'Shailaja a casualty of internal power rift, Shyamala's Taliparamba candidature led to backlash': CPM review meetings

Kollam/ Pathanamthitta: The district-level post-election review meetings of the CPM have laid bare the scale of discontent within the party. Members blamed the leadership style of Pinarayi Vijayan and M V Govindan, allegations of nepotism and the failure to address grassroots concerns for the electoral debacle.

The sharpest criticism emerged from the Kollam district committee, where members collectively demanded that Pinarayi Vijayan step down as Opposition leader and M V Govindan resign as party state secretary. Some even demanded that the party should remove the two leaders if they failed to step down voluntarily. Members also called for an immediate reorganisation of the state secretariat, alleging it failed to discharge its responsibilities effectively.

According to members, the election verdict reflected a wave against Pinarayi Vijayan and M V Govindan, not an anti-incumbency wave. Speakers argued that while a 61-year-old Chief Minister was set to govern Kerala, an 80-plus Pinarayi Vijayan should not continue as Opposition leader. They alleged he had become inaccessible to ordinary people and remarked that, in effect, the BJP parliamentary party leader would function as the Opposition leader.

The criticism, meanwhile, also turned into an indictment of the party leadership. Members said the leadership failed to realise that the era of authoritarian politics was over. According to them, Pinarayi Vijayan’s abrasive remarks and confrontational language alienated sections of the public and contributed significantly to the defeat. They also observed that people would not endorse every government action merely because it distributed a pension of ₹2,000.

A major point of contention was the growing perception of nepotism within the party. Members alleged that while former state secretary A Vijayaraghavan had fielded his wife R Bindu and later made her a minister, M V Govindan had now attempted a similar move by fielding his wife P K Shyamala. Some also alleged that one Politburo member was trying to elevate his son-in-law, while others were seeking ministerial positions for their wives. In this internal power struggle, they argued, K K Shailaja had become a casualty.

The Kollam meeting also witnessed criticism over the treatment meted out to Shailaja. Members alleged that resentment against her stemmed from the perception that she had secured more votes than Pinarayi Vijayan in previous elections. They further alleged that she was deliberately fielded in a losing constituency to prevent her from emerging either as Chief Minister or Leader of the Opposition. According to them, Govindan backed the move, hoping his wife could eventually secure a ministerial berth.

Members also revisited objections earlier raised by leaders such as G Sudhakaran over selectively granting exemptions from the party’s term norms to certain leaders while sidelining others on the same grounds. Instead of addressing such concerns politically, the leadership allegedly responded with arrogance. Participants remarked that after securing a second consecutive term in power, sections of the leadership had become increasingly driven by personal interests.

The Global Ayyappa Meet too came under criticism, with members arguing that the programme did not align with the CPI(M)’s political line. While there was nothing objectionable in Vellappally Natesan travelling in the Chief Minister’s car, members felt the leadership had erred in failing to respond to his controversial remarks. Objections were also raised over the reading out of a message from Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during the event.

Members further pointed out that the party had been steadily losing elections since 2021, even as the leadership repeatedly denied the existence of anti-incumbency sentiment. Some contrasted the CPM’s approach with that of the Congress high command, which they said had respected public sentiment while selecting a Chief Minister. In contrast, the CPM leadership was dismissing the people’s verdict with contempt.

The criticism surfaced in the presence of CPM Central Committee members K N Balagopal and Puthalath Dinesan, along with State Secretariat member K K Jayachandran. Discussions are set to continue on Sunday.

Veena George under fire in Pathanamthitta
The Pathanamthitta district committee meeting too witnessed strong criticism, particularly against Veena George. Members alleged that her defeat in Aranmula was largely self-inflicted. According to them, she rarely answered calls, even from party workers and unnecessarily drew herself into controversies.

Members also criticised the public conduct of the Chief Minister and ministers, saying the leadership increasingly appeared disconnected from ordinary people. The perception that ministers expected the public merely to listen to them fuelled anti-government sentiment, they observed. Several members argued that the inability of ministers to understand public concerns had directly contributed to the electoral setback.

Leaders also remarked that K K Shailaja had been `sacrificed' in Peravoor because of ego issues and said the `brave' Pinarayi Vijayan himself should have contested from the constituency instead.

The meeting assessed that only changes beginning at the grassroots level could help the party recover its lost image. Otherwise, Kerala could eventually witness a situation similar to the CPM’s decline in West Bengal. Organisational failures at multiple levels also came under criticism.

The meeting was attended by T M Thomas Isaac, Saji Cherian and C S Sujatha. During the discussions, Thomas Isaac reportedly clarified that Pinarayi Vijayan had not been `imposed' as Opposition leader from above.

Sources indicated that Veena George responded sharply after criticism against her intensified. She reportedly said she had informed the district leadership earlier that she was unwilling to contest, but her stand was ignored. Veena also alleged that rumours were deliberately spread suggesting that Omalloor Shankaran had been removed as mandalam secretary because she lacked confidence in him, even though he had stepped down voluntarily. According to her, the controversy created confusion among voters.

Ernakulam committee flags minority alienation
At the Ernakulam district committee meeting, members criticised what they described as authoritarian functioning by sections of the leadership, including in candidate selection, blaming it for the party’s complete defeat in the district.

Members also pointed out that the party had failed to firmly reject the communal remarks made by Vellappally Natesan. According to them, the silence maintained by the Chief Minister and the party secretary had created doubts among minority communities about the party’s anti-communal credentials.

Criticism over lack of clarity in party messaging
The Kannur district committee meeting witnessed criticism against the manner in which the state secretary explained party decisions before the media. Members observed that several issues were not being communicated in a manner that people could clearly understand and that some explanations had ended up sounding ridiculous.

The meeting also noted that ignoring objections raised against the candidature of P K Shyamala in Taliparamba had proved politically costly. The party cadre and sympathisers felt that the candidate had been imposed on them.

CPI district council targets Binoy Viswam
Meanwhile, the CPI district council meeting in Alappuzha witnessed criticism against CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam, with members alleging that he had emerged as a weak leader. Speakers also criticised the second Pinarayi Vijayan government, saying it lacked a Left-oriented character and often displayed authoritarian tendencies.

Members observed that Binoy Viswam’s positions lacked the clarity and political weight associated with former state secretaries. Criticism was also raised over the party’s handling of the ASHA workers’ protest, with members arguing that the leadership should have taken a stand much earlier instead of reacting only after the electoral defeat. According to them, this had made the party appear weak and directionless in the public sphere.