Whether the LDF government's 'Women's Wall' will succeed or not is a debate that can wait till the New Year. The more perplexing question now is who will pay for the conduct of the 'Wall'.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday emphatically contradicted the affidavit his government placed before the High Court. “I would like to make one thing unequivocally clear. Not a single penny will be spent from our Treasury for the 'Women's Wall',” Pinarayi Vijayan said while inaugurating the 'Navothana Sadassu' (Renaissance Gathering) organised by Kerala Secretariat Employees' Association here.
The chief minister continued. “Some are now trying to create a misunderstanding in the name of the High Court affidavit,” he said. “The affidavit speaks about the steps the government is taking for the welfare of women. The Rs 50 crore is for these activities, and not a single paise is meant for the 'Women's Wall,” he said.
However, the affidavit filed in the High Court makes it clear that the 'Women's Wall', like the IFFK, Kochi Biennale and Nehru Trophy, is a programme “conducted under the patronage or funding of the government”.
The affidavit goes on to say: “The government even funds programmes and uses its machinery in the conduct of several cultural programmes like Nehru Trophy, Kochi-Muziris Bienalle etc. which are being organised by private agencies or by various organisations. The 'Vanitha Mathil' (Women's Wall) is to be considered as one such campaign or event of the government for the empowerment of women and to bridge the gap of gender equality.”
Read together, the two lines mean that the 'Vanitha Mathil' is not just government-sponsored but can also be government-funded. The affidavit gives a clear hint that it is well within the government's right to spend from the Treasury for the 'Wall'. But the chief minister now insists that not a single paise of government money is meant for the 'Wall'. There is no such clarity in the affidavit.
Here is what a top source in the chief minister's office said. “What the chief minister meant was that the government had the right to spend the money for the 'wall' but would not.”
The question then is, why was this 'renunciation of right' not stated expressly in the affidavit. It should have been done because even before the affidavit was filed the chief minister had stated in the Assembly that government funds would not be used for the conduct of the 'Women's Wall'. Instead, the affidavit has left the issue of government funding open-ended.
After the chief minister's assertion in the Assembly in the last week of November, the opposition had pointed out to a circular issued by chief secretary Tom Jose. The circular said that the Finance Department would provide adequate funds for “spreading awareness about the event”.
“If no government funds will be used as the chief minister has assured the Assembly, will the government withdraw the chief secretary's circular,” opposition leader Ramesh Chenithala asked. The chief minister has not responded to this.