After losing the 2026 Assembly elections in Keralam, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI (M) has begun an intensive organisational review. At an Extended State Committee meeting in Kozhikode from September 13 to 15, the party censured State Secretary M V Govindan, inducted new faces, dropped some veterans and proposed further changes. The exercise comes at a critical juncture for the CPI(M), with the Left having lost its last remaining government in the country.
Adding to the party’s troubles, the Kerala High Court on October 9 directed the state police chief to register a case against former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his family in connection with the CMRL-Exalogic case, which involves allegations concerning his family. The order, with potentially significant political ramifications, has dealt another blow to the CPI(M) veteran, already under pressure following the party’s crushing defeat in the Assembly elections.
As the CMRL case puts Vijayan under further scrutiny, support for him among grassroots cadres appears limited. The veteran leader has already faced sharp criticism at recent party meetings. Here is a closer look at the Extended State Committee's deliberations and how they have reshaped the party’s internal dynamics.
Why was the latest course correction needed?
The CPI(M) now faces a serious political and organisational challenge. For the first time since Independence, no Communist government exists anywhere in India.
The party lost its uninterrupted 34-year rule in West Bengal in 2011 and its 25-year rule in Tripura in 2018. Keralam was then the only remaining Left stronghold. It too was lost after the 2026 Assembly elections.
Why was the Keralam defeat particularly significant?
The scale of the defeat made the difference. The Left suffered heavily even in traditional strongholds such as Taliparamba and Payyanur in Kannur.
The setback came after the Left had won a second consecutive term in 2021, making the reversal particularly striking.
Close to a dozen prominent Left leaders, including former legislators and a minister, contested from rival camps. Three of them won from constituencies that had earlier been party strongholds.
How big was the electoral defeat?
The United Democratic Front (UDF) won 102 of the 140 Assembly seats. The Opposition Congress had been confident of victory, but the scale of the UDF’s win caught the Left Front unprepared.
The BJP also won three seats, its first such performance in the state.
The result initially shocked the Left leadership, followed by allegations and counter-allegations.
Did the party leadership immediately accept the defeat?
No. The leadership initially blamed several factors, including Opposition campaigns, an alleged UDF-BJP understanding, media propaganda, vested interests and communal polarisation.
The rank and file were less surprised. A quick assessment on the day after polling had already indicated possible setbacks in districts such as Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Kozhikode, where the Left had made major gains in 2021.
The party subsequently lost a majority of its sitting seats across the state.
What did party cadres identify as the main problem?
Cadres felt that the CPI(M) had lost its mass connect. They believed the party had moved away from ordinary people, which they regarded as its main strength.
Eventually, the party admitted shortcomings: problems running the government machinery, long-term anti-incumbency, arrogant public posturing by some leaders, overconfidence about winning a third term, organisational weaknesses, and detachment from workers and disadvantaged sections that had traditionally formed the Left’s backbone.
What, according to the party, was the most crucial organisational problem?
Centralisation of power. Public perception grew that the party organisation and the government had come to revolve around one leader, then-chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
The CPI(M)'s central leadership also referred to this in its election review, without directly blaming Vijayan. The party saw this concentration of power as distancing cadres and some Left allies and alienating sections of the public.
What other concerns did the party have about its leaders?
The party and its cadres identified a growing tendency among leaders to pursue parliamentary ambitions.
In earlier years, communists had resisted this tendency to some extent. However, after the party’s second consecutive term in government, some leaders were seen as becoming increasingly focused on power.
The party’s own assessment linked this tendency to corrupt practices and organisational decline.
How is the CPI(M) organised?
The CPI(M) has a defined organisational hierarchy that continues regardless of electoral performance.
As a cadre-based party, the Party Congress, held every three years, can normally make changes to the top structure.
It elects the Central Committee (CC) and the Politburo. The Politburo serves as the Central Committee’s executive body.
At the state level, the State Conference, held before the Party Congress, is the main forum for electing the State Committee and State Secretariat. The State Secretariat functions as a representative executive body.
Normally, the State Conference makes changes in state leadership.
Why was an Extended State Committee meeting held?
The meeting was considered an extraordinary intervention.
The Keralam leadership had initially tried to explain the electoral defeat mainly through lower-level failures and an alleged UDF-BJP understanding. The central leadership did not accept that explanation.
The central leadership then proposed the Extended State Committee meeting, which the Central Committee also endorsed.
What did the Central Committee say about the defeat?
The Central Committee said the Keralam unit had to accept responsibility for its role in the electoral loss.
Its review identified several failures, including poor candidate selection, an inability to resolve problems in some areas and a failure to effectively counter the allegation of a CPI(M)-BJP deal.
It also referred to the Sabarimala Ayyappa Sangamam, the endorsement of Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam general secretary Vellappally Natesan, who had repeatedly targeted minorities, and confusion over the signing of the PM SHRI (Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India) deal without taking even Left ally Communist Party of India (CPI) into confidence.
