Thiruvananthapuram, Aug 29 (PTI) IUML national vice president K P A Majeed praising the CPI, which is locked in a dispute with its LDF ally CPI(M) over the deputy Leader of Opposition post in the Keralam Assembly, triggered political discussions in the state on Saturday.
Majeed’s positive remarks about the Opposition party were interpreted by a section of the media as an invitation to the CPI to join the Congress-led UDF, prompting senior IUML leaders P K Kunhalikutty and P M A Salam to clarify that no such offer had been made.
In an article published in the IUML mouthpiece ‘Chandrika’, Majeed accused the CPI(M) of behaving like a “big brother” in the Left Democratic Front (LDF).
He said anyone with even a basic understanding of Keralam politics, other than CPI(M) supporters, would reject the notion that CPI leaders were merely subservient to the CPI(M) and blindly followed its dictates.
Majeed said the CPI had its own distinct identity in the history of modern Keralam, beyond electoral victories and defeats.
“After the Communist Party split, the CPI remained in power for decades, including holding the chief minister’s post and continuing in government, even without the CPI(M),” he said.
He alleged that the CPI was pushed to the “verandah” after it became trapped in the CPI(M)’s political web.
Majeed said the period of the C Achutha Menon-led government, when the Muslim League, CPI and Congress had joined hands to govern Keralam, laid the foundation for the state’s development.
“It was during that period the much-acclaimed Keralam model in the fields of education and healthcare took shape,” he said, adding that the CPI(M) was the only party that chose to ignore this reality.
He said that even after the Muslim League and CPI moved out of the earlier political arrangement and the CPI joined hands with the CPI(M), the two parties had engaged in healthy criticism and dialogue but had never adopted an approach aimed at undermining each other’s dignity.
Majeed also said the UDF was neither threatened nor concerned by whether any particular party or individual joined or stayed away from it.
He claimed that the 100-day rule of Chief Minister V D Satheesan-led government had demonstrated that the UDF was the “real Left” in Keralam.
“The CPI, at least, cannot fail to understand that merely putting the LDF label does not make a Left-wing,” he said.
However, Salam rejected the suggestion that Majeed’s article amounted to an invitation to the CPI to join the UDF.
“Majeed only pointed out the neglect being faced by the CPI in the LDF,” Salam told the media in Malappuram.
He said discussions of such a possibility would arise only if the CPI decided to leave the LDF, and that the CPI itself had to take a decision on how to deal with the crisis it was facing.
“There is no foundation left for the LDF to collapse. At present, the UDF has not invited any political party in Keralam. Majeed has not said in the article that the CPI should come to the UDF. Such a discussion will become relevant only if the CPI decides to leave the alliance and cooperate with the UDF,” Salam said.
Kunhalikutty also played down the possibility of the article being viewed as a formal invitation.
“Majeed has just opened the issue. Let discussions take place in this regard,” he said.
He said it was not a one-sided issue and that the CPI too would have to take a decision.
“What Majeed said was from an academic point of view. The period when the CPI, Congress and Muslim League were together was a good period,” Kunhalikutty said.
With the matter triggering speculation and reactions, Majeed himself came up with a clarification that his article was not intended to demand that the CPI return to the UDF.
“My article was not written with a demand that the CPI should return to the UDF. I am not the person to say that the CPI should return to the UDF. That is for the UDF to decide,” he told reporters in Malappuram.
Majeed said they were aware of the difficulties faced by the CPI in the current political situation, but maintained that it was for the Left party itself to decide how to address them, adding that the IUML had no intention of interfering in its internal affairs.
The IUML leader said he had only expressed solidarity with the CPI in its “present pitiable situation”.
“All I did was stand with the CPI in its present pitiable situation. There is nothing else in the article,” he said.
The article and reactions come at a time amid an ongoing war of words between leaders of CPI and CPI(M) over the deputy LoP post in the Keralam Assembly.
Last week, Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan had rejected the CPI’s demand for the deputy LoP post, saying the position would go to a CPI(M) leader.
He said appointing a deputy LoP only required him to send a letter to the Assembly Speaker and that there was no doubt that the name recommended by him would be that of a CPI(M) leader.
CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam had strongly criticised Vijayan’s remarks, saying they were unbecoming of the position he held.
“No leader has the right to put a price on the CPI’s pride. This is a matter of dispute and has been kept aside for discussions between the two parties,” Viswam had said.
In an article in the party mouthpiece ‘Janayugam’, senior CPI leader Sathyan Mokeri termed Vijayan’s remarks a “complete violation of coalition etiquette” and said they reflected a lack of political ethics expected in alliance politics.
CPI(M) leader and former minister V Sivankutty, however, hit back at the CPI and Mokeri, saying airing differences within the alliance through the media was against political etiquette.
Sivankutty defended Vijayan’s stand as “completely democratic” and based on practical political considerations. He also accused the CPI of insulting the Leader of Opposition through the article. PTI LGK KH
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.