By getting IUML on board on anti-RSS narrative, CPI(M) forces Congress ‘U-turn’ over Governor

When the bill was debated in the Assembly, the UDF was not against the idea of removal of the Governor as the Chancellor. But they were concerned about the alternative suggested, which, they felt, would see the CPI(M)’s nominees appointed as the Chancellors of the universities by the Pinarayi Vijayan government.

The CPI(M) decided to remove the Governor as ex-officio Chancellor of all universities in Kerala, after Khan sought resignations from VCs of the universities in the wake of the October 21 Supreme Court verdict that declared the appointment of the VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University as illegal and void ab initio. At the time, the Congress had hailed the Governor’s move, claiming that it was an opportunity for him as the ex-officio Chancellor to put the state’s universities in order. When the government recommended that the Governor promulgate an ordinance that would remove him as the ex-officio Chancellor of all universities, the Congress’s state unit president K Sudhakaran stated that the UDF would oppose any such move.

But by the time the UDF could reach a consensus on the issue, the CPI(M) had already set the tone of the narrative — that Khan is an alleged “Sangh Parivar agent” who wants to saffronise higher education in the state and fill top slots in universities with RSS nominees. With the support of intellectuals and cultural leaders, the CPI(M) formed a Higher Education Protection Samiti that has laid siege on the Raj Bhavan since November 15.

Having succeeded in painting Khan in saffron colours, the CPI(M) left the IUML no option but to join the Left chorus about the politics behind the Governor’s actions in the higher education sector. In the charged environment, the IUML realised that backing the Governor’s unilateral actions ran the risk of being construed as supporting the Sangh Parivar agenda. Sensing the anti-Governor sentiments in the IUML, the Congress too climbed down from its objection to the bill.

The BJP has now claimed the Congress caved in to pressure from a “minority party”, though the CPI(M) hailed the IUML for having a clear secular perspective on the issue, something they have rarely done in the past. The IUML stand in favour of the bill was one of the factors that made CPI(M) state secretary M V Govindan to call the IUML as a democratic, secular party that works for the minorities.

On Tuesday, when the bill was debated in the Assembly, CPI(M) leader and Law Minister P Rajeeve also praised the IUML stand. “The UDF had earlier decided that the Governor should not be removed as Chancellor. But they later changed their stance, as the IUML realised the politics behind the Governor’s move,” he said.

For the CPI(M), getting the IUML on its side would be a major political gain. After the IUML backed the bill, which was passed in the Assembly on Tuesday, some Muslim scholars hailed the party’s stand and called for a broad platform to fight the Sangh Parivar. But, by changing its own stand under pressure from the IUML, the Congress now faces the backlash of the state’s Hindu vote bank.