The power game in Kerala

Published : Oct 25, 2002 00:00 IST

Faction fighting intensifies once again in the Congress(I) in Kerala, and developments this time around suggest that there could be a realignment of forces within the party in the long term.

FOR all the sternness that the Congress(I) high command seemed to muster behind its recent efforts to rein in party functionaries who are out to discredit the 16-month-old A.K. Antony government in Kerala, it is still a keen game of political one-upmanship in the party unit, which leads the ruling United Democratic Front (UDF) coalition in the State.

Ambika Soni, the All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary in charge of Kerala, said that public statements made continuously by "party functionaries" about organisational matters and government functioning had "demolished the image of the Congress(I)" in the State. From now on, she said, the high command's objective would not be to "satisfy all (group) leaders, but to satisfy the people, who had given the party the mandate to rule". She also said in no uncertain terms that K. Karunakaran, three-time Chief Minister, was a "national leader" of the party and what it wanted was his services (only) at the national level.

The sabre-rattling by Ambika Soni has left no one in doubt about the target of the high command's displeasure and its intention to deal firmly with "indiscipline" in the State Congress(I). Surely, the message to Karunakaran from party president Sonia Gandhi was to `lay off and let Antony rule' an indication of the public relations success of Antony camp followers and other Karunakaran rivals in the State party with the party high command. But it will remain a moot question whether it was Karunakaran's "trouble-making" alone that prevented the Antony government from "performing" so far. That could have been answered conclusively had the octogenarian leader kept quiet and left Antony to his fate.

In its 16 months in office, the UDF government, which won a brute majority of 100 seats in the 140-member Assembly, has failed even to make a beginning in implementing its election promises, especially the one on turning the economy of the State around. An early initiative to fine-tune the State's finances by cutting the salary and other benefits of government employees led to a two-month-long agitation which paralysed the State administration and created much ill-will for the government. An attempt to increase electricity tariffs too failed; the announcement was withdrawn in a jiffy, as opposition mounted and Antony found himself without support even from his own Cabinet colleagues.

In all such instances, the political cost that the Chief Minister had to pay was too high as criticism of such moves and underhand efforts to sabotage them were the strongest from within his own party, especially from Karunakaran and his supporters.

The result was the breaking of the promise that the government had held out in the beginning, of making sincere efforts and taking firm action to turn the economy around, create more job opportunities, and usher in a new political culture bereft of patronage and favouritism. Instead, what seemed to grow was disaffection within the party in the State, as the Chief Minister increasingly tried to act his all-too jaded role of a principled politician unable to do anything, instead of being a pragmatic leader that his supporters increasingly goaded him to be. They soon found that they had no role in their own government and that traditional outlets of political patronage, especially those that involved the State police, were no longer open to them. In contrast, it seemed to them that Antony was too willing to turn a blind eye to coalition partners and officials running their respective departments as their fiefs. Bearing the brunt of these "unacceptable" scheme of things were members of the Antony camp themselves, who, unlike their party rivals, had to suppress their resentment as they could not criticise their own leader.

Significantly, despite the huge majority the coalition had in the Assembly, Ministry formation, especially the inclusion of Congress(I) Ministers, became a mere sharing of the spoils among the four factions in the party. However, intentionally or otherwise, Antony's close aides were not accommodated in the Ministry. In the 16 months in office, Antony seemed to have kept himself away from even his own close supporters such as Oommen Chandy and Aryadan Muhammed and leaned more heavily on the Indian Union Muslim League and the Kerala Congress (Mani), coalition partners whose leaders were sure to demand their own pound of flesh when the time came.

Therefore, if Karunakaran's tenacious attempts to find fault with the Antony government seemed jarring and unjust initially, 16 months hence at least many persons within the Congress(I) were slowly beginning to appreciate the one-track wisdom behind his bitter statements. As disaffection against Antony spread silently within the party, especially in his own camp, Karunakaran, who has an assured support of 26 Members of Legislative Assembly (out of a total 61 Congress(I) MLAs), through an orchestrated effort, was presenting himself as one who would have done much better, "at least for the party and his partymen".

Yet, Karunakaran now says that he no longer wishes to be in the Chief Minister's chair ("Underline it," is how he declared his mind, in a recent media interview). Instead, what he demanded initially was a Cabinet reshuffle to save the government a prospect that was sure to stir the Congress(I)'s hornet's nest of innumerable ministerial aspirants, who would look up to him rather than to the "saint-like" Antony. It also would throw open other delightful possibilities for Karunakaran of dropping some of his own nominees in the Cabinet who were becoming too big for their shoes, pulling in fence-sitters from the Antony camp who needed his support if they were to further their political carrers, and, most significant of all, opening the door for his daughter, Padmaja Venugopal, to be inducted into the Cabinet.

