VS had called the press conference following a directive from the CPI(M) central leadership to publicly admit his mistakes. True, he confessed to having made a few mistakes. But it was clearly a confession dictated by the compulsions of the situation. The body language betrayed his acute sense of uneasiness at having to do so openly. That way, it was only a tactical retreat to avert the possibility of harsher disciplinary action.

It was clear, however, that although he was in a confessional mode, he certainly was not contrite. Even as he admitted his mistakes, he also made it unmistakably clear that should the occasion demand, in future, too, he would air his personal views in the manner he has been doing in the past.

His response to two questions at the press conference abundantly showed his determination to plough a lonely furrow even if it may go against the party line. For instance, he admitted it was a mistake to have visited the slain RMP leader TP Chandrashekharan’s house on the day the Neyyattinkara polling was held. The point to be noted was that he only regretted the timing of the visit , not the visit itself. In the same breath, he described Chandrashekharan as a brave martyr, who had worked tirelessly for the CPI(M) in various capacities for many years. More importantly, he used the occasion to criticize CPI(M) state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan for calling Chandrashekharan a renegade.

Also, VS refused to characterize the demand for a CBI inquiry made by Chandrashekharan’s widow, KK Rema as unjust. This is sharply at variance with the CPI(M)’s official stand that a CBI inquiry into the matter is uncalled for.

On the Kudankulam issue, VS accepted that his attempt to go there was against the party line. But, significantly, he said the last word on the issue has not been said and that he would ‘remain ever vigilant’ in the matter.

Similarly, Achuthanandan regretted having compared Pinarayi Vijayan to S A Dange. That was improper and avoidable, he admitted.

One thing is clear. The tone and tenor of his confession makes it evident that dissent from Achuthanandan has not become a thing of the past.

In the ultimate analysis, the CPI(M) leadership cannot be completely happy with the manner of VS’s confession. Technically, VS has done what the leadership asked him to do. But that his heart was not on the job was clear from the extreme reluctance writ large on his face.

There is no escaping the conclusion that in future, too, the CPI(M) leadership could be called upon to tackle the VS problem. How long will the party content itself with mere public censures? That is the question uppermost in the minds of not only party activists but the people at large. (IPA)