CPM supporters target DYFI, SFI leaders over Mammootty meeting; P Jayarajan’s appeal fails to stem backlash

Kannur: State leaders of SFI and DYFI -- the student and youth outfit of the CPM -- are facing a barrage of criticism from party supporters on social media after they posted videos and photographs of their meeting with Malayalam superstar Mammootty at his home.

The backlash has continued despite senior leader P Jayarajan’s appeal to supporters to stop. The anger, directed also at Mammootty, stems from a controversy over how the actor treated CPM Wayanad district secretary K Rafeeq during a visit to a rehabilitation township on March 7 in the run-up to the assembly election. Mammootty had asked Rafeeq to step aside, saying his constant presence beside the actor could give the impression that he had come at the party’s behest. The exchange went viral, putting the CPM in a spot and opening Mammootty to his first cyberattack from the Left base.

CPM supporters are now questioning why SFI and DYFI leaders were posing with an actor they believed had publicly humiliated their district secretary.

To be sure, Mammootty invited them against the backdrop of the protests they were leading across India, particularly in Delhi. Among those who met Mammootty at his house were DYFI state president Chintha Jerome; state secretary M Vijin, who is also the Kalliasseri MLA; and SFI state president M Sivaprasad, SFI state secretary Sajeev P S, and DYFI state treasurer R Rahul.

Despite the cyberattack, these leaders stood their ground, reposted photos and videos of their meeting with the 75-year-old actor, and explained their stance.

‘Is expressing disagreement a cyberattack?’
Jayarajan condemned the criticism in a social media post, saying the controversy around Rafeeq had been discussed and resolved and that the actor should not be subjected to continued abuse over it. He said Mammootty should not be confined to the identity of any political party and that meeting him should not be viewed through the prism of political divisions. The actor’s invitation to DYFI and SFI leaders, Jayarajan said, was recognition of their work and struggles for democracy and against saffronisation. “Whoever is leading such character assassination while claiming to represent the Left, this is not Left politics,” Jayarajan wrote. He also said Communist culture embraced art and artists.

But the intervention did little to ease the anger. Some supporters questioned who had actually settled the issue and whether Mammootty had publicly apologised. Others argued that senior leaders could not simply declare the matter closed and expect ordinary cadres to move on.

Binu Madhavan, a KSRTC employee and an active CPM supporter on social media, questioned whether the party had assessed the electoral damage caused by the episode in Wayanad. “Who resolved the issue? Did Mammootty express any regret?” he asked, questioning whether the controversy could be settled simply because senior leaders had intervened.

Vishnu Sathyan, a CPM member from Azhiyur, rejected the characterisation of the criticism as a cyberattack. “What cyberattack are you talking about? Is expressing disagreement now considered a cyberattack?” he wrote. “Just because you have put him (Mammootty) on a pedestal, are you saying we must all carry him on our shoulders too?”

Other critics questioned why Mammootty had not expressed solidarity with the causes in question publicly, rather than through private meetings. Shanoj P V wrote that solidarity should be declared before society, citing actor Prakash Raj as an example, rather than expressed by inviting leaders home.

Jagath Ramachandran, a former DYFI block committee office-bearer, said that the actor could have publicly posted a message supporting student and youth protests in Delhi. Instead, Ramachandran said, the photographs had hurt ordinary comrades who believed their district secretary had been publicly humiliated. “When someone has publicly humiliated one of our own, no matter how great or celebrated that person may be, you should understand how painful it is for ordinary comrades to see their leaders posing for photographs with that person and publicising them,” he wrote.

Some supporters said it was about loyalty to the movement. “Comrade Rafeeq is in the right. No matter how hard you try to whitewash it, the party was insulted,” one supporter wrote under Jayarajan's post.

‘The matter had already been resolved’
Sajeev P S, the SFI state secretary, defended the meeting, saying Mammootty had invited the organisation’s office-bearers and that the interaction was not merely for photographs. The group spent more than two hours at the actor’s residence, discussing politics, religion, culture, cinema, history and the future of Kerala, Sajeev said. He described the invitation as recognition of SFI’s interventions in Kerala and across the country. “If these comments are related to the issue involving the CPM Wayanad district secretary, that matter had already been resolved,” he wrote, adding that the Left should engage with artists and their contributions rather than confine them to the identity of a single political party.

MLA Vijin also defended the meeting, describing it as a democratic exchange of ideas. He said the controversy surrounding Mammootty’s visit to the Wayanad township should have ended after the actor and Rafeeq discussed the issue and resolved it.

Rafeeq’s appeal fails to end dispute
As the criticism continued, Rafeeq himself appealed to supporters to stop the arguments. He reiterated that the issue had been explained and settled. “If we recognise that the smiles of our dear ones whose lives have been devastated by the disaster mean more to us than anything else, what prevents us from setting aside our grievances and disputes and standing together?” he wrote.

Yet even under Rafeeq’s post, some users insisted that the matter could not be reduced to a personal disagreement between him and Mammootty. “It was not Rafeeq as an individual whom he insulted, but the CPM as a movement,” wrote Koyamu Kunnath under Rafeeq's post.

The persistence of the criticism, despite appeals from Jayarajan and Rafeeq, has exposed the difficulty party leaders face in persuading their supporters. After the party’s electoral rout, several leaders, including Pinarayi Vijayan, CPM state secretary M V Govindan, and Kannur District Secretary K K Ragesh, came under fire on social media from within its own ranks.