The “deal” and “adjustment politics” allegations continue to dominate Kerala’s political discourse as the campaign enters its crucial final phase.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who had earlier dismissed the Opposition’s CPI(M)-BJP deal charge, on Thursday sought to turn the tables by invoking a 2006 episode to suggest that the Opposition itself had engaged with the RSS.
The controversy was reignited by Opposition Leader and UDF chairman V.D. Satheesan, who alleged “adjustment politics” between the BJP and the CPI(M) following candidate announcements by all three fronts.
His primary charge was that the LDF had fielded a candidate in Palakkad to split the UDF’s potential vote base and indirectly aid the BJP. The Congress leadership later broadened the allegation, claiming that in several constituencies the NDA, too, was fielding weak candidates to benefit the LDF.
As the narrative gained traction, CM Vijayan on Tuesday rejected the charge and countered that the Congress had no qualms about having an understanding with the RSS.
Doubling down on the claim, the CM on Thursday shared a photograph from 2006 showing Satheesan lighting a lamp in front of RSS ideologue M.S. Golwalkar.
“The Leader of the Opposition, V.D. Satheesan, should clarify what kind of ‘deal’ it was when he attended and inaugurated the Golwalkar birth centenary celebration organised by the RSS in Paravur in 2006, bowed before Golwalkar’s photograph, and lit the ceremonial lamp. When asked about this event, he routinely evades the question by referring instead to another programme held in 2013. The people of secular Kerala have the right to know his response,” Vijayan said in a social media post.
He added that the photograph was from an event held in February 2006 at the Manakkappadi School in Paravur, just ahead of the Assembly elections.
Vijayan also cited a 2022 claim by the state president of the Hindu Aikya Vedi that Satheesan had sought RSS support in the 2001 and 2006 Assembly elections.
“The Leader of the Opposition has still not given a clear response on this matter. One cannot blame those who suspect that the Golwalkar tribute in 2006 was an attempt to secure RSS support. At least now, he should clarify what the ‘deal’ in Paravur in 2006 was,” the chief minister added.
Meanwhile, in the Vattiyoorkkavu constituency, senior Congress leader and UDF candidate K. Muraleedharan’s CPI(M)-BJP deal allegations have drawn sharp reactions from both the LDF and the BJP. Muraleedharan had claimed that BJP councillors who work for R. Sreelekha during the day were with LDF candidate V.K. Prasanth at night.
Responding to the charge, Prasanth declared that Muraleedharan’s defeat was already certain and that the allegation was a pre-emptive excuse. He mocked the Congress leader, saying the claim could well be treated as the justification Muraleedharan planned to offer after his defeat—only that it was being stated in advance. Sreelekha, too, dismissed the allegations.
To counter the UDF’s deal allegations, the BJP has now been running a campaign portraying the UDF and the LDF as indistinguishable. Notably, the party’s official handles have circulated AI-generated videos depicting Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and Opposition Leader V. D. Satheesan as mirror entities.
Meanwhile, in the Manjeshwaram constituency—known for wafer-thin margins—the Social Democratic Party of India’s (SDPI) decision to withdraw its candidate has triggered a fresh round of “deal” allegations against the UDF.
The contest is primarily between A.K.M. Ashraf of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the BJP’s K. Surendran. The SDPI—widely seen as the political wing of the now-banned Popular Front of India—had fielded district committee member Ashraf K.M. in the constituency, where it claims to command over 7,000 votes.
Several Muslim community organisations had earlier raised concerns that the presence of an SDPI candidate—whose name closely resembled that of the UDF nominee—could split minority votes and inadvertently benefit the BJP. They also pointed out that the candidate had previously contested local body elections under the name Ashraf Badaje, alleging that fielding him as Ashraf K. M. was a deliberate attempt to divide votes and undermine the Muslim League candidate.
As pressure mounted, the SDPI eventually withdrew its candidature.
The BJP—which has already been advancing the narrative that the Congress-led UDF was influenced by Islamist groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami—sharpened its attack, alleging that the withdrawal was part of a deal between the SDPI and the UDF.
K. Surendran claimed that the decision followed direct intervention by V.D. Satheesan and IUML leader P.K. Kunhalikutty.
The LDF, too, has been pushing the narrative that the Congress-led front maintains an unholy nexus with radical Islamist sections. Notably, Manjeshwaram is a constituency where the UDF had earlier alleged an unholy CPI(M)-BJP understanding. Now, citing recent developments in Manjeshwaram, the LDF could amplify its narrative of the UDF’s alleged nexus with radical Islamist groups across the state.