KOCHI: The dismal performance in the Palakkad by-election has dealt a body blow to the state BJP, particularly at a time when the party has been striving hard to broaden its support base at the grassroots level ahead of the assembly election due in the state in 2026.
K Surendran — whose second term as BJP state president is set to end in February — was expecting an extension till the assembly election, but the poor showing in Palakkad has changed the scenario with many leaders questioning his leadership.
While most leaders have refused to comment on the Palakkad debacle, all fingers are being pointed at Surendran. Even former Union minister V Muraleedharan, who has been a pillar of support for Surendran, has refused to back him. Responding to questions from the media on Sunday, Muraleedharan said it is for the state president to comment on Palakkad by-election.
The criticism within the party over candidate selection and handling of the Sandeep Varier issue are targeted at Surendran, with demands that he take responsibility for the poll defeat.
‘Palakkad bypoll defeat erased gains made over past decade’
“Surendran had claimed the credit for the party’s performance in the Lok Sabha election. So, he should own the responsibility for its defeat as well. The Palakkad debacle has erased the gains the party made over the past decade,” said a senior leader.
With Surendran’s term as state president ending in February 2025, there will be increased pressure on the central leadership for effecting a change of guard. However, the absence of a candidate with broad acceptance gives Surendran an advantage. The party needs an inspiring leader who should also be a crowd puller. A frontrunner to the post is Sobha Surendran, but there will be pressure to give another term to Muraleedharan who held the post from 2010 to 2015.
Former state president C K Padmanabhan said the party should probe the reasons for the defeat. However, Palakkad district committee member Surendran Tharoor, state committee member C V Sajini and and national council member N Sivarajan have blamed the candidate selection for the loss. The fact that the party has polled lesser votes than it did in the 2016 assembly election has annoyed the leaders.
“It is the unilateral selection of candidate that led to the fiasco. A majority of the party leaders were against C Krishnakumar, who had contested six elections in the past nine years. He contested the municipal election in 2015, assembly elections in 2016 and 2021, and Lok Sabha polls in 2019 and 2024. It is an A-class constituency for the BJP and the party should have fielded a high profile candidate like E Sreedharan. A candidate like Sobha Surendran too would have helped the party achieve victory,” said a state-level BJP functionary.
The RSS was also not happy with the selection of candidate. Senior sangh leaders were hurt as Krishnakumar did not visit the karyalaya in Palakkad or seek their support. While a section of RSS workers toiled hard at the grassroots, disgruntled workers of the BJP and the RSS were inactive, which ultimately reflected in the results. There was a sharp decline in BJP vote share in its strongholds in the municipal area, which means party votes went to the UDF.
