Kannur: Facing sustained criticism from its own cadre after the rout in the Kerala assembly elections, the CPM has now turned its focus to messages circulating on WhatsApp that blame mid-level party leaders in Payyannur for the defeat.

In a statement issued by the CPM’s Kannur district secretariat, the party claimed that messages targeting leaders over the Payyannur loss were being spread through fake accounts allegedly operated by the social media team of CPM whistleblower V Kunhikrishnan. CPM candidate T I Madhusoodanan lost to Kunhikrishnan, who was backed by the UDF, in the assembly elections in Payyannur constituency.

The statement, released by district secretary K K Ragesh, said false messages carrying photographs of party leaders were being circulated using phone numbers reportedly registered in places such as Bihar. The party described it as “character assassination,” and urged workers not to fall into the trap. The party said legal action had been initiated against those behind the campaign.

According to the CPM, the same fake accounts that allegedly carried out “cheap personal attacks” against LDF candidate Madhusoodanan during the campaign were now being used to target party leaders after the defeat.

But the statement drew immediate scrutiny, as much of the criticism against the leadership has come not from anonymous handles, but from known party workers posting under their real identities.

The Payyannur defeat was among the biggest shocks for the CPM in Kerala. In 2021, Madhusoodanan had secured 62.49% of the vote -- then the highest vote share polled by any candidate in the state. This time, he lost by 7,487 votes to Kunhikrishnan. Madhusoodanan’s vote share plunged by 18.15 percentage points, while Kunhikrishnan secured 49.14%.

Kunhikrishnan’s campaign revolved around one central allegation: that funds raised in 2016 for slain party worker C V Dhanaraj's family, for a party office in Payyannur, and later for the 2021 assembly election campaign, were misappropriated by Madhusoodanan. The allegation appeared to resonate with sections of the cadre.

Party leaders now say there is a sustained attempt to pin the defeat on a handful of mid-level leaders, including Payyannur area secretary P Santhosh.

However, when Ragesh shared the district secretariat’s statement on Facebook, he again came under attack from party supporters, much like he did after posting on result day on May 4. Many asked the leadership to first address criticism coming from genuine party workers before going after fake accounts.

A CPM supporter, Ahamed Teeyam, wrote: “There is enough criticism from genuine accounts themselves. Address that first before talking about fake IDs. We lost the votes of comrades. Those votes must be won back.” He also repeated calls for Ragesh and state secretary M V Govindan to step down.

Janakan Chandroth, a driver from Taliparamba, wrote: “Mine is not a fake ID. I am a CPM sympathiser. It is time the Kannur district leadership is overhauled.”

The comments reflected a growing mood among cadres that the leadership is focusing on anonymous accounts while ignoring criticism coming directly from its own base.

Meanwhile, Payyannur municipal councillor and rebel leader C Vaishak said blaming local leaders for the defeat was an attempt to avoid confronting the real message from the cadre. “Santhosh and others worked sincerely for the party and the candidate,” he said. “When I defeated the LDF candidate in the local body election, I thought the party would correct itself. It did not. Let’s see if it does now.”