‘CPI(M) must adapt to changing political landscape’: Thomas Isaac to TNM
It was a rainy afternoon in Thiruvananthapuram and former Kerala finance minister Thomas Isaac was wrapping up an interview with a Malayalam channel when we arrived at his residence. He is one of the few leaders from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to openly admit to the party’s failures following the drubbing it received in the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections.
As I waited to speak to Isaac, I couldn’t help but observe the surroundings, with every wall and shelf in his apartment stacked with books, giving the impression of a personal library. When Isaac, an economist and a central committee member of the CPI(M), submitted his nomination papers to contest from the Pathanamthitta constituency ahead of the Parliament elections, it was found that he neither owned a house nor land but owned over 20,000 books.
Known for his unwavering commitment to the Left movement, Isaac opened up about the challenges facing the party in Kerala, the rise of Hindutva forces in the state, and the need for introspection.
Excerpts from the interview:
CPI(M)’s central committee report said that the party has to improve the ‘live link’ with the people. What does this mean?
It means that the party has lost touch with the people, which was evident in our inaccurate assessment of the election results. We thought that the low polling percentage in Kerala would favour the LDF, but instead, traditional left voters shifted to the Congress and BJP. As a party, we failed to gauge this change happening with the traditional Left support base. It is a significant concern for the CPI(M), as it indicates a weakening of our living link with the people. This remark becomes very significant in the context of the present election, where our assessments of the election went totally astray. It is necessary to understand the reasons behind this and to rectify them.
Why do you think a significant Left vote base shifted to Congress and BJP?
There are two types of votes that shifted. One is the floating votes. Historically, LDF gets 37-38% votes in Parliamentary elections but 44% in Assembly elections. It means that a majority of the people who vote for the Left in Assembly elections vote for UDF during Parliamentary elections thinking it's in the best interest of secularism and because of the perception that the Left’s role at the national level has declined.
But in the 2024 polls, the vote gained by LDF is 33.5%, which is the lowest we have polled in the Parliamentary election history of Kerala. It means that even our base votes shifted, which is a matter of concern. This could be because of various reasons.
CPI(M)’s primary support base has always been the poor, the daily wage workers, small self-employed workers, farmers and so on. But this time, a section of them were unhappy for various reasons. Firstly, traditional industries like coir, cashew and handloom are facing a crisis, which weakened the strong foundations of the party in these working-class sections. Secondly, voters were also unhappy about the non-payment of social welfare pensions and other social safety benefits, such as the lack of adequate supplies of essential commodities in Supplyco and Maveli stores (state-run civil supplies stores). Non-payment of DA arrears to Government employees also worked against us.
But what explains the rise of votes for BJP? Did the CPI(M) fail to recognise the rise of Hindutva ideologies among the people?
Yes, Hindutva influence has been increasing in Kerala. The BJP has succeeded through systematic and clever use of temples and caste organisations. We never thought it would happen in Kerala because of the core values and secular ideas espoused by the renaissance movements in the state. But this election results tell us that the BJP has managed to influence even the caste communities, which have traditionally sided with the Left. They did this through systematic ideological work and even used the help of caste-based political parties such as the Bharath Dharma Jana Sena (BDJS), which acted as a bridge to Hindutva.
Do you think LDF’s stance on minority rights alienates Hindu votes?
There was a clear effort to label our position on standing with oppressed minority communities as ‘appeasement’. CPI(M) has always stood with oppressed communities, regardless of their religion. But now, because Hindu communalism dominates India’s political environment, there is a deliberate attempt to portray the earlier normal position of the Left as an appeasement of the minorities. And therefore, the Hindu right-wing and the so-called ‘Chrisanghis’ (a term used to describe right-wing Christians) labelled our pro-Palestinian campaign or anti-CAA campaign as attempts to appease Muslims. This would have swayed some Hindu and Christian votes away from the Left, especially in Thrissur, where the BJP opened their account.
How is the CPI(M) planning to work around religious and caste organisations and how will you counter Hindutva forces?
We must strengthen our ideological stand against Hindutva and play a more active role in caste organisations and temples to prevent BJP's inroads. We cannot completely stay away from temples or religion, as it will give more scope to Hindutva organisations to take control of these spaces. We will support any progressive individual who wants to be involved in these organisations and play a more active role in preventing BJP from capturing them. This requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the importance of religion in people's lives while preventing the exploitation of religious sentiment for political gain.
Another criticism is the CPI(M)’s ambiguity when dealing with the caste struggle. Your comments.
Communists have a tradition of creatively interacting with caste movements. We built class and mass organisations across castes and communities and raised anti-caste slogans from our class platform. But we also kept away from caste organisations and temples, thinking it is not our domain. Now, with the BJP entering these spaces, we need to change our approach. We want to mobilise people across communities while acknowledging caste identity and preventing BJP's social engineering.
There is mounting criticism of the SFI [student wing of the CPI(M)]. How does the party plan to rejuvenate the youth and student movement, and what steps will be taken to address the concerns of young people?
We need to examine and address the issues plaguing the youth and student movement, including violence and undesirable tendencies. We must correct these issues strongly and work on changing the perception of SFI and other student organisations. But there is also a need to counter the narrative that associates everything wrong in campus politics with SFI. This requires a concerted effort to engage with young people and address their concerns while promoting a culture of debate and discussion within the party.
Do you think people's dissatisfaction with the ministers in the second Pinarayi cabinet worked against the LDF?
If there is a lesson that the CPI(M) has learnt from West Bengal, it is that continuity of the same faces can be harmful to the party in the long run. New faces have to come in and these new faces needed a learning period, which didn’t happen as the financial situation in the state changed rapidly, making it challenging for them. The Union government’s decisions, such as changing the borrowing rules for KIIFB (Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board), hamstrung the state government's finances. This was a deliberate attempt to undermine our efforts to create a new Kerala with high-quality jobs and social security.
I agree that continuously being in power creates problems, and an element of degeneration has set in. We were warned by the example of West Bengal and tried to be careful, but the election results show that we need to take notice and correct our behaviour.