His fans call him the captain, his admirers value his no-nonsense approach and his detractors despise him as a ‘dhoti clad Modi in disguise’. Notwithstanding the praises and admonitions, the importance of being Pinarayi Vijayan is obvious. 

He is the lone chief minister of the Left in India and the most important face of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). And now octogenarian Vijayan is vying for a third consecutive term after creating history of sorts, when his government was voted back to power in 2021.

At a time when the Left in India is gasping for breath and the right juggernaut continues unabated, Left rule in Kerala has become all the more important not just for its sympathisers, but for all who seek an alternative to majoritarianism.

Over nine years in power, how much of an alternative did Pinarayi Vijayan provide for the rest of the country to emulate? The earnest attempt to answer this would have to involve the age-old paradox of a Left government functioning under a neoliberal, majoritarian rule and the ideological ambiguities and complexities of the communist party working in a parliamentary democracy and the commitment of the political leadership.

Ever since he joined active politics and became a member of the legislative assembly at the age of 25, Vijayan has been actively embroiled in the machinations of parliamentary power politics.

Pragmatist to the core, Vijayan gave predominance to strategising for winning elections. Like former Chinese leader Deng Xiopeng, Vijayan did not bother about the ‘colour of the cat as long as it catches mice’.

 Pragmatism, as a political tool, is often at odds with the ideologies of the organisations. Hence a pragmatist is at the risk of being labeled as ‘revisionist’ or 'opportunist' by the ‘puritans’ within and outside the organisation.

The communist leaders who led the party in government have always had to walk a tightrope, balancing ideology and practical compulsions, necessitated by working under a practically centralised government. 

When the first communist government, led by E.M.S Nambodiripad invited G.D. Birla to invest in the state, offering him natural resources at throwaway prices, questions were raised from some quarters alleging ‘ideological deviations’ against the then CPI(M) government. 

The ideological dilemma of working under a capitalist system and pursuing a ‘revolutionary programme’ has been the hallmark of almost all Left governments. Vijayan has attempted to overcome this dilemma, first as the secretary of the CPI(M) and now as the chief minister. He jettisoned ideological pretensions and chose pragmatism as the guiding principle.

Leaving aside ideological baggage and renouncing revolutionary rhetoric for all practical purposes, Vijayan led the party to imbibe the narrative on development accepted and propagated by all other mainstream political parties. 

This is visible by the development document he presented at CPI(M) state conferences and the slew of policy measures his government initiated, including welcoming foreign capital in the industry and education sectors. 

That he was able to push his party into accepting these big policy changes without any dissension points either to his strangulating hold over the party or the ideological void among the cadres. But, in the end, this ‘policy shift’ should be seen as a way out of the dilemma the party faced whenever it was elected to rule under an antagonising central government.

This can be construed as the inability of the Left to have an alternative development policy for the state while working within a capitalist system. To pursue an alternative model in a structure where the states do not have much room is easier said than done, especially when the central government is out to destabilise fiscal federalism.

Though Vijayan is praised even by political opponents for being ‘non-dogmatic,’ he is iron-willed in maintaining party organisation according to the ‘Leninist principle of democratic centralism’. Adversaries allege that he uses this to sideline or neutralise those who are not in his good book. They maintain that by the selective use of this century-old organisational dictum, Vijayan impaired democratic culture by promoting those who show total servility.

Vijayan’s nine-year rule is significant in Kerala’s history not because of how his dominance changed the CPI(M), but because his and the party’s stand on various occasions, at least during the last nine years, has given credence to the majoritarian arguments on various issues. 

The handling of political dissidents and the knee-jerk reactions on various social and political issues by the government and the party have inadvertently or otherwise emboldened the Sangh parivar’s ideological campaigns.

The Sangh agenda

Let us look at some instances when the Sangh agenda has reflected in Vijayan’s actions

1. Maoist killing

During the first five years in rule, seven Maoists were killed by the Kerala police. Civil society and human rights groups alleged that these ultra-leftists were gunned down in fake encounters. The CPI(M)-appointed fact-finding mission corroborated the stand taken by the human rights groups. But the government did not budge and no worthwhile actions were taken. Bharatiya Janata Party and the Sangh parivar defended the government.

2. Economic Reservation

Vijayan-led Left Democratic Front was the first government to introduce upper-caste reservation camouflaged as economic reservations. This has strengthened the anti-caste reservation campaign often unleashed by Sangh parivar groups

3. Islamophobia

The last Lok Sabha election saw BJP opening its account in Kerala and a sizeable increase in its vote share, especially among the Ezhava community, which has hitherto been the bedrock of the CPI(M). 

The political shift of a significant section of the Hindu voters, who had earlier put their faith in CPI(M), has raised alarm bells within the left circles. CPI(M) thought of overcoming this by intensifying political attacks against Muslim organisations, including the Muslim League, which is part of the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF), and Jamaat-e-Islami. 

At one point, the CPI(M) politburo member A. Vijayaraghavan alleged that Congress leaders Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi won elections from Wayanad with the support of Muslim fundamentalists. This statement was used by the BJP to target Congress. The continuous virulent attack against Muslim organisations created a political atmosphere conducive for the Sangh parivar to carry out their anti-Muslim campaign.  

'The land of three internal enemies'

The severest attack against the Pinarayi Vijayan government was on the police front. Even left sympathisers alleged that a section of the police officers were showing allegiance to the Sangh parivar. Those who criticised the police policy got shot in the arm when reports of a secret meeting between ADGP Ajith Kumar and RSS leader Dattatreya Hosable and Ram Madhav came out. Though the secret meeting raised huge controversy, no action has been taken against the police officer.

When Sree Narayana Darma Paripala (SNDP) Yogam General Secretary Vellappally Natesan spewed communal venom against the Muslim majority Malappuram district by describing it as a place where Muslim domination has pushed other Ezhava community to the sidelines, it invited huge condemnation. But chief minister Vijayan came to the rescue of the SNDP leader by praising him ‘as a leader who does not take a stand against any particular community and also praised his social service.

For RSS and the Sangh organisations, Kerala is a land where all three ‘internal enemies’ – the Muslims, the Christians and the Communists – as elucidated by RSS ideologue MS Golwalkar, have a significant presence. Hence, the RSS attached great importance to ‘conquering’ Kerala, as this would be construed as subjugating the ‘internal enemies.’ 

Notwithstanding the BJP’s poor electoral performance, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is running more than 5.000 shakhas in Kerala – more than the number in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat! 

Left parties,  especially the CPI(M), were in the forefront in scuttling the pernicious methods employed by the Sangh in the state. Vijayan was vociferous and unrelenting in his fight against the Sangh parivar. But skeptics maintain that there is a marked change in his approach since he became chief minister.

Over the last nine years, the RSS has been able to spread its tentacles widely, using, among other things, the politically lethargic attitude of the government.  What effect will this lackadaisical approach of the Left have on Kerala polity? The 2026 Assembly election, in all probability, will tell.

N.K. Bhoopesh is a journalist and columnist based in Kochi, Kerala.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.