‘Cannot be brushed aside’: Mahila Congress chief backs Adoor Prakash's criticism of Satheesan

Kochi: The simmering differences within the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) have widened, with Mahila Congress state president and MP Jebi Mather openly backing UDF Convener Adoor Prakash’s criticism of Chief Minister and UDF chairman V D Satheesan over the alleged lack of consultation in key decisions.

Mather’s intervention assumes significance as Prakash’s open expression of discontent had initially centred on Satheesan’s functioning as CM and the manner in which important decisions were being taken without adequate consultation within the UDF. Her public endorsement of his concerns has now given the controversy a wider organisational dimension within the Congress.

“Adoor Prakash is a very senior leader. He shared his own experiences. He has every right to speak out and say that matters ought not to be learned through the media. What he said cannot be brushed aside at all,” Mather told the media.

Prakash had publicly questioned why decisions involving the UDF were being communicated through the media rather than discussed through the front’s established mechanisms. He had particularly objected to not being consulted on key appointments, while making it clear that his objection was not against the individuals appointed.

The UDF convener has also raised concerns over the absence of regular meetings of the front since the new government assumed office, arguing that the chairman and convener need to function through proper consultation.

Mather, while backing Prakash, also highlighted what she described as a similar lack of consultation within the Congress organisation.

She said the Mahila Congress had been repeatedly seeking a meeting of the KPCC Executive Committee for three months without a response.

“For the past three months, specifically since July, August, and September, in my capacity as the State President of Mahila Congress, I have been continuously demanding that a KPCC Executive meeting be convened. I have submitted this demand to the KPCC President personally, over the phone, by email, and via letter,” she said.

The statement puts the Mahila Congress’ organisational grievance alongside Prakash’s complaint about the functioning of the UDF, strengthening the perception of wider discontent over consultation and decision-making within the state Congress.

Asked whether such issues should have been raised internally rather than in public, Mather maintained that she was continuing to pursue the matter through the party’s internal mechanisms.

She said it was the responsibility of the KPCC leadership to convene the executive committee and asserted that the demand would continue to be pursued.

Meanwhile, KPCC general secretary Deepthi Mary Varghese, who tried to downplay the issue, has supported Prakash’s right to raise the issue, arguing that criticism and disagreement have historically been part of the Congress’s democratic culture.

“Constructive discussions and criticisms that do not harm the party or disrupt its functioning have always existed in the Congress across all eras. The party provides the democratic freedom to raise questions and criticisms before the leadership. In the past, even during the chief ministerships of K Karunakaran and Oommen Chandy, the KSU, Youth Congress, and senior leaders have voiced sharp criticisms, and it is a natural process,” Varghese said.

She said Prakash was raising questions over the lack of consultation regarding two important appointments and added that if the UDF convener remained uninformed about developments, the chairman, convener and AICC general secretary should sit together and discuss the matter.

At the same time, Varghese said disagreements should ultimately be resolved within the party.

Her intervention is also significant against the backdrop of her earlier differences with Satheesan over the Kochi Corporation mayoral candidacy, when she had expressed dissatisfaction over the handling of the issue.

What began as Prakash’s public criticism of the functioning of the UDF has now developed into a broader discussion within the Congress over internal consultation and decision-making.