KANNUR/KOCHI: In a soft but calculated retort to CPI state secretary Kanam Rajendran, CPM state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan on Saturday said no LDF ally should give ammunition to the Opposition to attack the CPM and the Left.
In a 60-minute meeting with reporters in his home turf Kannur on Saturday, Kodiyeri categorically responded to all major issues raised by his counterpart recently.
Taking a dig at the CPI for its alliance with the Congress in the past, Kodiyeri said the party is free to point out the lapses in governance as they have a better experience being part of both the LDF and UDF-led governments.
Stating an open criticism would weaken the government, Kodiyeri mentioned the 'Chavara Sarasan episode' in the early 80s when the CPI joined hands with the CPM detractors against the then LDF Government.
Kodiyeri said differences of opinion should be discussed within the LDF.
Kodiyeri's retort to Kanam's remarks:
1. Jishnu case and action against his mother Mahija
The protest in front of the DGP office was unwarranted. The office premise was declared a high-security zone by the A K Antony government in 2002. Media footage shows there was no attack against Jishnu's mother Mahija or any other family member.
The issues raised by Mahija could have been addressed without protesting in front of the DGP office. If Jishnu's family members had an issue with the assurance given by the Chief Minister, they should have taken it up with him in person.
It was the High Court which granted anticipatory bail to the accused in the Jishnu case. The Pinarayi Vijayan government took a strong stand against the self-financing colleges. No other government has dared to take such a step.
2. 'Capitalist' remark against Pinarayi Vijayan
Kanam might have felt so because he was a trade union leader. (Pinarayi had earlier asked what Mahija and other family members of Jishnu gained from staging the protest in front of the DGP office. Kanam had responded to this saying Pinarayi's statement sounds like that of a capitalist.)
3. Munnar eviction and abuse on Sub-Collector
The CPM, LDF and the state government are on the same page on the Munnar issue. Unnecessary controversies have been kicked up regarding the action against encroachments without checking the facts. In Munnar, the encroachments are being removed with the support of the CPM district leadership. But, distorted reports said the party tried to stop evictions. It became an issue after the Sub-Collector reached the place without informing the police. The LDF is against illegal encroachments in Munnar.
All encroachments should be evicted. There are efforts from certain quarters to show the government in poor light. However, the government will not take any steps that will disappoint the people.
4. Advisor to CM on public policy
There is no anomaly in appointing Raman Srivastava as advisor to the Chief Minister. He was DGP when I was the Home Minister.
5. Maoist Killings in Nilambur
It was not a fake encounter and the Maoists were killed during the counter-attack by police. Fake encounters had taken place in Kerala under the UDF rule. There is no parallel to the 'encounter' of Naxal Varghese. The truth behind it was revealed later.
6. Affidavit on Naxal Varghese
It was the affidavit prepared during the UDF regime--submitted without any checking--which led to such an issue. The CPM was the first to point out the affidavit was wrong. (The affidavit filed in the Kerala High Court had termed Varghese as a notorious criminal who tried to attack the police. In the affidavit, he was mentioned as the leader of a Naxalite gang involved in several murder and dacoity cases).
7. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
The CPM is against UAPA from the beginning and all allegations being raised against the party in this regard are baseless.
8. Right To Information (RTI)
The government is for effectively using the RTI Act. However, there is an ambiguity over providing information regarding Cabinet decisions. The orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court in this regard, too, are not clear. We
have moved court to bring more clarity on the issue.
9. Social Media and party members
If someone says something on social media, it cannot be termed as the party's stance. The party members should express only the party stance on social media, too.