The CPI, historically the LDF’s conscience-keeper, now finds itself increasingly reduced to a passenger in a bus driven solely by the CPI(M).
Published Oct 26, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 26, 2025 | 12:07 PM
CPI State Secretary Binoy Viswam (left) and his CPI(M) counterpart MV Govindan.
Synopsis: Over the past decade — from the euphoric dawn of Pinarayi Vijayan’s first term in 2016 to the fiscal tightrope walk of 2025 — the CPI(M) has repeatedly overridden the reservations of its junior ally, the CPI, on key policy decisions.
In Kerala’s Left Democratic Front (LDF), history seems to be repeating itself — only the characters have changed.
Sixteen years after CPI’s then state secretary Veliyam Bhargavan thundered that “there was no meaning to a Front when one partner bullies the other into submission,” another party secretary, Binoy Viswam, finds himself echoing the same frustration of his predecessor.
The faces have changed, but the sentiment hasn’t — the CPI(M) still stands accused of playing the big brother.
Over the past decade — from the euphoric dawn of Pinarayi Vijayan’s first term in 2016 to the fiscal tightrope walk of 2025 — the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] has repeatedly overridden the reservations of its junior ally, the Communist Party of India (CPI), on key policy decisions.
These are not minor ideological tiffs. They are seismic rifts that question whether Kerala’s much-lauded “alternative model” of governance can survive its internal contradictions as the 2026 Assembly elections approach.
The CPI, historically the LDF’s conscience-keeper, as one Left leader puts it, now finds itself increasingly reduced to a passenger in a bus driven solely by the CPI(M).
The phrase most frequently whispered in Left circles today — “Big Brother attitude” — captures this dynamic perfectly.
The first tremors appeared in late 2016, when reports emerged of alleged extrajudicial killings of Maoists in Nilambur, Malappuram.
The CPI condemned what it saw as state excesses and a betrayal of Left humanist values. “This is not the path of the proletariat,” thundered CPI leaders in internal forums, demanding accountability and a judicial inquiry.
But the CPI(M), prioritising “law and order optics” in a Maoist-sensitive region, brushed off the concerns as “opportunistic moralising.” No inquiry followed.
The CPI’s protests dissolved into silence — a pattern that would repeat itself across subsequent controversies.
A defining moment came in November 2017 when four CPI ministers — E. Chandrasekharan, P. Thilothaman, V.S. Sunil Kumar, and K. Raju — abstained from a Cabinet meeting protesting the continuation of Minister Thomas Chandy, accused of land grab.
Chief Minister Vijayan’s displeasure was palpable, but CPI stood firm — a rare instance of open defiance from within.
During the pandemic years (2020–2022), the CPI again found itself at odds with the CPI(M)’s governance choices.
As Kerala’s famed public health system creaked under Covid-19 pressure, the CPI(M) celebrated its welfare outreach as proof of the “Kerala model.” The CPI, however, sounded alarms over labour policies that privileged economic revival over worker protection.
In 2021, when the government eased hiring norms to boost tourism and IT, CPI trade unions protested, calling it “a backdoor to exploitation.”
The CPI(M)-controlled Labour Department dismissed the objections as “unrealistic” amid a revenue deficit exceeding ₹30,000 crore. Monitoring committees were promised, but reforms stood.
By 2022, the “Big Brother” whispers had grown louder — echoing from Alappuzha’s toddy shops to Kannur’s weaving sheds.
The LDF’s near-wipeout in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections — winning just one seat — deepened the fissures. CPI’s post-poll introspection was scathing.
Leaders blamed the CPI(M)-affiliated Students’ Federation of India (SFI) for “campus thuggery” that alienated young voters, and criticised the government’s focus on anti-BJP rhetoric over unemployment, which hovered around 7.4%.
But the CPI(M), still reeling from the defeat, doubled down on confrontation, launching statewide protests against the Union Budget’s “anti-Kerala bias.”
The CPI joined reluctantly, its concerns over local grievances ignored once again.
In February 2025, the CPI erupted after the government cleared a brewery in drought-hit Elappully, Palakkad.
Backed by environmentalists and locals, the CPI warned of groundwater depletion. “This is corporate greed masquerading as development,” its leaders charged.
