The controversy has exposed the simmering ideological and operational differences within the Left coalition, raising uncomfortable questions for its leadership.
Published Oct 25, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 25, 2025 | 9:00 AM
CPI State Secretary Binoy Viswam (left) was unequivocal in his criticism of the decision.
Synopsis: Kerala’s Left Democratic Front has been thrown into turmoil after the State government signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Centre to implement the PM SHRI scheme, despite long-standing Left opposition to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which is mandatory under the scheme. While the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has defended the move as a pragmatic step to unlock frozen central funds, the Communist Party of India, the second-largest partner in the coalition, has condemned it as a breach of coalition norms. The rift has further fuelled questions about Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s leadership style.
The decision of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government in Kerala to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Centre for implementing the Prime Minister Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) scheme has triggered one of the sharpest internal storms within the ruling coalition in recent years.
While Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] State Secretary MV Govindan and Education Minister V Sivankutty have justified the move as a pragmatic and financial necessity, the Communist Party of India (CPI), the LDF’s second-largest partner, has termed it a “violation of front etiquette” and an “unusual heist.”
The controversy has exposed the simmering ideological and operational differences within the Left coalition, raising uncomfortable questions for its leadership.
“EMS used to say that whenever Malayala Manorama or Mathrubhumi [Malayalam dailies that usually criticise the Left] praised him, he knew something was wrong. In this case, we can see who praised the MoU first – the RSS, BJP, and ABVP” – CPI State Secretary Binoy Viswam.
Govindan on Friday, 24 October defended the government’s decision, saying that while the party continues to oppose both the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the PM SHRI scheme, administrative compulsions sometimes require decisions that may not fully align with the LDF’s ideological position.
“CPI(M) is against NEP 2020 and PM SHRI. We have opposed it yesterday, we oppose it today, and we will continue to do so tomorrow. But we must also consider the other side,” he said, citing financial constraints as the main factor. He pointed out that the Centre owes Kerala nearly ₹8,000 crore, much of which remains frozen under various stipulations.
“This freezing of funds is not limited to education. It extends to industries, health, social justice, and other sectors. Different departments, at different points in time, have had to enter into such agreements to get funds released,” he said.
Govindan stressed that the LDF government’s role is not to implement Left policies in letter and spirit but to make pragmatic administrative decisions in the interest of governance. He, however, assured that the CPI’s concerns would be discussed within the front.
“Without any prejudiced mind, the front will deliberate and move forward together,” he added, downplaying the rift.
Echoing Govindan, Education Minister V Sivankutty described the decision as a financial necessity to reclaim over ₹1,158 crore withheld by the Union government after Kerala initially refused to join the scheme.
“This government will not allow any move to destroy Kerala’s public education sector, nor lose even a single rupee our children deserve,” Sivankutty asserted.
He said that signing the MoU would enable Kerala to recover ₹1,400.76 crore, including arrears and fresh funds, for programmes directly benefiting 40 lakh students – among them 5.6 lakh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students and 18,000 differently-abled children.
Rejecting claims that the move amounts to endorsing the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, Sivankutty insisted that the decision was “purely technical.”
“What’s the issue with NEP? In the name of opposing it, why should we lose crores meant for our children?” he asked, adding that Kerala’s curriculum and textbooks would remain unchanged, continuing to promote secular and scientific values.
Calling the move “a fight for federalism,” he said: “We are protecting our children, not surrendering our values. This is not submission – it is survival with self-respect.”
He also stressed that he had revised his earlier stance on the NEP, which he had strongly opposed, after discussions with the Union Ministry.
CPI State Secretary Binoy Viswam was unequivocal in his criticism of the decision.
“Why this unusual heist, and for what?” he asked, accusing the government of bypassing coalition protocols and keeping allies in the dark.
Viswam said the decision was taken without any discussion in the Cabinet or within the LDF, despite the PM SHRI proposal having appeared twice on the Cabinet agenda—on 4 December 2024, and 9 April 2025—and being consciously deferred for a policy-level decision.
“An official goes to Delhi in an unnatural rush and signs without discussion, deliberation, or policy decision,” Viswam said.
“Even CPI ministers in the Cabinet were unaware. In the last Cabinet meeting, when CPI ministers raised the matter, there was no clear answer. A Cabinet minister exercised his right to ask what was going on – and no one responded. Is this how a coalition functions? Where is the collective responsibility of the Cabinet? This is not how a Left government should function,” he said.
He added that the CPI had formally conveyed its displeasure to the LDF convener and other allies, and would take up the issue at the party’s State Executive meeting in Alappuzha on 27 October.
“After that we will decide our stance,” he added.
Recalling a remark by EMS Namboodiripad, Viswam said, “EMS used to say that whenever Malayala Manorama or Mathrubhumi [Malayalam dailies that usually criticise the Left] praised him, he knew something was wrong. In this case, we can see who praised the MoU first – the RSS, BJP, and ABVP. That itself shows something is not right.”
Earlier, in a letter to the CPI central leadership, the State Secretary alleged that there was a “conspiratorial move” behind the signing of the MoU.
Social and political commentator Joseph C Mathew was scathing in his assessment of Govindan and Sivankutty’s explanations.
“My take on Govindan’s remarks is that he speaks to obfuscate while Sivankutty speaks directly. The reality is that even the CPI(M) State Secretary was kept in the dark during the MoU signing,” Mathew told South First.
“If the Left government can’t implement Left policies, then why is it in power? Can you guillotine your ideals and values on the altar of money? This stance sounds the death knell of Communism. Through this signing, they have also disowned their own student and youth wings that opposed NEP and PM SHRI.”
Left commentator NM Pearson offered a more nuanced view but acknowledged the damage caused by the lack of transparency.
“While it’s true that a government cannot implement every ideological position of its front, the CPI(M) should have taken the CPI and the public into confidence,” Pearson told South First.
“Why they kept everyone in the dark is the real question. This shows a lack of ideological credibility and has resulted in fissures within the Left that may take time to heal.”
While the controversy has exposed a deep tension between ideology and governance within the Kerala Left, it has also revealed a thinly veiled strike at Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
The CPI’s complaint that its ministers were kept in the dark can be read as a direct challenge to Pinarayi’s increasingly unilateral style of decision-making – a grievance that has quietly circulated among both coalition partners and sections within the CPI(M) itself.
Political analysts note that the CPI’s statement is significant not just for its content, but for its timing and tone.
Coming from within the Left’s own ranks, the criticism points to growing discomfort with the Chief Minister’s perceived command-and-control approach – one that leaves little room for consultation or dissent.
As one local CPI leader put it, “The CPI State Secretary didn’t have to name Pinarayi. The subtext was loud enough – decisions are being made by one man, and the rest are expected to nod.”
For now, both parties insist that the LDF’s unity remains intact.
But beneath those assurances lies a growing unease – one that raises questions about whether the Left in Kerala can continue to walk the tightrope between pragmatism and principle without losing its balance.
As one senior Left leader admitted privately, “This is not just about PM SHRI – it’s about how far we can stretch our ideology in the name of governance before it starts to tear.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