Did the Central Committee point to Pinarayi Vijayan?
It did. Its election review said that personalising the campaign around Pinarayi Vijayan had weakened the political narrative.
Thus, the central leadership openly admitted that the state party’s approach contributed to the defeat.
Did the election defeat change group equations inside the party?
Yes. The defeat created new groupings and axes within the Keralam CPI(M).
The party had continued winning elections despite factionalism in the past. The latest defeat changed that.
A strong demand for leadership change emerged, initially directed at State Secretary M V Govindan but also extending to Pinarayi Vijayan.
What were the main charges against Pinarayi Vijayan?
Cadres and delegates sharply attacked the Pinarayi-centric approach and the personality cult built around him.
While it had previously been difficult to speak out against Vijayan within the party, the election defeat prompted several party forums to question both him and Govindan openly.
Govindan and Kannur leader K K Ragesh faced scrutiny over the party's candidate selection process. Govindan’s wife, P K Shyamala, being the party’s candidate in Taliparamba further intensified the debate.
Which senior leaders spoke out openly?
M A Baby, Thomas Isaac, P Rajeeve, P Jayarajan and A N Shamseer voiced their concerns in party forums and on social media, in what amounted to unusually candid admissions.
The emergence of new groupings and the coming together of reformists against the state leadership emboldened some leaders to demand changes at the top.
None directly challenged Pinarayi Vijayan, but the growing resentment within a section of the party was unmistakable.
What could happen to Pinarayi Vijayan?
The next Party Congress is scheduled for 2028. The post-election developments could trigger changes in the leadership structure built around Vijayan.
Criticism of the Kannur veteran, who has dominated the Keralam CPI(M) for close to three decades, has become more open.
There have also been calls to remove him as Leader of the Opposition. Sources say he could eventually step down and make way for his current second-in-command in the Assembly, K N Balagopal.
Did the case involving his family affect the situation?
The CMRL-Exalogic case involving his daughter, Veena T, and son-in-law and party leader Mohammed Riyaz has been an unexpected blow. The Enforcement Directorate move against Pinarayi and his family has generated new perceptions within the party.
Notably, only a few leaders have so far come forward justifying the former Chief Minister. The open revolt within the party and the Left Front over the poll debacle, the CPI’s distancing itself from the controversial ED move, and suspicions surrounding the CMRL case are evident setbacks for Pinarayi.
What happened at the Extended State Committee meeting in Kozhikode?
The meeting marked a significant intervention by the central leadership in the Keralam party. It could well be a new chapter in the political history of the state CPI(M). Taking a cue from the momentum set by the Central Committee, the central leadership has started exerting more control over the state party.
Several Politburo members – Ashok Dhawale, BV Raghavulu, K Balakrishnan, U Vasuki and Vijoo Krishnan, along with general secretary M A Baby – made sure that the Extended State Committee meeting didn’t pass off as yet another cosmetic correction.
Was there strong criticism at the meeting?
Yes. Despite efforts to control the criticism, the leadership faced severe attacks over the electoral failure.
The leadership had to handle demands for change without letting the situation get out of control.
The central leadership nevertheless said it intended to act on the problems the party identified.
What disciplinary action was taken?
The party censured State Secretary M V Govindan for the electoral failure. This was an unusual disciplinary action against a state secretary for an election defeat.
What about Pinarayi Vijayan?
Although Vijayan had been at the centre of both the government and the party’s functioning, the leadership spared him.
The explanation was that the central leadership did not want to send a message against its senior-most leader while he faced a central probe.
Who were the new faces brought into the State Secretariat?
The new faces who entered the State Secretariat were popular Kannur leader P Jayarajan, sidelined for a long period; youngster M B Rajesh, who has a clean image; and popular capital-city leader V Sivankutty.
Who was dropped?
Former minister T M Thomas Isaac and Left Democratic Front (LDF) convener T P Ramakrishnan were dropped.
Rajya Sabha member John Brittas was given a mandate to work with the State Secretariat, although he was not formally inducted into it.
Kollam leader Susan Kody, who had earlier been dropped because of factional issues, was re-inducted into the State Committee.
What other organisational changes were made?
Nine new faces, mostly youngsters, were made permanent invitees to the State Committee.
The party is also considering measures including disclosing leaders’ wealth, revamping its new-media operations, and streamlining the cadre structure.
What happens next?
The extended meeting has injected fresh vigour into the party, as seen in the ongoing district-level extended meetings.
The top-level changes could be replicated in some districts. A change of state secretary also appears likely in the longer term.
The immediate organisational task is to address the problems the party identified and rebuild its connection with people. M A Baby put the approach in simple terms: “Listen to criticism, introspect and correct.”