An acting sleeper may refuse to wake up, but when the bed catches fire, he cannot ignore the flames—yet he remains silent, pretending innocence. Similarly, the CPM in Kerala, after years of silence, is now pointing fingers at the Islamic political lobby, alleging it played a key role in the electoral victories of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi from Wayanad.
CPM Polit Bureau member A. Vijayaraghavan stated that Rahul Gandhi won the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency due to the support he received from Islamic communal forces. He further alleged that the worst kinds of communal elements were visibly present in the front and back rows of Priyanka Gandhi’s electoral campaign marches.
It is worth noting that the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency includes assembly segments not only from Wayanad revenue district but also from three assembly constituencies in the Muslim-majority Malappuram revenue district: Eranadu, Nilambur, and Vandoor. The Muslim vote bank plays a crucial role in these areas. Malappuram revenue district is a stronghold of the Indian Union Muslim League, the second-largest constituent of the opposition Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF). This is the key factor behind the electoral success of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi in Wayanad.
When Priyanka recently contested the by-election in the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency, voters from two assembly constituencies—Palakkad and Chelakkara—also went to the polls. There were widespread allegations that the Congress was hand-in-glove with the SDPI, the political arm of the outlawed Popular Front of India (PFI), in the Palakkad constituency. Notably, SDPI cadres began their victory celebrations as soon as the Congress candidate was declared elected, even before the Congress itself launched its victory march. It is possible that the SDPI followed a similar voting pattern in Wayanad.
However, when a CPM leader brings this up, it becomes particularly intriguing, given that both the ruling CPM-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) are in fierce competition to appease Muslim voters. Vijayaraghavan’s statement evokes the old fable of the fox and the sour grapes—when the communal vote bank shifts towards the LDF, it is deemed “elite voting,” but when it moves to the UDF’s kitty, it suddenly becomes “sour.”
Comments