The answer to this question is in the affirmative if two articles published by the IUML’s mouthpiece, “Chandrika Daily” is anything to go by. It is significant that the two articles have seen the light of the day although the IUML has ‘decided’, albeit grudgingly, to let bygones be bygones in the wake of Antony’s clarificatory statement at Kasargod.

The fact that the writer of one of the articles is considered close to IUML strongman and Industries Minister P K Kunhalikkutty, reinforces the impression that, despite its public stance, the IUML has not forgiven Antony for his criticism that the industrial climate in the state is anything but conducive to investments ever since the Oommen Chandy-led Government assumed power one and a half years ago.

The strongly-worded articles cast doubts on Antony’s motives in voicing his criticism, and lash out at his ‘ignorance’ about the affairs of the state. The articles are also critical of Antony’ accolades for Achuthanandan and Karim, who had ‘faced a number of corruption charges’.

What has upset the IUML, more than the criticism against the Government, was the fulsome praise Antony showered on the Industries Minister in the VS Achuthanandan Government, Elamaram Kareem for his help in bringing six defence projects to the state during the tenure of the LDF Government. Significantly, Antony again lauded Karim at the Kasargod function – a repeat of the praise the Defence Minister lavished on Karim and VS at the Brahmos function in Thiruvananthapuram. Evidently, that was not to the liking of the IUML leaders.

Mention must also be made of the contrasting manner in which the Congress and the IUML and the KC(M) have reacted to Antony’s ‘missile attack’. While Congress leaders have by and large accepted Antony’s outburst in the right spirit, both the IUML and the KC(M) have made no bones about their resentment about the Defence Minister’s plain-speaking.

Incidentally, this is not the first time that Antony has lashed out at the IUML. It was his remark way back in 2004 that the minorities in Kerala were exerting pressure to have their demands conceded which ultimately resulted in his being replaced by Oommen Chandy as the Chief Minister. The prevailing perception is that Antony has not forgiven Oommen Chandy and Kunhalikkutty for their ‘role’ in easing him out of the CM’s post.

It is an open secret that both IUML and the KC(M) are unhappy about the ‘shabby deal’ meted out to them in the latest Union Cabinet reshuffle. While the IUML is aggrieved that its sole representative in the Union Council of Ministers, Mr E Ahmed has not been given Cabinet rank, KC(M) chief and Kerala’s Finance Minister, K M Mani, is peeved at his son. Jose K Mani, MP, being denied a ‘much-deserved’ berth in the Union Cabinet. This has clearly influenced their response to Antony’s unusually strong criticism of the UDF Government’s style of functioning.

A section of the Congress leaders is, not surprisingly, happy about the tongue-lashing to which Antony subjected both Oommen Chandy and Kunhalikkutty. They are of the view that Antony was the best person to do the unpleasant but timely job of cutting the aggressively articulate IUML, to size. If only the Chief Minister had asserted his authority earlier, perhaps Antony would have been spared the need to air his anger at the sorry state of affairs, they opine.

One thing is clear. The last word on the controversy has not been said – as yet. The uneasy truce may not last long, given the bitterness spawned by the Union Defence Minister’s angry remarks. (IPA)