It was a serious turn of events when, at the end of it all, Antony approached the high command with the complaint that brazen attempts were once again on from within the party to sabotage his government. For once, Antony was armed with the perfect weapon to reinforce his argument. In June, Surya TV, a Malayalam television channel, had aired an allegation that a police intelligence report to the Chief Minister (who also holds the Home portfolio) had implicated Minister for Tourism (and estranged Karunakaran camp follower) K.V. Thomas in a hawala racket that saw nearly Rs.336 crores flowing into Kerala. The news report had quoted extensively from a document allegedly sent by the Inspector General (Intelligence) to the Chief Minister and which seemed genuine, complete as it was with the seal of the police headquarters. The report also implied that despite the seriousness of the case, the Chief Minister had failed to act on it.

The government denied the existence of such a report and after inquiries by the State police announced that the document was a forged one. The Chief Minister promptly described it as an attempt to sabotage his government and, as the needle of suspicion turned towards the Karunakaran supporter, ministerial aspirant and MLA, Sobhana George, Antony chose to strike back. The high command's warning was a direct result of its complete agreement with the Chief Minister's assessment.

FOR a major part of the past three decades, Congress politics in Kerala has revolved around the clash between Karunakaran and Antony. The roots of this factional war can be traced back to 1977. Despite the remarkable gains that he achieved for the party, Karunakaran could remain as Chief Minister only for a few months; he was forced to resign over the issue of the death in police custody of a naxalite activist, Rajan, while he was Home Minister in the previous government, led by the Communist Party of India leader C. Achutha Menon. With no hard work on his part, in what was to become a trend subsequently, Antony replaced Karunakaran as Chief Minister.

By the late 1980s, a new factor added fuel to the factional war, with Karunakaran actively trying to promote his son, K. Muraleedharan, in State politics. The entry of Muraleedharan upset the applecart for many members in the `I' group led by Karunakaran, and by the time Karunakaran became Chief Minister in 1991 the discontent within his camp had led to the formation of a third group in the State Congress(I). Karunakaran was forced to step down once again in 1995, a year before his term was to end and when he still commanded majority support in the legislature party. His one-time followers all switched their alliegance to the Antony camp, and Karunakaran's rivals, with help from coalition partners, successfully pressed the demand for a change of leadership before the Congress(I) high command led by P.V. Narasimha Rao.

Thus, while Karunakaran had to leave under a cloud, Antony, who was the Minister for Civil Supplies in the Narasimha Rao Cabinet at the Centre, once again had the chief ministership delivered to him on a platter by his ardent supporters. The people of Kerala, who saw the look on Karunakarn's face the day he was forced to quit, were not surprised by his subsequent actions and the problems he continued to create for Antony.

However, what did surprise the State during the recent turn of events is the role of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (I) president Muraleedharan, who, of late, has appeared to be supporting the Antony camp against his father, who seems all set to promote Padmaja. After the latest round of talks that he as KPCC(I) chief and Oommen Chandy as the convener of the UDF coalition had with the party president in New Delhi, Muraleedharan asserted that "the KPCC(I) and the UDF will not allow persons who were not office-bearers of the party or the coalition to function as `power centres' in State party politics and in the government".

Muraleedharan is no more the political novice whom his father once tried to thrust upon Congressmen in Kerala, overriding the personal ambitions of many young leaders who had stood with Karunakaran through thick and thin. Even when his followers fell out with him, and even though he had to face several crises on this very issue, Karunakaran took care to nurture his son's political career: first he made him the dispenser of political favours within his group, initially in the role of an extra-constitutional power centre and then as a (three-time) Congress(I) MP. When Antony became Chief Minister once again in May 2001, Karunakaran had already wrangled the post of the KPCC(I) president for a transformed, "politically mature" Muraleedharan. The equation that Karunakaran sought to establish by this singular act was, "if Antony from the `A' group is to be the Chief Minister, Muraleedharan from the `I' group should be the natural choice for the KPCC(I) president". What was left unsaid was more significant: a person who can lead the party can as well lead the government in the State when the time comes.

With the acquisition of KPCC(I) presidentship, Muraleedharan increasingly began to take a neutral stand in party affairs rather than promote the interests of the `I' group. As Karunakaran's attack against Antony and his government became more strident and virulent, it was Muraleedharan's incongruous tone that Congressmen in Kerala began to listen to with interest. It was no coincidence that Muraleedharan's public opposition to his father gave him more prestige in the local media as a "mature politician", even as Karunakran began to promote Padmaja, the same way as he had groomed his son for over two decades. The new KPCC(I) president did not hesitate to criticise Karunakaran openly for his comments against the government, though Karunakaran's barbs often seemed tailor-made for his son to criticise.

