A 45-year-old CPM branch secretary, Kalyanasundaram, succumbed to severe burn injuries on January 29, at Thanjavur Medical College Hospital, days after a fire broke out while he was burning an effigy of Donald Trump during a protest in Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.
The protest, held on January 10, aimed to denounce the alleged arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the United States, which left party workers voicing solidarity with Venezuela and opposition to US actions.
According to reports, Kalyanasundaram was dousing the effigy with petrol when the fire rapidly spread onto his clothes, causing critical burns. He was immediately admitted to hospital, but his condition worsened over the following weeks, leading to his death during treatment.
The CPM confirmed his identity as the local branch secretary of the party and expressed grief at the loss of their cadre. Nagapattinam police have registered a case and are investigating the exact circumstances of the incident, including whether safety protocols were observed during the protest.
The incident has renewed concerns over safety practices at political demonstrations involving fire and the responsibility of organisers to prevent such tragedies.
It is pertinent to mention here that the CPM has launched a series of protests across Bharat targeting US President Donald Trump, positioning the agitation as part of its long-standing opposition to what it calls American imperialism and interventionist foreign policy. Party leaders say the protests are aimed at highlighting US actions that, in their view, undermine the sovereignty of developing nations and destabilise global peace.
While the CPI(M) has shown remarkable zeal in mobilising cadres across Bharat to burn effigies of Trump in the name of anti-imperialism, its deafening silence on the systematic targeting of Hindus in neighbouring Bangladesh stands exposed.
Over the years, reports of killings, mob attacks, temple desecration, and forced displacement of Hindu minorities have repeatedly surfaced, yet the Left leadership has chosen political quietism over moral clarity, no nationwide protests, no sustained campaigns, and no street mobilisation. This selective outrage raises an uncomfortable question: is the CPI(M)’s conscience guided by human rights, or by ideological convenience?
