Pinarayi Vijayan, the Left, and the Politics of Selective Targeting

 From Emergency-Era Repression to ED Scrutiny: A Reflection on India's Enduring Battle Against the Left

 By: Ramphal Kataria

"The strength of the Left has never been its wealth; it has been its willingness to sacrifice wealth."

Abstract

The recent Enforcement Directorate (ED) action linked to the business interests of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter has reignited debates about the use of investigative agencies in Indian politics. For supporters of the Left movement, the episode is not merely about one leader or one investigation; it represents a larger attempt to discredit a political tradition that has historically distinguished itself through ideological commitment, organizational discipline, and personal austerity. This article traces the journey of Pinarayi Vijayan from a young communist activist tortured during the Emergency to one of India's most influential Chief Ministers. It examines the achievements of Kerala under his leadership, the historical relationship between the Communist movement and the Congress, and the contemporary contradictions within opposition politics. It argues that while the BJP's ideological hostility toward communism is well known, sections of the Congress leadership have also often undermined Left forces, weakening broader opposition unity in the process.

"You May Raid a House, But You Cannot Raid an Ideology."

Few leaders in contemporary Indian politics embody the resilience of an ideological movement as deeply as Pinarayi Vijayan. For over five decades, he has remained rooted in the Communist movement, rising from a grassroots activist in Kannur to become the longest-serving Chief Minister in Kerala's recent history.

Unlike many politicians whose careers are associated with personal wealth, dynastic expansion, or corporate patronage, Vijayan's political identity has been shaped by organization, cadre politics, and ideological commitment. His supporters point to a tradition within the Communist movement where public life is not viewed as a route to personal enrichment but as an extension of collective struggle.

The controversy surrounding recent ED actions has therefore triggered a larger political debate. Is this merely an investigation, or does it fit into a wider pattern where opposition leaders are selectively targeted? More importantly, why did criticism of Vijayan emerge not only from the BJP but also from sections of the Congress?

From Emergency Victim to Chief Minister

To understand Pinarayi Vijayan, one must revisit the dark days of the Emergency (1975-77).

The Emergency represented one of the most severe assaults on democratic freedoms in independent India. Thousands of opposition activists, journalists, trade unionists, and political workers were imprisoned. Communist cadres, particularly those associated with the CPI(M), faced extensive repression.

Pinarayi Vijayan was among those arrested. Accounts from the period describe the brutality inflicted upon political prisoners. His experiences during detention became part of the political memory of Kerala's Left movement.

For many communists, these years confirmed a long-held belief that democratic rights could not be taken for granted and that state power, when unchecked, could become an instrument of political suppression.

The Long History of Congress versus the Left

The tensions between Congress and the Communist movement did not begin with contemporary electoral politics.

In 1957, Kerala elected the world's first democratically elected Communist government under E. M. S. Namboodiripad.

The government initiated ambitious land reforms, educational reforms, and social welfare measures. However, in 1959, the government was dismissed by the Central Government under Article 356 after the "Liberation Struggle."

For the Left, the dismissal remains one of the earliest examples of the Centre using constitutional power to remove an elected state government for political reasons.

The relationship deteriorated further during the Emergency when many Left activists were jailed.

Yet politics often produces strange alliances.

When the Left Saved a Secular Coalition

The period from 2004 to 2008 remains one of the most significant examples of political maturity displayed by the CPI(M) and other Left parties.

After the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) came to power largely because of outside support from the Left parties.

The Left deliberately chose not to occupy ministerial positions. Instead, it extended support to prevent the return of the BJP-led NDA and to ensure the implementation of a Common Minimum Programme.

Such examples are rare in contemporary politics where coalition participation is often driven by ministerial ambitions.

The CPI(M) had demonstrated similar restraint earlier when the possibility emerged of senior leader Jyoti Basu becoming Prime Minister. The party declined participation, a decision Basu later famously described as a "historic blunder."

Regardless of one's political position, the episode remains a remarkable example of organizational discipline prevailing over individual ambition.

Pinarayi Vijayan's Kerala Model

During nearly a decade in office, Pinarayi Vijayan's government has emphasized:

Strengthening public healthcare.

Expansion of public education infrastructure.

Digital governance initiatives.

Welfare measures for vulnerable sections.

Infrastructure modernization through KIIFB projects.

Disaster management responses during floods and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even critics acknowledge that Kerala has remained among India's leading states on several social indicators including literacy, health outcomes, and human development.

Supporters argue that these achievements are not accidental but are the cumulative result of decades of Left-led policy interventions.

Rahul Gandhi, Kerala Politics, and the Contradiction of Opposition Unity

A significant political controversy emerged during both the 2024 Lok Sabha campaign and subsequent Kerala elections when Rahul Gandhi repeatedly questioned why investigative agencies had not acted against Pinarayi Vijayan.

Many Left supporters viewed these remarks as politically damaging.

