Allegations,
counter-allegations of ‘tacit nexus’ confuse Kerala electorate
Hari
S Kartha & Ajayan
As the countdown
for the assembly elections in Kerala slated for Thursday next begins,
the focus of the two rival political fronts and poll watchers is
on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which is in a frantic bid to
open its account this time.
The entire debate is on the party’s stand amidst the neck-and-neck
fight between the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led ruling
Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led opposition United
Democratic Front (UDF) in almost all the 140 constituencies in the
state. Obviously, the BJP’s votes being decisive, the party
holds the key, although ironically it may once again fail to manage
an entry into the state Assembly.
But what has taken everyone by surprise is a private TV channel’s
report that in a significant departure from the past, the CPI(M)
and the BJP have a quid pro quo arrangement in select constituencies,
which could be of mutual benefit. According to the channel, the
agreement was reached at in Mangalore between the BJP state president
CK Padmanabhan and the CPI(M) state secretariat member Kodiyeri
Balakrishnan.
The report sent shockwaves across state’s political circles.
Equally perturbed were the ranks of both the CPI(M) and the BJP,
who have been vying with each other in the hyper-sensitive Kannur
district. Needless to add that leaders of these parties were quick
to deny the report in the strongest terms. The denial has, however,
not helped to bring down the heat and dust.
As the controversy continues to rage, the fact being ignored is
the fresh political currency gained by the Sangh Parivar in the
hitherto Left-dominated Kerala. This is not to suggest that the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-BJP cadres are not confused over the
reported Padmanabhan-Kodiyeri talks. So far the RSS and BJP were
untouchables only for the Left parties, of course, except during
the post-Emergency elections in 1976.
The Congress and its allies, including the Indian Union Muslim League
have been in alliance, although covert, with the BJP in every assembly
election right since the early 80s. In the panchayat and municipal
elections, the alliance was overt. Now, if the Mangalore pact report
is true, then the BJP has ceased to be an untouchable even for the
CPI(M). Lending credence to the reported pact was the somersault
by BJP state chief Mr Padmanabhan’s stance in the Thiruvananthapuram
West constituency. The BJP has not fielded any candidate in this
key constituency in the state capital where the founder leader of
the Communist Marxist Party (CMP), MV Raghavan, who was expelled
from the CPI(M), is pitted against LDF’s Antony Raju. With
no other candidate in the fray, the BJP could tilt the balance.
As a dissident Marxist, Mr Raghavan is now in the UDF camp, and
has been a headache for the CPI(M) leadership. Therefore, the party
will leave no stone unturned to defeat him at the hustings. The
reported understanding between Mr Padmanabhan and Mr Kodiyeri was
that BJP would help the CPI(M) defeat Mr Raghavan in Thiruvananthapuram
West and in return, the CPI(M) would swap votes to help Mr Padmanabhan
win in Manjeswaram.
Two things can be gauged from this alleged understanding. First,
that there is division in the BJP, with the hardcore RSS elements
in favour Mr Raghavan, who has nothing more to do with communism
than the name given to his party, and the liberal group against
opposing this move. This has forced the party to come out openly
against Mr Raghavan.
The second issue
has been the threat Mr Raghavan can pose in the event of a UDF victory
and his becoming a minister. The CPI(M) has succeeded in capturing
all the co-operative societies in Kannur region.
If Mr Raghavan were to become a minister, all the work done by the
CPI(M) would come to a naught as Mr Raghavan would undo all that
the CPI(M) had done. It is imperative for the CPI(M), therefore,
to ensure Mr Raghavan’s defeat. The issue before the CPI(M)
is who is its main enemy: Mr Raghavan or the BJP?
According to sources close to CPI(M) circles, the LDF expects to
get between 65 to 70 seats of the total 140. This would mean no
absolute majority for the LDF. In such an event, all eyes will be
on the Indian Union Muslim League which is part of the UDF, which
has always had an unsteady stand within the UDF with certain leaders
like former minister Kunhalikutty, tainted by the allegation of
his involvement in the Kozhikode sex racket.
If the LDF succeeds in getting a group in the IUML break away from
the UDF, it could form a government. The issue then would be: who
will take over as chief minister? As of now, V Achuthanandan, a
politburo member is being projected, though unofficially, as the
probable choice. A hardcore leader, he has been known for his strong
resentment for tieups with any communal party. With a certain group
within the CPI(M) against him, it remains to be seen what Mr Achutanandan’s
position will be if his party brings into the LDF fold a group of
the IUML.
As far as the Congress is concerned, groupism, though temporarily
controlled, is likely to go out of hands after the elections. The
AICC general secretary, Ghulam Nabi Azad, went on record to announce
that the two posts of chief ministership and KPCC president would
be shared among the two groups. Also, it would be the high command
and not the elected MLAs who would decide on the chief minister
This has given rise to controversy within the party.
The group led by K Karunakaran has made it clear that the KPCC president’s
post should go to K Muraleedharan, MP, and Mr Karunakaran’s
son. However, Mr Karunakaran, who had to bow out of office a year
and a half before his term wants, that ‘wrong’ done to
him to be corrected.
|
|