Despite two CPI executive resolutions against the project, the CPI(M)-led cabinet went ahead, citing employment and revenue prospects. CPI protests were drowned out by an administrative decree.
“We were overruled — again,” CPI leaders said then.
April brought more discomfort when the SFIO probe into Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL) implicated Chief Minister Vijayan’s daughter, T Veena.
The CPI distanced itself, with leaders saying, “Unconditional support is not blind loyalty.”
The latest rupture came when the state government quietly signed up for the Centre’s PM SHRI scheme, unlocking ₹1,446 crore for school upgrades — but effectively aligning with the National Education Policy (NEP) that the LDF had previously boycotted as “saffronisation.”
CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam called it a “backdoor route” to impose the RSS-driven NEP. “We cannot oppose NEP on one hand and accept PM SHRI on the other,” he declared.
CPI ministers voiced dissent in Cabinet meetings. But the CPI(M)-led Cabinet went ahead. Viswam fumed: “This is a brazen violation of coalition ethics.”
The row publicly exposed what insiders long whispered — the CPI’s waning clout within the LDF.
The CPI has never shied away from locking horns with its dominant ally, the CPI(M), when it sensed an overreach.
From the days of Veliyam Bhargavan to the present leadership of Binoy Viswam, the CPI has repeatedly asserted that ideological solidarity should not come at the cost of political subservience.
Each state secretary in the party’s modern history has, in his own way, challenged the CPI(M)’s attempts to monopolise decision-making within the LDF.
Back in 2009, during Veliyam Bhargavan’s tenure (1998–2010), tensions flared over the Ponnani Lok Sabha seat. When the CPI(M) unilaterally announced an independent candidate without consulting allies, Bhargavan hit back, warning that the CPI could pull its ministers out of the LDF.
“We just can’t allow CPI(M)’s decisions alone to go ahead,” he thundered, setting a precedent for internal dissent within the coalition.
C.K. Chandrappan, who succeeded him (2010–2012), continued that legacy of defiance during the SNC-Lavalin controversy.
As the CPI(M) rallied behind its leader, Pinarayi Vijayan, then facing allegations of corruption, Chandrappan took a principled stand, demanding prosecution and calling the CPI(M)’s defence “a betrayal of anti-corruption ideals.”
His stance reaffirmed CPI’s commitment to ethical politics, even when it meant confronting the leadership of its own front. When Panniyan Raveendran took charge (2012–2015), the battleground shifted to the LDF’s political inclusivity.
He strongly opposed the move to induct Kerala Congress (M) leader K.M. Mani into the front, calling it “a communal compromise that dilutes class struggle.” Panniyan’s opposition reflected CPI’s anxiety that the Left was straying from its ideological moorings for short-term political gains.
Kanam Rajendran (2015–2023) brought the confrontation into the era of governance. From Cabinet transparency under the Right to Information Act to the controversial death of engineering student Jishnu Pranoy and the proposed Athirappilly hydroelectric project, Kanam clashed repeatedly with Chief Minister Vijayan.
He accused the CPI(M) of showing “big brother arrogance” and warned that the LDF’s credibility was at stake if the government failed to uphold accountability and people’s rights.
Now, under Binoy Viswam (2023–present), the CPI is once again reclaiming its role as the LDF’s conscience keeper.
Viswam has criticised the CPI(M) for what he calls “subverting consultation” and “sabotaging autonomy” — particularly over issues such as the state government’s signing of the Union government’s PM SHRI scheme.
Echoing his predecessors, Viswam insists that alliance does not mean silence.
The CPI(M)’s approach to governance — pragmatic, project-driven, and centralised — often clashes with the CPI’s insistence on collective decision-making and ideological purity.
While the CPI(M) argues that economic realities demand flexibility, the CPI counters that “flexibility” has become a euphemism for unilateralism. “The CPI’s corrective role is not to be subservient,” a senior leader said. “If that balance breaks, the Left itself loses meaning.”
As the 2026 Assembly elections approach, the question is no longer whether CPI(M) dominates — but whether CPI will continue to tolerate being dominated.
From Ponnani candidature to PM SHRI, the LDF’s history is a chronicle of ignored protests and unheeded warnings.
For now, the cracks in the red fortress are visible — and widening.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
