue as one of protecting tradition. Its leaders and workers were visible on the ground, with many facing police action, cases and arrests. The party's stand was clear, that faith practices should not be altered without the consent of believers.

Under the leadership of K. Surendran, who was then State General Secretary, mobilisation took place across multiple districts. The scale of police action reflected the intensity of the situation. Around 12,000 cases were registered against BJP leaders and devotees. Of these, 242 cases were filed against Surendran alone. He was taken into custody in several districts, produced before courts repeatedly and spent close to 30 days in jail.

For many observers in Keralam, this phase created a clear impression of who was physically present during the agitation.

In contrast, the Congress adopted a more measured approach. While it supported the sentiments of devotees, it did not match the scale of direct mobilisation seen from the BJP. However, when the 2019 elections arrived, the election results told a different story.

Public anger against the LDF was evident. Yet during the election, it was the Congress-led UDF that gained the most, supported by a broader national narrative and a stronger perception of winnability. The saffron party, despite its visible role in protests, did not see a proportional rise in seats.

This outcome was shaped by the larger political mood at the time. Public dissatisfaction with the Communist government, particularly over the handling of Sabarimala, created an opening. At the same time, Rahul Gandhi's decision to contest from Keralam gave the election a national dimension, with many viewing him as a potential Prime Ministerial face. Congress messaging drew from both these factors, strengthening its position as the more viable option to challenge the LDF, while the BJP continued to face limits in perceived electoral strength.

This divergence between participation and political gain has remained a key point of discussion.

Another aspect often highlighted is the difference in legal consequences. While thousands of cases were registered against those who protested, there were no major cases reported against Congress leaders in connection with the agitation. Despite this, Congress-led UDF emerged as the primary political beneficiary, even while maintaining that the BJP was politicising the issue.

Supporters of the BJP also point to its role beyond street protests. In the Keralam Assembly, BJP MLA O. Rajagopal and independent MLA P.C. George marked their protest by wearing black during proceedings related to Sabarimala. In Parliament, Suresh Gopi raised the issue and delivered a speech that drew national attention. According to this view, similar visible interventions were limited from Congress leaders in legislative spaces.

A similar pattern is seen in more recent developments.

In 2025, the gold controversy linked to Sabarimala once again brought the issue into focus. Congress adopted an aggressive political approach, including campaign messaging and wider outreach across Keralam, and is seen as having gained electoral advantage from it.

At the same time, the BJP organised protests and consistently raised the issue, with a significant number of cases again registered against its leaders. Even then, the perception remains that the political benefit largely went to Congress.

The issue has continued to surface in later political contexts as well. During the 2021 Assembly phase, leaders such as P.C. George and O. Rajagopal revisited the 2018 developments. Demands for further investigation, including calls for a CBI probe, were raised. Controversy intensified after photographs surfaced showing individuals linked to the issue alongside senior Congress leaders, which led to a more cautious response from the party.

More recently, during the 2026 campaign period, Rahul Gandhi questioned why Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not refer to Sabarimala in a rally in Palakkad, once again bringing the issue into public discussion.

What stands out through this entire sequence is the difference in approach.

The BJP has largely treated Sabarimala as an issue of belief and public sentiment, maintaining consistent involvement during protests and controversies. Its supporters argue that this approach focused more on participation than immediate electoral gain.

On the other hand, Congress is often seen as having converted the issue into political advantage during elections, even without being equally visible during the peak of protests.

For Malayalees, this creates a more layered understanding.

Some continue to feel that the 2018 developments affected religious sentiment. Others believe the implementation lacked sensitivity. Many are now concerned about administrative issues such as the gold controversy. At the same time, electoral decisions are also shaped by practicality and perceptions of winnability.

As Keralam moves closer to the 2026 elections, Sabarimala remains politically relevant not because it is repeatedly raised, but because it has never truly been forgotten.

The core question now is simple.

Who stood present when the issue demanded action, and who benefited when it translated into votes.

In Keralam, that distinction is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.