On September 26, Muraleedharan met Sonia Gandhi along with Oommen Chandy and announced that as a first step, show-cause notices would be issued against Padmaja Venugopal, now a leader of a rival Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) union in the State Electricity Board, and estranged Karunakaran supporter and former Minister T.H. Musthapha, for `violating party discipline'. Padmaja was to be asked to explain why she convened a meeting of a the INTUC faction (of which she recently was made the president) even as the KPCC(I) was trying to bring about a rapprochement between the rival groups. And Mustapha was to show cause for his open criticism of senior Congress(I) leader Karunakaran and some other party functionaries.

Karunakaran's response was surprisingly restrained, though he gave enough indication that he was in no mood to stop his criticism of the government . In fact, soon after the high command made clear that a Cabinet reshuffle was the prerogative of the Chief Minister, Karunakaran demanded a change of leadership in the government: "Anybody other than Antony would be acceptable," he said. He also said that no one need have hopes of tying down with the threat of disciplinary action a leader like him, "one who had stood with the party through all along".

Such defiance in the face of a directive from the high command, however, rattled Karunakran's own camp followers rather than his opponents. For Karunakaran's supporters, the threat of disciplinary action seemed more true than ever, especially after Shobhana George was made the third accused in the forgery case by the police and Antony declared his intention "to get to the bottom of the attempt to sabotage the government". On October 2, a day before she was finally arrested by the crime Branch of the State police, Shobhana George was also issued a show cause notice reportedly under the high command's directive. The big question was whether Antony's police, which took an unusually long time to zero in on Shobhana George, would dare to dig deeper and try to unearth further facts about who was behind her in the attempt to dislodge K.V. Thomas and hence make a Cabinet shake-up a distinct possibility.

The Antony camp had always believed that "only a Karunakaran can be the perfect foil for Karunakaran", as one of its leaders described it recently. A hasty reading of Muraleedharan's recent performance would indicate that Karunakaran is being checkmated finally with the help of his own son. A more prudent conclusion would be that the battle of the future one beyond Karunakaran and Antony was already on in the State Congress(I).

CONGRESSMEN in Kerala have several questions that cannot be answered as yet conclusively. Why is Muraleedharan now more inclined to support the Antony camp, where he has no followers and where his future is uncertain? Why is he of late critical of his father's intimidating statements when his own political growth came about through such `I' group strategy? Does he find a threat in his father's support for his sister, and does he see Padmaja as a potential rival within his own group? How much support can he muster on his own to pursue a different path, if he is indeed out of favour in the Karunakaran camp? Or is it all just another political game that Karunakaran is engineering?

Significantly, even if sibling rivalry is indeed becoming an unexpected problem for Karunakaran, the most likely outcome of the present crisis in the Congress(I) is the ouster of people such as Shobhana George. No one really believes that it would eventually harm Karunakaran or Padmaja, or Muraleedharan for that matter. In fact, two "leaders" quite likely to emerge politically stronger from the present crisis are Muraleedharan, who chose to fight his own father and take action against his own sister, and, Padmaja, who fought the KPCC(I) president to protect her group's interests. Political stardom is but a result of hard struggles, as Karunakaran often reminds Congressmen in Kerala.

There are signs that disenchantment is growing within the Antony camp too, and it is no longer the same cohesive group that it was at the time Karunakaran's ouster in 1995.

One noticeable trend in the past 16 months is the silence of prominent Antony supporters, when the government is being rammed by Karunakaran. Oommen Chandy, Antony's closet confidant, for example, chose to go on a one-month-long trip to the United States, when he was needed most by the Chief Minister. As UDF convener, the views that he expressed in the recent past have also not been exactly the same as those of the State government .

Both Antony and his lieutenants may well be preparing for a possible realignment of forces in the State unit of the party in the long term the reason why Muraleedharan is finding puzzling acceptance within the `A' group. In fact, after the recent meeting with party president Sonia Gandhi, Oommen Chandy announced that the high command would no longer meet group leaders to solve factional problems and that all group problems would henceforth be referred to KPCC(I) president Muraleedharan for appropriate action.

Consider Congress(I) politics in Kerala without Karunakaran and Antony or either one of them, and suddenly all such cogs fit into a future scheme of things. As political Kerala has come to know time and again, the key to understanding Karunakaran's short-term riddles is in fixing its sight firmly on his long-term objectives.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment