In an exclusive conversation with South First, KK Rema sheds light on the current political turmoil in Kerala, offering insights into her vision and the broader implications for the state's political future.
Published Sep 11, 2024 | 3:52 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 10, 2024 | 9:25 PM
In an exclusive conversation with South First, KK Rema sheds light on the current political turmoil in Kerala.
A vocal critic of the current LDF government in Kerala, KK Rema feels that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan adopted a dictatorial style of governance and his fall was imminent.
Her rise to prominence in Kerala’s political landscape represents a significant shift in the state’s legislative dynamics.
As the first MLA from the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP), a party founded in 2008 by former CPI(M) dissidents, Rema’s success is more than a personal victory — it reflects the evolving political currents in Kerala.
Her journey, marked by resilience and transformation from the widow of TP Chandrasekharan to a formidable political leader, underscores the shifting sentiments and demands of Kerala’s electorate.
In an interview with South First, KK Rema sheds light on the current political turmoil in Kerala, offering insights into her vision and the broader implications for the state’s political future.
Q: You have spoken about the internal struggles and criticisms faced within the CPI(M), which ultimately led to the formation of the RMP. Can you elaborate on the circumstances that compelled you and your late husband, TP Chandrasekharan, to leave CPI(M) and the challenges you faced afterwards? How did the CPI(M)’s response to RMP’s growing public acceptance shape your political journey, and what message does this send about the party’s approach to internal dissent?
A: History often reveals itself in layers, especially when you work closely within a political party like the CPI(M). We could clearly observe the changes and malpractices occurring within the party, which compelled us to raise our voices against the leadership’s actions — actions that were completely contrary to the principles of a true communist or comrade. However, the leadership was not interested in correcting its course. Despite our repeated efforts, we were eventually forced to leave the party. My husband, TP Chandrasekharan, left the CPI(M) in 2008 for the very same reasons.
The party’s response to our dissent was severe and cruel. RMP workers were subjected to attacks, and each of us endured immense suffering to sustain the party. There was a rigid, unwarranted rule within CPI(M) that criticism must only be voiced in internal meetings and not publicly. The leadership believed they could suppress dissent by keeping it hidden, but they were mistaken. Our efforts to correct the party’s direction were noticed by the public, and the RMP gained significant acceptance, which greatly disturbed the CPI(M).
In an attempt to silence this growing acceptance, the leadership targeted us. On 4 May, 2012, my husband, the backbone of RMP, was brutally assassinated, his body bearing 51 wounds. This tragic event marked a turning point in Kerala politics, bringing unforeseen challenges to the CPI(M).
Despite this, we did not succumb to fear. The RMP continues to fight for justice and uphold its ideals, demonstrating that true political change can arise from the courage to challenge wrongdoing, even within one’s own party.
Q: PV Anvar, a strong leader within the LDF and a known CPI(M) associate, recently pointed out serious malpractices publicly, specifically targeting the political secretary, P Sasi. What does this signify for the CPI(M)?
A: Anvar’s public allegations against P Sasi, who is the Chief Minister’s political secretary, indicate a significant internal conflict within the CPI(M). Anvar’s criticisms are not just minor disagreements but suggest deeper issues within the party, including accusations of connections with the BJP, involvement in gold smuggling, and controversial ties with high-ranking police officials.
This kind of open criticism from within the party showcases a growing anti-communist and anti-Marxist sentiment among some members, hinting at a potential deterioration in the party’s cohesion and credibility.
It’s a clear sign that the CPI(M) is facing internal challenges that could threaten its unity and control, and this is the beginning of the party’s decline.
Q: One of the key allegations raised by Anvar was accusing Sasi of acting as an intermediary for the BJP and having controversial connections. What does this mean for the CPI(M)’s leadership and its relationship with the administration?
A: The allegations against P Sasi by Anvar are highly significant because the role of the political secretary is crucial in bridging the CPI(M) and the state administration. Appointed by the CPI(M) state committee, the political secretary’s job is to ensure that party directives are followed in government decisions.
However, if these allegations hold any weight, it undermines the very purpose of this position and question the CPI(M)’s control over administrative actions.
