It is now clear the CPI(M) will not tolerate questions that would put Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena Vijayan in the dock.
A demonstration of this was evident on Monday when CPM state secretary M V Govindan walked out of a press meet the CPM itself had called the moment a question about the Chief Minister's daughter recieving a monthly payout from a mining firm came up. Govindan did not even bother to listen to the question.
Just when there was a mention of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, Govindan stood up and walked out saying "enough". "I have no intention of clarifying anything," is how he responded to a flurry of back to back questions posed by reporters on his way out.
It now looks like the written statement of the CPM State Secretariat, unprecedented in the way it defended the daughter of a party leader, would be the last word from the party's side. The statement, which was released on August 10, had said that the "monthly bribe" controversy was a fake propaganda unleashed with an eye on the Puthupally bye-election.
The Income Tax Settlement Board had found that Veena Vijayan and her company Exalogic Solutions received Rs 5 lakh and Rs 3 lakh a month respectively for three years from 2017, a total of Rs 1.72 crore. The CPM, on its part, contradicted the order and said the money was received annually and not monthly.
The IT Board's order said that Exalogic had signed an agreement with Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) to provide marketing consultancy and software services. However, the investigation revealed that no such services were rendered and yet the payments to Veena and Exalogic were made without fail.
The CPM called the agreement a "legal" one entered into by two companies functioning well within the bounds of law. It also said that the money said to be paid to Veena was transferred through a bank, suggesting it was a bonafide legal transfer.
Nonetheless, the CPM has still not responded to the most critical observation in the order of the quasi-judicial body that Veena and her company had not provided any marketing or consultancy services for which the money was given.
The CPM termed the IT Settlement Board order a conspiracy. "Veena was not party to the case and her version was not taken. There was a conspiracy to link her to the case with a clear political motive," the CPM statement said. Fact is, the CMRL had failed to provide any proof of services rendered by Exalogic.
Still, the CPM statement said that the functioning of Veena's consulting company was "transparent". The CPM also called this victimisation. It said this was part of the Centre's attempt to use central investigating agencies to trap leaders of the opposition.
Truth is, the CPM statement defending Veena has become redundant in a way. New developments had taken place after it was issued on August 10.
One, Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan called a press conference at the KPCC office in Thiruvananthapuram and said that PWD Minister P A Mohammad Riyas had not declared the money Veena Vijayan had received from CMRL in his election affidavit. Even the CPM has no case that she had not received the money.
Two, Governor Arif Mohammad Khan had taken serious note of the issue. He said if need be he would even seek an explanation from the Chief Minister. The Governor also said that this was not a mere allegation but a finding by a quasi-judicial body.
Had the CPM state secretary sat through the press conference, he would have faced questions about both Riyas and the Governor.
There is also the pointed question as to whether KSIDC, which holds 13.41 per cent stake in the CMRL, would go to court against the company. Such a question, too, would have been politically inconvenient to Govindan.