The concern was not merely electoral competition in Kerala. Rather, it was that such rhetoric appeared to reinforce narratives advanced by political opponents at a time when opposition unity against the BJP was being projected nationally.

The controversy was compounded by earlier remarks in which Rahul Gandhi compared the CPI(M) and RSS.

For Left activists, the comparison was deeply objectionable.

The CPI(M) has historically positioned itself as one of India's most consistent opponents of communal politics. Communist workers have often been at the forefront of campaigns against communal violence, majoritarianism, and religious polarization.

Equating a Marxist organization with a Hindu nationalist organization was therefore interpreted by many on the Left as evidence of a profound misunderstanding of ideological differences.

The Congress Exodus and the Rise of the BJP

Certainly. Here is that section expanded into narrative prose for your essay:

One of the enduring paradoxes of contemporary Indian politics is that while the Congress often presents itself as the principal ideological and electoral opponent of the BJP, a significant number of influential leaders who today occupy important positions within the BJP’s political structure once emerged from the Congress ecosystem itself. This is not a minor contradiction or a matter of isolated defections. It reflects a deeper and more uncomfortable political reality: a considerable part of the BJP’s expansion in recent years has been strengthened not merely through ideological mobilization from outside the Congress, but through the absorption of leaders, networks, and political capital that were once cultivated within the Congress system.

This pattern has repeated itself across multiple states and across very different political contexts.

In Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma represents one of the clearest examples. Once a prominent Congress leader and a key strategist in the state, he later joined the BJP and became one of the most powerful regional faces of the party in the Northeast. His shift was not merely personal; it symbolized a transfer of organizational strength and political influence that significantly altered Assam’s political balance.

In West Bengal, Suvendu Adhikari followed a similar trajectory. Although his political route passed through regional politics, his eventual emergence as a major BJP face reflected a broader pattern of opposition realignment in which anti-incumbency and organizational vacuum created opportunities for the BJP to grow by incorporating established political figures.

Punjab saw a comparable development with Amarinder Singh. A senior Congress leader and former Chief Minister, his eventual political separation from Congress and alignment with the BJP demonstrated how even long-standing Congress figures could become politically distant from the party’s internal leadership structure.

In Uttar Pradesh, Jitin Prasada moved from Congress into the BJP at a moment when Congress was already struggling to retain its influence in the state. His departure reinforced the wider perception of organizational decline and the BJP’s growing ability to attract leaders from rival parties.

A similar case can be seen in Haryana through Rao Inderjit Singh, whose movement into the BJP reflected how regional political influence and established networks once associated with Congress increasingly shifted toward the ruling party.

Among the most prominent national examples is Jyotiraditya Scindia. Coming from one of Congress’s most visible political families, Scindia’s departure was politically significant far beyond his own career. It contributed directly to a change in power equations in Madhya Pradesh and highlighted how leadership dissatisfaction within Congress could produce major structural consequences.

Veteran leaders such as Birender Singh and S. M. Krishna further reinforce the same pattern. These were not fringe or short-term political actors. They were experienced leaders with administrative backgrounds, institutional networks, and public credibility developed over decades within Congress-led politics.

 Taken together, these examples reveal a larger structural issue. The BJP’s rise has not occurred in isolation. A meaningful portion of its expansion has also been made possible by Congress’s own weakening at the organizational and leadership level. Where Congress failed to retain internal cohesion, regional leadership confidence, or long-term political trust, the BJP was often able to step in and absorb influential leaders along with their support base.

From a broader political perspective, this creates a serious contradiction for Congress. It remains a major opposition force at the national level, yet many of the BJP’s strongest state-level figures are individuals who were once nurtured by Congress itself. The challenge, therefore, is not only electoral competition with the BJP. It is also an internal question of political structure, leadership management, ideological clarity, and organizational resilience.

For the wider opposition—including the Left—this pattern carries an important lesson. The expansion of the BJP cannot be explained only through ideological mobilization or campaign strategy. It must also be understood through the political vacuum created when centrist institutions weaken from within and when parties fail to retain their own experienced leadership.

That contradiction remains one of the defining realities of Indian politics today.This migration highlights a larger structural challenge facing Congress: organizational decline and leadership deficits have often enabled the BJP's expansion.

Many critics argue that Congress weakened itself long before it was weakened by others.

Why the Left Still Matters

Despite electoral setbacks, the Left continues to occupy a unique place in Indian politics.

The enduring strength of the Left in India has always rested in the social classes and communities whose labour sustains the country but whose voices are most often pushed to the margins of political power. Unlike parties built primarily around electoral charisma, financial influence, or elite networks, the Communist movement drew its historical legitimacy from direct engagement with those who produce wealth through physical labour and collective work.

