After Kerala debacle, CPI(M) turns against IUML, flags its ‘communal face’ amid Ezhava backlash

The CPI(M), which leads the LDF coalition, had made its fierce stand against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) its main plank in the Lok Sabha polls, which was also aimed at wooing the Muslim voters. It however did not yield electoral dividends for the party, which managed to win just one seat as against the UDF’s 18 seats out of the state’s 20 with the remaining one (Thrissur seat) going to the BJP to give the party its first-ever Lok Sabha win.

Intensifying the ruling camp’s attack on the IUML, CPI(M) Politburo member A Vijayaraghavan said in Malappuram Monday that “League is being criticised for having joined hands with communal forces. The approach of the IUML towards the CPI(M) is the same as that of SDPI and Jamaat-e-Islami. IUML has the voice of extreme communal outfits.”

Even Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has now also come down on the IUML for “its communal stand”. “Congress and IUML had joined hands with communal forces for votes. During the elections, IUML had turned into the face of SDPI,’’ he charged.

Before the Lok Sabha elections, the CPI(M) had been trying to warm up to the IUML, hailing the party for its “secular stand” and indicating that “Left doors would be open for IUML”. The CPI(M) leaders had been cautious not to target the IUML while attacking the Congress or the UDF on various issues.

Besides, the Left had even sought to build a rapport with the pro-IUML cleric body SAMASTHA over the last few years. The CPI(M) had been cautious not to lock horns with any Muslim organisation, even as it undertook a sustained campaign on the CAA issue.

In the Lok Sabha polls, the CPI(M) fielded K S Hamza, a former IUML leader, as its candidate in the Ponnani seat, looking to extract mileage from the perceived “confusion” among the minority community over the Left’s overtures to SAMASTHA. However, all the UDF nominees – including two IUML candidates – fielded in Muslim-dominated seats of North Kerala won with huge margins, upsetting the CPI(M) calculations.

Another factor that forced the CPI(M) to turn against the IUML now is the loss of its votes among Hindus, particularly of the backward Ezhava community in many constituencies, mainly due to the Left’s aggressive campaign over the CAA. The CPI(M)’s election review meetings raised concerns over depletion of its Ezhava votes, the Left’s traditional vote bank.

Ezhava leader Vellappally Natesan, who is general secretary of the community outfit SNDP Yogam, slammed the CPI(M) for “sacrificing the interest of Hindu backward communities for minority appeasement”, adding that “LDF and UDF fielded minority candidates in Hindu-dominated constituencies”. He had also taken exception to the Left and the Congress having nominated Muslim candidates to the Rajya Sabha.

Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the state Assembly V D Satheesan alleged, “CPI(M) and CM Vijayan attempt to propitiate majority communalism. During the elections, Vijayan spoke only about CAA to win Muslim votes. He was then encouraging minority fundamentalism. After elections, he had suddenly changed the stand to foment majority communalism.”

The IUML’s state secretary P M A Salam said, “Pinarayi should realise that the Left faced the debacle due to the impaired image of his government. He should learn about it and go for corrections, instead of trying to find fault with IUML.”