Payyannur defeat: Kunhikrishnan tells CPI(M) to introspect, rejects Pinarayi’s charge
Former Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] leader and Payyannur MLA V. Kunhikrishnan has rejected Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan’s allegation that internal manoeuvres and alliances caused the party’s defeat in Payyannur in the recent Assembly elections. He urged the party leadership to examine its own failures and understand the reasons behind the voters’ verdict.
Mr. Kunhikrishnan was responding to Mr. Vijayan’s remarks at a CPI(M) political explanation meeting in Payyannur on Saturday. He said the leadership had not attempted to correct the organisational and political shortcomings he had been highlighting for years. “They have not said anything substantially different even now. There is no attempt at correction,” he told The Hindu on Sunday.
Mr. Kunhikrishnan said the CPI(M) leadership could not blame voters for being misled when it had failed to explain why it could not convince them. The people had heard both sides, he said, and ultimately chose to vote for him.
At the meeting, Mr. Vijayan had alleged that attempts were made from within the party leadership to weaken the CPI(M) and establish relationships that harmed the party. He said such leaders did things a communist should not do. He also described Mr. Kunhikrishnan as a “tool in the hands of the enemy” and accused him of betraying the party.
Mr. Kunhikrishnan rejected the charge that expelled CPI(M) members struck deals with another party before deciding to contest. He said the United Democratic Front’s (UDF) support came only after he had entered the electoral fray.
He also questioned the CPI(M)’s appeal to “those who went astray” to return after correcting their mistakes. “They have not said they will accept us if we return after correcting our mistakes,” he said, pointing to the lack of a clear commitment from the leadership.
In a social media post, Mr. Kunhikrishnan said Mr. Vijayan’s explanation reminded him of the dilemma faced by communist leaders who had once been forced to defend controversial actions taken by their own governments. He asked whether the present leadership was shifting responsibility for the Payyannur defeat to party workers instead of accepting its own mistakes.
Mr. Kunhikrishnan noted that the CPI(M) Central Committee report had acknowledged organisational weaknesses, including arrogance, corruption, nepotism and an extravagant lifestyle of leaders. The report had also referred to lapses in candidate selection in Payyannur and Taliparamba, he said.
He criticised CPI(M) district secretary K.K. Ragesh’s defence of fielding T.I. Madhusoodanan in Payyannur again and his assertion that there had been no misappropriation of party funds. Mr. Kunhikrishnan said the explanation itself raised questions over the utilisation of funds. He recalled that he had released audited accounts as directed by the party, and that delays and repeated audits had already been explained.
Mr. Kunhikrishnan said voters in Payyannur had shattered the CPI(M)’s confidence that the constituency would remain an “iron fortress” irrespective of the candidate. He alleged that those questioning the party were initially ridiculed and attempts were made to intimidate opponents.
He said dissatisfaction with the CPI(M) was not confined to Payyannur, citing similar questions over financial accountability, including in the North Malabar Education Society. He also referred to earlier allegations against leaders and the “party leadership’s effort to protect them,” citing the controversy surrounding former Democratic Youth Federation of India leader Manu Thomas’s exit as another example.
Rejecting the suggestion that he was acting against the party, Mr. Kunhikrishnan said his allegiance was to communist ideology and truth, not to individual leaders.
