'CPI(M) believes a party's opinion should not be imposed on matters like Sabarimala': M.A. Baby

Interview/ M.A. Baby, general secretary, CPI(M)

​

Q. Kerala is currently the only state where the CPI(M) leads a government, and it has often been presented as a laboratory for advancing a “Left democratic alternative” toward the party’s vision of socialism. What do you see as the key achievements of the Pinarayi Vijayan government in the last decade in advancing this Left democratic alternative?

The overall progress of Kerala can justifiably be linked to the social reform and renaissance movements the state witnessed. The Communist movement and the Left democratic movement in Kerala carried forward these traditions from the very beginning—starting with the first government led by Comrade E.M.S. Namboodiripad, formed after the creation of the present administrative state of Kerala in 1956. That government laid the foundation for land and agricultural reforms. Therefore, when assessing the achievements of the present ten-year-long LDF government, one must begin with the foundations laid by the 1957 EMS government and the subsequent CPIM-led governments.

One crucial yardstick for assessing development is child mortality—Kerala’s infant mortality rate is better than that of developed countries like the USA.

The current Pinarayi Vijayan government eradicated extreme poverty and preserved Kerala’s secular democratic tradition. Infrastructure development is another important area. For instance, a new township has been constructed in Wayanad for victims of landslides. More than five lakh houses have been built under the Life Mission scheme, providing decent living conditions, unlike many government housing programmes elsewhere. Nearly ₹1 lakh crore worth of development projects have also been undertaken through the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB).

Kerala has also made significant progress in education, although we believe there is still room for improvement.

Q. Kerala’s Leader of the Opposition V. D. Satheeshan is attempting to project the Congress and the UDF as the “real Left,” while portraying the CPI(M)-led government as an extreme right-wing government. How do you respond to this political framing?

First of all, this shows the presence of the Left and the work that the Left has done in Kerala, in India, and across the world. The Left is something to be cherished and supported. That point, it seems, has been accepted even by Mr V.D. Satheesan, and I appreciate that.

But the question is: how do you define the “Left”? The famous thinker Eric Hobsbawm once attempted to define it. The Left represents forces that try to bring about meaningful changes in every aspect of society. The Right, on the other hand, generally supports the status quo, or even tries to prevent progressive measures that have emerged through administrative structures or through the collective efforts of society.

One important yardstick in defining this difference is the question of public ownership of the society’s wealth, as opposed to allowing profit motives to dominate. Right-wing governments are well known for handing over valuable public assets to crony capitalists. You can see that Congress, BJP, and many regional party governments do not really have a different economic project to present.

Take the example of Hindustan Newsprint Limited, a central PSU in Kerala. The Union government decided to privatise it during the tenure of the Pinarayi Vijayan government. Had it been a Congress government in the state, they might have simply gone along with that decision. That is what many Congress governments have done in similar situations.

In fact, the dismantling of the public sector in India began when Mr V.D. Satheesan’s party was in power in the country, with P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister and Dr Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister.

But what did the Pinarayi Vijayan government do? It told the Union government that they should allow the Kerala government to take it over rather than privatising it. Eventually, the Kerala government undertook Hindustan Newsprint Limited.

Similarly, when the Union government decided to privatise the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, the Kerala government said that it had the expertise to run airports. For instance, Cochin International Airport operates under a public–private partnership model, where the state government retains overall control while private investors are also involved. The Kannur Greenfield Airport was also constructed with private participation, but under government control, during the LDF government.

Therefore, the Kerala government offered to take over the Thiruvananthapuram airport as well, just as it had taken over Hindustan Newsprint Limited. However, the Union government refused and instead handed it over to the Adani group.

Interestingly, what did Mr V.D. Satheesan’s colleague, Mr Shashi Tharoor—who is also a Congress Working Committee member—say at that time? Being the local MP, he publicly stated that it was good that the airport was given to Adani or to the private sector.

Q. The Congress has accused the CPI(M) of engaging in communal politics similar to the BJP by promoting the narrative that a UDF government would effectively mean Muslim League rule. How do you respond to this criticism equating the CPIM to the BJP?

Equating the CPI(M) with the BJP has become a routine political narrative promoted by the Congress and the UDF. But anyone in Kerala with even a basic understanding of arithmetic can see what actually happened.

Take the example of the Nemom Assembly constituency, from where a BJP candidate once won and entered the Kerala Assembly. If you closely examine the voting pattern in that election, it becomes clear that the decline in the UDF vote effectively became the victory margin for the BJP.

A similar pattern has been visible in recent Lok Sabha elections in Kerala, in local body polls, and on multiple occasions in the past.