The accusations imply a breach of party loyalty and suggest that external influences, possibly from the BJP, are at play within the administration. This situation exposes a vulnerability in the CPI(M)’s governance structure and could be a serious blow to the party’s image and operational integrity.
Q: Why has the CPI(M) leadership remained silent on the serious allegations raised by Anvar, and what does this indicate about the party’s current state?
A: The silence of the CPI(M) leadership on Anvar’s allegations suggests a troubling shift in the party’s values. Critics argue that the CPIM, once seen as a party of the people, now operates more like a public limited company where business interests wield significant influence.
The leadership’s reluctance to confront Anvar, despite similar past actions against dissenters like Chandrasekharan, highlights an inconsistency.
The allegation is that Anvar, a businessman, has significant control over the party in Nilambur, indicating that CPI(M)’s governance is being compromised by personal and business interests.
Q: What does the CM’s inaction on allegations against ADGP Ajith Kumar and the CPI(M)’s distancing from these issues reveal about the relationship between the government and the party?
A: The CPI(M) distancing itself from allegations against ADGP Ajith Kumar and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s lack of response to these issues suggests a disconnect between the party and the government. CPI(M) State Secretary MV Govindan’s statement that the party has no connection with these allegations raises questions about the influence and accountability within the administration.
This separation between the CPI(M) and the state government, suggests that the party is losing control over its own leadership and governance, creating a scenario where the government and the party appear to be traveling in different directions.
Pinarayi Vijayan has increasingly adopted a dictatorial style, reminiscent of Modi, while the CPI(M) seems to have strayed far from its communist roots — a point that the RMP had highlighted years ago.
Q: Hemanth Soren, Arvind Kejriwal, K Kavitha — there are numerous examples of leaders being targeted for opposing Narendra Modi. Is Pinarayi Vijayan also afraid of facing a similar fate?
A: It’s evident that Pinarayi Vijayan has deep connections with BJP and Narendra Modi. Look at the facts, Pinarayi Vijayan doesn’t seem to face any serious backlash from Modi, unlike other Opposition leaders. This isn’t a coincidence. it’s a clear indication of their strong ties.
One of the most serious allegations raised by Anvar was about the secret meeting between an ADGP and an RSS leader. When such meetings happen, the chief minister is informed through intelligence reports, so he knew about this meeting.
But why did he stay silent? Why didn’t he question it? This silence from the CM speaks volumes about the BJP-CPIM ties. There’s a political deal between them.
Q: What evidence suggests there was a political deal between CPI(M) and BJP? what should the CPI do in this situation?
A: Look at the way the ADGP intervened during the Thrissur Pooram. His actions disrupted the event, creating chaos that ultimately benefited the BJP, helping them secure their first Lok Sabha seat in Kerala. And what did CPI(M) do? They betrayed their own ally, CPI, and VS Sunil Kumar, just to appease their new friends. This was a clear political strategy, and it’s shameful.
I question why the CPI continues to remain in the LDF when it’s clear they’re being sidelined and betrayed. It’s time for the CPI to break away from this alliance.
They are standing by a party that has no qualms about making deals with the BJP behind their backs. They need to realise that staying in the LDF only damages their credibility and goes against the principles they claim to uphold.
Q: U Prathibha MLA has courageously come forward to support Anvar, alongside KT Jaleel MLA. But where are our so-called ‘strong’ figures like PK Sreemathy and KK Shailaja? Why do they remain silent?
A: There is a clear split within the CPI(M), with top leaders reluctant to voice opposition against Pinarayi Vijayan. Despite holding high positions in the party, they fear losing their leadership and stronghold if they challenge him.
This contrasts sharply with the past when Pinarayi Vijayan, as the party secretary, openly opposed the government led by then-chief minister VS Achuthanandan.
Today, Pinarayi has been elevated to a near-dictatorial position within the party, a situation created and enabled by the CPI(M) itself. A people-friendly leader like VS Achuthanandan was sidelined by Pinarayi, who has become increasingly authoritarian.
However, history has shown that every dictator faces a downfall, and Pinarayi Vijayan will be no exception. His fall will not only be his but also that of the CPI(M), which is already heading toward a more pitiful state. When Pinarayi collapses, he may very well take the party down with him.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil)
(South First is now on WhatsApp and Telegram)