At the centre of this social base stand India’s workers—industrial labourers in factories, mills, ports, transport networks, mines, and public sector institutions, along with millions employed in the unorganized sector whose labour remains essential but insecure. For the Communist movement, workers were never treated merely as an economic category. They were understood as the productive force on which the entire structure of society depends. Their struggle for wages, workplace dignity, social security, union rights, and protection against exploitation became one of the foundational pillars of Left politics. Through trade unions and labour movements, the Left attempted to transform individual economic hardship into collective political consciousness.

Closely linked to this were peasants and rural cultivators, who formed the backbone of India’s agrarian economy. In a country where land has historically determined both livelihood and social power, peasant struggles became central to Communist politics. The movement organized tenant farmers against exploitative rent systems, supported sharecroppers demanding fair access to produce, raised demands for land redistribution, and challenged structures of debt and landlord domination that had burdened rural communities for generations. For millions in villages, Communist politics was not experienced first through theory or party manifestos but through concrete struggles around land, crops, irrigation, debt relief, and the right to survive with dignity.

Agricultural labourers occupied an even more vulnerable position and therefore became a crucial part of the Left’s social foundation. Unlike cultivators who might own or lease land, agricultural labourers often depended entirely on seasonal wages and had little bargaining power. Their lives were shaped by unstable employment, low wages, social vulnerability, and, in many parts of India, the combined burden of caste hierarchy and economic exploitation. Communist organizing in rural India frequently brought agricultural labourers into unions and mass movements, giving political voice to communities that had long remained invisible in mainstream policy and electoral discourse.

Tribal and Adivasi communities also became an important constituency for Left movements because their relationship with land, forests, and local autonomy placed them in repeated conflict with both colonial extraction and post-independence development policies that displaced them without equitable justice. For many tribal communities, political struggle was directly connected to protecting access to forests, resisting land acquisition, defending livelihood rights, and preserving local control over natural resources. The Left often framed these struggles not as isolated regional disputes but as part of a broader resistance against exploitation and dispossession.

Religious minorities, too, found significant political space within Left movements because the Communist tradition in India consistently opposed communal division as a tool that weakens democratic and class unity. Marxist politics viewed communalism as a mechanism through which economic grievances could be redirected into religious hostility, dividing workers and peasants who otherwise shared common material interests. By defending secular constitutional politics and opposing communal polarization, the Left positioned itself as a political force where minorities could participate as equal citizens rather than as vote banks defined only through identity.

The same was true for broader marginalized social groups—Dalits, oppressed castes, economically vulnerable communities, and those historically excluded from social and institutional power. Though the relationship between caste and class in India has always required complex political engagement, the Communist movement consistently recognized that exploitation in India cannot be understood through economics alone. It exists through overlapping systems of caste hierarchy, land ownership, social exclusion, and labor extraction. The attempt to challenge these structures through organization, agitation, welfare policy, and democratic participation became a central feature of Left politics.

This broad social coalition—workers, peasants, labourers, tribal communities, minorities, and marginalized sections—gave the Communist movement a distinct place in Indian political life. It represented not simply a voting bloc but a long historical alliance of those who worked with their hands, produced value, carried the burden of economic inequality, and demanded that political democracy must also lead toward social and economic justice. Unlike most major parties, the Communist movement continues to emphasize cadre-based politics, ideological training, trade union activity, and grassroots mobilization.

Its leaders are often remembered less for personal wealth and more for personal simplicity.

Former Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar became emblematic of this tradition because of his austere lifestyle and modest personal possessions.

Such examples contribute to the perception that the Left remains distinct from personality-driven and family-centric political formations.

"Governments may dismiss Communist ministries, jail Communist workers, or raid Communist leaders—but ideas survive repression."

Conclusion: Beyond One Raid

The controversy surrounding Pinarayi Vijayan is larger than one investigation or one election cycle.

For supporters of the Left, it represents a continuation of a historical pattern in which Communist movements have faced hostility from both the Right and sections of the political centre.

From the dismissal of the EMS government in 1959, to imprisonment during the Emergency, to contemporary political battles, the Left's relationship with power has often been adversarial.

Whether one agrees with its ideology or not, the Communist movement has played a significant role in shaping India's democratic, secular, and labour-oriented politics.

The larger question therefore is not whether leaders should be investigated—accountability must apply to all. The question is whether investigative processes are applied consistently across the political spectrum and whether electoral competition should come at the cost of weakening broader democratic opposition.

As India navigates an era of intense political polarization, the lessons of history remain relevant: ideological disagreements are inevitable, but the erosion of democratic solidarity among opposition forces can have consequences far beyond any single election.

"Opposition unity cannot be built nationally while delegitimizing allies regionally."

References

1.     India After Gandhi – Ramachandra Guha.

2.     The Communist Movement in India – Bipan Chandra.

3.     A History of Political Ideas – Sujit Kumar Ghosh.

4.     Intertwined Lives: P. Krishna Pillai and the Kerala Communist Movement – M. A. Baby.

5.     The Emergency: A Personal History – Coomi Kapoor.

6.     Speeches and writings of E. M. S. Namboodiripad.