The history of vote transfers and political collaboration between the BJP and the UDF can be demonstrated both arithmetically and historically. Yet, with the support of sections of the media, false allegations are often made against the LDF.

Q. The CPI(M) is often described as a highly disciplined cadre party. However, of late there have been multiple instances suggesting factional tendencies within the party in Kerala, particularly in strongholds such as Payyannur and Palakkad. How do you view these developments, and do you think they could affect the CPI(M) and the LDF as the state moves closer to elections?

The CPI(M), and communist parties in general, are well known for their organisational discipline. We modestly claim that this discipline continues to exist within our party.

However, a communist party functions within the broader society, where non-communist tendencies are also quite prevalent. Therefore, we have to constantly guard against such deviations. For that reason, our party regularly undertakes rectification campaigns.

During such campaigns we examine various issues. For instance, what we call “parliamentarism” is considered a deviation in our understanding. Parliamentarism has two aspects. One is the excessive desire to occupy parliamentary positions. The second is the mistaken belief that social transformation can be achieved solely through parliamentary efforts. Both of these are considered deviations in communist political practice.

That is why we have certain internal norms. For example, comrades who have consecutively won elections—usually for two terms—are generally expected to step down, unless the party decides, for justifiable reasons, to allow them to contest again. This is the organisational culture we try to maintain.

At the same time, there may occasionally be instances of deviation, both organisationally and at an individual level. But what is being reported from certain districts should not be seen as a general trend. These are isolated incidents, and both the party and the LDF are capable of addressing such issues without much difficulty.

Q. Compared to 2021, it appears that the party may field more incumbents this time. Discussions seem to be moving in that direction, with exemptions possibly being given in more cases from the two-term norm. Would you describe this as a pragmatic decision by the party under the current circumstances?

In the upcoming election and in the process of selecting candidates, the party continues to follow its principles. We have not abandoned them. At the same time, we are also giving due importance to the winnability of candidates.

So, there is an effort to maintain a proper balance. While adhering to organisational principles—such as not automatically repeating all those who have previously contested—we are also carefully considering the prospects of victory.

Q. Is the CPI(M) reconsidering its earlier stance on the Sabarimala women’s entry issue as a matter of political pragmatism? The Travancore Devaswom Board has passed a resolution opposing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict allowing women entry, and the government also has a role in such matters. How do you respond to this development?

You see, the CPI(M) and the Left stand firmly for women’s equality and social progress. However, such changes also require social acceptance. Society needs to be educated and prepared for these reforms; they cannot be implemented unilaterally.

Any social reform must take into account the readiness of society. With regard to Sabarimala, there are different views within the society. What was attempted earlier was not a decision taken by the LDF government on its own. It was the verdict of the Supreme Court. What was sought to be implemented at that time was the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Now the Supreme Court itself is reviewing the matter. The party’s position is clear: we do have our views, but we do not believe that a party’s opinion should be mechanically imposed on matters of this nature.

Ultimately, it is a matter of recognising social realities and addressing them through consultation.

Q. Some CPI(M) leaders are facing investigation in the Sabarimala gold theft case, yet no organisational disciplinary action has been taken so far. Don’t you think such developments could create a negative impression about the party and the state government among the public?

We have taken the correct decisions in these matters. First of all, the entire investigation is moving forward under the supervision of a special bench of the Kerala High Court. The government is not interfering in the investigation process. This has been categorically stated by the special bench overseeing matters related to Sabarimala. That, in fact, goes to the credit of the Pinarayi Vijayan government.

During the local body elections, a parody song was widely circulated [by our political opponents] that connect the party with the main accused, [Unnikrishnan] Potti.

Now it has been clearly established that he gained access to Sabarimala during the period when the UDF was in power.

Recently, we had an Assembly session in which the government was willing to discuss every aspect of the Sabarimala issue. However, under the leadership of Mr V.D. Satheesan, the Opposition walked out, saying they did not want a discussion. The question is—why did they refuse to discuss the matter?

Now, if those associated with the CPI(M), who held certain responsibilities in Sabarimala, are found guilty, they will be removed from the party without anyone even demanding it.

Some may ask why stronger action has not been taken so far. The reason is that no charge sheet has yet been filed. Only after a charge sheet is submitted will it become clear whether there was merely a dereliction of duty or whether they were involved in a deeper crime.

Any disciplinary action must be proportionate to the level of involvement. The CPI(M) follows strict principles. We cannot take action simply on the basis of allegations or preliminary impressions.

For the time being, the party has already decided that they should not participate in election campaign activities or in any party programmes. They have been served show-cause notices—a step that was not possible when they were in jail. Once the charge sheet is filed, further action will be taken depending on the gravity of the charges against them and their response to the show-cause notices.