On June 18, 2021, the Central European University announced former Kerala health minister and CPI(M) leader K.K. Shailaja as a recipient of their Open Society Prize. “As former Minister of Public Health in the Indian state of Kerala, during the COVID-19 pandemic, K. K. Shailaja Teacher and the dedicated staff of the public health service demonstrated to the world that determined leadership, community-based public health, and effective communication can save lives,” read the citation by CEU president and rector Michael Ignatieff. Neither Shailaja nor her party raised any objections against accepting the award, though CEU is a university founded by Hungarian-American financier and philanthropist George Soros, who played a significant role in dismantling Communism in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. “Kerala’s achievements in public health, our responsive institutions, respect for human rights, and transparency in information are reflections of the values in support of an open society,” Shailaja noted in her acceptance speech.
However, this year, when the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation had zeroed in on her for the 64th Magsaysay award—widely regarded as the Nobel Prize Asia—the CPI(M) central leadership asked her to reject it. The reason: The award is in the name of former Philippines president Ramon Magsaysay, a protege of the American CIA, who had defeated the Communist guerrilla movement Hukbalahap, through a series of measures, including military action.
The critics of CPI(M) say the party leadership took the decision to reject Magsaysay in order to avoid questions about Shailaja's absence in the Pinarayi Vijayan government 2.0 cropping up once again. In an exclusive interview with THE WEEK, Shailaja explains why the CEU award was acceptable but not the Magsaysay award. She also talks about how she and the party arrived at the decision to reject the Magsaysay Award. Excerpts:
There is a controversy over Magsaysay Award now. Last year, you were honoured with the Open Society Prize by Central European University, founded by anti-communist George Soros. And you accepted it. Why?
The university declared the award unilaterally. They did not ask for my consent (before declaring the award). The others (Ramon Magsaysay Foundation) sent a letter, asking for my consent. It was only after declaring the award that I came to know about it. I did not go there (award venue) to receive the award. They just declared it, and everybody came to know about it. They did not ask for consent. Maybe because it is from a university.
But did you accept the award?
Yes. But I did not go there. They just declared it. I did not reject it because they did not ask for any consent. In the case of the Magsaysay award, I had to send consent. Since I am a member of the CPI(M) central committee, it was my duty to discuss whether to accept an award from an NGO. So, I told the party leadership about it. When it was discussed, the party said since I am a politician from a Communist party, it will not be right. So, I sent a letter to them saying I will not be able to accept the award. I thanked them for contacting me and let them know my respect for the award. There is no need to mix what happened in the case of these two awards. The CEU award was directly declared by them.
Magsaysay Award is now considered the Nobel Prize of Asia. This award would have been seen as a prestigious fete earned by the Pinarayi Vijayan government 1.0.
We have to see both sides. Some people may say like what you have said. But had I accepted this award, a lot of people would have come with criticism just like the one you raised about the Central European University. I do not have any disrespect towards Magsaysay Award. Even if I reject it, people would know about it. I am not an ordinary individual but a central committee member of a Communist party.
I have not dishonoured the award or the former recipients of the award. All Magsaysay recipients were talented men and women. But as a political party leader and CC member, it is not right to accept it.
You were not given a berth in the cabinet in the second Pinarayi Vijayan government. There have been observations that it was because a section in the CPI(M) does not want you to earn more fame or come to the top leadership of the party. It was also alleged that the party is misogynistic. There is an observation that this Magsaysay episode is an extension of such tendencies in the party.
There is no truth in such vile allegations. I come from a very ordinary background, from a rural area. But I have been made an MLA four times, a minister for a term. So, if I had become something it is because my party helped me to be something. I am not someone who earned all these because of my capacity.
Don’t you think Magsaysay Foundation was, in fact, bestowing honours on the position you held or the (health domain) team represented by you?
We have to see the politics also. Our party general secretary Sitaram Yechury has clearly said it: the award was in the name of a person who held anti-communist ideology.
Of course, Magsaysay had used force against Communist guerrillas. But the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front government is also using force against a set of “Communist guerrillas”. Your government sent the Thunderbolt commandos against Maoists. Maoists are also claiming the Communist legacy and are fighting a guerrilla war against the state. You are empathising with guerrillas abroad, but not with Maoists. Is this not hypocrisy?
I am not ready to have a comparison between the two groups.
But the question remains how you are seeing the Maoists, who are engaged in guerrilla warfare, here. They also claim to follow the Communist ideology.
What Magsaysay did was not just suppress the guerrillas. During the Cold War with capitalism, the stance took by him (was against communism). So the question was simple: Whether to accept an award from an NGO with such a stance. The decision was also simple. We decided not to accept it. I told them that as a Communist Party CC member I am rejecting the award because for some political reasons. I also told them that ours was a collective work, and everything we gained was a result of that collective work. So, I told them that I won’t be able to accept it at an individual level. It was a collective decision from us to reject it.
What do you have to say about the current controversy?
There was no need for controversy. Ours is collective leadership. So, when such things come, we take a collective decision.
