In the Congress, Antony has finally emerged as the winner. It is too early to say who will be the victor in the battle between the two Marxist stalwarts although the younger Vijayan stands a better chance than his octogenarian rival because of the advantage of age.

But victory and defeat are not always measured in terms of outlasting an opponent. Much also depends on who comes out of the struggle with a more shining image. If Achuthanandan is apparently somewhat ahead at the moment, the reason is not only that he does not have to carry the baggage of a CBI investigation against him, as does Vijayan, but also because he has been seen to be fighting an uphill battle against his opponent, who seems to enjoy the support of an influential section of the party's central leaders.

There is little doubt that Vijayan's control over the organization as the CPI(M)'s secretary in Kerala gives him an edge. Nor is he diffident about using this advantage. One of his earlier shots against Achuthanandan was to deny him a ticket for the last assembly elections. It was only after unruly demonstrations in Kerala and also outside the CPI(M) office in New Delhi that he was allowed to stand for the polls and become the chief minister.

Similar demonstrations by Achuthanandan's supporters have now marked his latest humiliation of being dropped from the politburo. Although the CPI(M) central committee has allowed him to remain as the chief minister, the denial of a place in the party's highest policy making body is a blow in an organization where, historically, the party has the primacy of place over the government.

The snub might have been softened if Vijayan, too, had been dropped from the politburo, as the earlier rumours indicated, or removed from the post of secretary. But by allowing him to remain both as secretary and politburo member, the party has clearly treated him with kid-gloves.

A majority of the Marxists may approve of the step for two reasons. First, it emphasizes the crucial position of the secretary and, secondly, it shows that even a chief minister cannot escape punishment for a supposed breach of discipline, which was seen in his endorsement of the governor's decision to allow the CBI's prosecution of Vijayan despite the party's objections.

Achuthanandan's view that this was not the first time that a governor had acted on his own in such matters was clearly not acceptable to the party, which regarded the prosecution as politically motivated.

But even if the internal drama meets all the requirements of a communist environment, it will not be seen in such a favourable light in the country as a whole. The reason is that an allegation of financial irregularity involving a politician is generally readily believed. What is more, the suspicion tends to deepen if the concerned party is seen to be wary of an investigation.

Although the CPI(M)'s official position is that it will fight the case against Vijayan both politically and legally, the impression it has given is that it would have liked to avoid the legal entanglement altogether.

Besides, whether the party likes it or not, Achuthanandan is seen as belonging to a generation when the communists were perceived as incorruptible. He was one of those who had walked out of the undivided communist party in 1964 along with E.M.S. Namboodiripad to set up the CPI(M).

The years which the communists have spent in power in the last half a century may have largely robbed them of their earlier pristine reputation, but there are still a few, like Achuthanandan, whose names remain unsullied.

Even if it is acknowledged that he hasn't been averse to using Vijayan's role in the controversial SNC-Lavalin deal in the factional warfare with him, it will not seem justifiable to most people to throw the weight of the government against an investigation, which is clearly what Vijayan wanted along with the CPI(M)'s central leadership.

In the public domain, therefore, Achuthanandan will be seen as the wronged person even if he has lost the internal battle. In this respect, the image of the CPI(M) itself cannot but be affected.

Considering that the party is going through a difficult phase at present, having put up one of its worst performances in recent years, it may have been advisable for it to have adopted a more balanced approach in its handling of the Achuthanandan-Vijayan tussle if only to avoid the accusation of backing a controversial leader.

Just as the party could not sell its opposition to the nuclear deal, as an ideologue Prabhat Patnaik has admitted, because the times are different from what they were in the “amar nam, tomar nam, Vietnam, Vietnam” days, the turning of a blind eye to the tainted SNC-Lavalin deal is unlikely to win widespread approval even among communist sympathizers. (IPA Service)