The initial reaction of Kerala CPI(M) secretary, Mr Pinarayi Vijayan, has, however, been disappointing to say the least. Mr. Vijayan does not agree with Mr Chandrappan’s suggestion that the allies, who had left the LDF, should be brought back to strengthen the Front, which has been weakened by the defeat in the local body elections, held on October 23 and 25, 2010.

Mr. Vijayan is of the firm view that the exit of the allies had in no way affected the performance of the LDF in the elections. Facts and statistics, however, tell a different tale.

In the last local body elections, held in 2005, the LDF had secured 49 per cent votes. In the 2010 elections, the percentage has plummeted to 42 per cent. The vote share of the allies which had left from the LDF was around 9 per cent.

Of the former allies, the Democratic Indira Congress (DIC) formed by veteran Congress leader K Karunakaran has merged in the Congress. Mr. K. Muraleedharan, son of Mr K. Karunakaran, who was part of the DIC in 2005 and who had backed the LDF then, supported the UDF in 2010. His backing helped the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) to recover a lot of the ground it had lost in 2005, especially in Kozhikode, Murali’s home district.

Similarly, the Janata Dal(S) has split; and the faction led by Mr M P Veerendra Kumar, which formed a new party called Socialist Janata (Democratic), joined the UDF. Veerendra Kumar’s departure did weaken the LDF in Kozhikode district and in towns like and Kalpetta.

Likewise, the Indian National League (INL), which left the LDF in protest against the CPI-M’s refusal to formally admit it to the front, also joined hands with the UDF, to the detriment of the LDF. The INL’s departure created a negative impression among the Muslims in Kerala and was one of the factors which contributed to Muslim alienation from the LDF. l.

Mr Vijayan is right when he claims that the LDF’s performance in the local body polls was an improvement on its show in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections in which it polled around 41 per cent. The LDF should have polled only 40 per cent votes after the allies had left. But it has, instead polled 42 per cent, which is a plus point. And not an inconsiderable gain. But the reality is that the LDF lost as much as 7 per cent votes with the exit of the allies. That explains the stunning poll defeat.

The figures prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr Chandrappan’s contention that the exit of the allies had weakened the LDF. That is why he mooted the idea that they should be talked into returning to the LDF.

Mr. Vijayan is also right when he claims that the vote base of the LDF is intact, which is around 40 per cent. But that alone is not enough to take it past the winning post in the crucial assembly elections, due in May 2011.

Acceptance of Mr. Chandrappan’s suggestion would have strengthened the LDF. But now that the CPI(M) has virtually ruled it out, such a denouement is unlikely, which does not augur well for the front.

Another Chandrappan suggestion that the Lavalin case in which Mr Vijayan is one of the accused, should also have gone through the judicial process has not been to the liking of the CPI(M). Mr. Chandrappan had said that late CPI ministers, TV Thomas and M N Govindan Nair had resigned their posts when corruption charges were levelled against them. They came back when the enquiry failed to prove anything against them. In the Lavalin case too, the same process should have been followed. Had the CPI(M) done that in the beginning itself, it would have gone down well with the people, and erased the public perception that there is something fishy about it all.

Mr. Vijayan has remained tight-lipped on the Lavalin , as has been his wont. But the deafening silence is more eloquent of his resentment at the suggestion.

Mr Chandrappan’s remark that in the LDF, all the constituents are equal also seems to have got on CPI(M)’s nerves. Mr Chandrappan’s message was clear. That the CPI would not function as the B team of the CPI(M) and the big brother syndrome would no longer do.

Mr. Vijayan also took exception to Chandrappan’s proposal that it is necessary to join hands with the democratic forces within the Congress. Pinarayi’s sarcastic comment was that it was not possible for the communist parties to bring about a revolution with the help of the Congress, a party which supports the big bourgeoisie.

On his part, Mr. Chandrappan had not said that a revolution in concert with the Congress should be attempted. All that he had said was it is necessary to support the Congress in a given political situation. In support of his argument he said both the communist parties had backed Indira Gandhi in 1969 when the Congress split, on issues like bank nationalisation.

Mr. Chandrappan also stressed the paramount need to maintain civility and decency in public discourse. There is nothing wrong in agreeing to disagree with your rivals, but the tendency to call names and humiliate the political antagonists goes against the communist ethos, Mr Chandrappan said.

Though he did not say it in so many words, Chandrappan’s remark was against the tendency of the CPI(M) leaders to humiliate political rivals. For instance, Manjalamkuzhi Ali, a CPI-M MLA from Mankada before he quit to join the Indian Union Muslim League, proved that he was not a worm as described by the CPI(M) secretary. The ‘worm’ turned and showed his strength by humbling the CPI(M) in his homeground, Mankada.

Mr. Chandrappan has also said that it is of utmost importance to implement a programme aimed at addressing the concerns of the growing middle class. The Rs 2 a kg rice scheme has, no doubt, benefited the poor. But it has not made much of an impression on the middle class, who crave good governance, and basic infrastructure like good roads, a healthy healthcare system, clearing the mess in the field of education and a law and order situation in which the people can pursue their avocations in peace. This is essential if the LDF wants to retain power in the next elections.

Mr. Chandrappan also advocated a dignified dialogue with the church is also the need of the hour to end alienation of Christian voters and maintain religious harmony.

Last but not the least, Mr Chandrappan has also favoured reunification of the CPI and the CPI(M), but with a proviso – it should be reunification with dignity and on an equal basis.

Mr. Vijayan had said at his recent press conference, in which he admitted the mistakes made by the party and promised steps to reverse the adverse electoral trend, said the difference between the LDF and UDF is only 3.5 per cent of votes – a gap which can be bridged by applying the correctives.

In that case, the ruling CPI(M) would do well by giving careful consideration and serious thought to the new CPI secretary’s well-intentioned formula to firm up the LDF instead of scoffing at them. (IPA Service)