No freedom in sight for CPM as independents' struggle goes on in Malabar

Kozhikode: For decades, the CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala has relied on a distinctive electoral tactic in the politically sensitive Malabar belt; fielding “independent” candidates with roots in rival camps such as the Congress and the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML).

Designed to broaden social coalitions and penetrate opposition strongholds, this strategy once offered the LDF a flexible pathway to expand its influence beyond its traditional base. But as the state heads into another Assembly election, cracks in this approach are becoming increasingly visible. A steady flow of independent MLAs back to their original political homes, coupled with growing resistance within local party structures, has raised serious questions about the long-term viability of the CPM’s experiment.

This election season, in particular, has exposed the strain: delays in candidate selection, last-minute reshuffles, constituency swaps, and, in several cases, an apparent struggle to identify credible independent faces. Adding to the challenge, several former LDF-backed independent leaders have begun returning to their original political parties, further weakening the model’s credibility. The developments have triggered a broader debate on whether independent candidates have lost their electoral appeal or whether the LDF has failed to effectively integrate them into its political machinery.

Though the Left began experimenting with independent candidates as early as the 1957 Assembly election—fielding prominent figures such as V R Krishna Iyer in Thalassery—the strategy gained sharper focus in Malabar districts like Malappuram and Kozhikode. By fielding leaders who had broken away from rival parties, the LDF sought to attract minority voters hesitant to support candidates contesting under Communist party symbols. The approach delivered notable successes, including T K Hamza’s victory in the 2004 Lok Sabha election from Manjeri, a traditional IUML stronghold.

In the current election, the LDF has fielded 13 independent candidates, ten of them in Malabar, including six in Malappuram alone. However, unlike in previous elections, the front struggled to finalise candidates well in advance. When the first list of 91 candidates was announced, only six independents were named, reflecting the difficulty in identifying suitable faces.

The uncertainty was most visible in constituencies such as Tanur and Thavanur. Sports Minister V Abdurahiman initially expressed reluctance to contest, leading to confusion before he was shifted from Tanur to Tirur. Similarly, K T Jaleel had indicated his unwillingness but eventually agreed to contest following party insistence. In Kunnamangalam, sitting MLA P T A Raheem was once again fielded as an independent.

In several constituencies—including Mankada, Koduvalli, Kasaragod, Vallikkunnu, and Palakkad—the process of selecting independent candidates was marked by prolonged delays and last-minute changes. In Mankada, the CPM first chose A P Alavi but later withdrew his candidature to support Kunnath Muhammed, an IUML rebel, in a move aimed at maximising electoral prospects. The decision echoed earlier experiments in the constituency, notably in 2001 and 2006, when Manjalamkuzhi Ali won as an LDF-backed independent before eventually joining the IUML. P V Anvar, who had won Nilambur for the LDF as an independent candidate in 2016 and 2021 is now CPM's biggest foe.

Koduvalli witnessed similar turbulence. After prolonged discussions, the RJD leader Saleem Madavur was fielded as an independent candidate, prompting former LDF-backed MLA Karat Razack to return to the IUML, citing dissatisfaction with the treatment he received within the front. In Kasaragod, the candidature of former Congress leader Shanavas Padhoor had to be reshuffled amid concerns over minority vote fragmentation.

In Palakkad, the LDF opted for a non-party local businessman, NMR Razak, as its independent candidate against strong UDF and BJP contenders. Vallikkunnu, allotted to the Indian National League (INL), also saw delays before CP Musthafa was announced as an independent candidate.

The uncertainty extended to Tirur and Kottakkal, where former NCP leader N A Muhammed Kutty—initially considered for an LDF-backed independent candidature—was later sidelined. His decision to contest independently in both constituencies could potentially impact the LDF’s prospects.

In Nilambur, the exit of PV Anvar—once a prominent LDF-backed independent who later returned to the UDF—had earlier exposed the fragility of the model. The LDF has now fielded former footballer U Sharaf Ali in the constituency, while Anvar is contesting elsewhere against the CPM. His defection is widely seen as stemming from dissatisfaction over not being accommodated within the power structure, including denial of a ministerial position.

Political observers argue that the recent developments over the political stance of LDF backed independents reflect deeper organisational challenges of CPM and CPI. Writer and analyst M N Karassery notes that the LDF has struggled to accommodate leaders who join as independents, often triggering discontent among local party cadres. This internal friction, combined with perceptions of an electoral shift in favour of the UDF, has reduced the attractiveness of the independent route.

Political scientist G Gopakumar adds that the Left’s diminishing reformist image among sections of civil society has also made it harder to attract influential figures into its fold. While the independent candidate strategy once helped weaken the IUML’s hold in Malabar, sustaining that momentum has proved difficult. Even leaders who rose through this model now appear uneasy within the LDF’s political ecosystem, he added.