Political murders and CPM’s double-standards in Kerala

The latest statement by the CPM that it would cooperate with the investigation of the local leader, who confessed at a public meeting on Friday that the party had plotted and killed its opponents, seems to justify the common allegation in Kerala that the party has its own “party courts” which decide who is guilty and who is not. It also shows that the party has two standards for its leaders and cadres. The statement against MM Mani, who made the controversial statement on Friday, came from no less than the central leadership. Or more precisely from Sitaram Yechury a polit bureau member. He also said that action against Mani would be decided once the party general secretary Prakash Karat is back in Delhi. Contrast it with the sensational murder case of TP Chandrasekharan. [caption id=“attachment_323785” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Reuters”]  [/caption] Ever since the investigators found leads to CPM leaders and some of the local offices, the party has been waging a war on the streets, with district and state level leaders openly threatening the police, the media and the establishment. Instead of letting the police and the judiciary pursue their responsibility, the party has decided who is not guilty even though the investigation is still in its early stages. Compared to Yechury’s complete compliance on Mani, who unabashedly confessed to the party’s alleged killing ways, the central leadership is yet to utter a single word on the party’s menacing offensive in the Chandrasekharan case investigation. The only law abiding voice, that is similar to Yechury’s words today, came from former chief minister VS Achuthanandan who said,  “Those who have objections to the investigation should go to court.” But the veteran Marxist, one of the founders of the CPM, is a complete outsider within the party and his voice hardly matters to its leadership anymore. Whenever he speaks, the party proxies in its propaganda outfits, and a few regulars unleash a mean offensive against him while the state leadership looks the other way. In fact, in his controversial speech, Mani also lost no opportunity to heap insults on Achuthanandan. The state unit of the party’s threat to the investigation on the murder of Chandrasekharan came in multiple ways: One: the party secretary Pinarayi Vijayan has said that CPM will become a “fireball” if the investigation targets its leaders. The indirect meaning: no CPM leader can be accused. But what the media and the opposition questioned was Vijayan’s authority to sit in judgement on an investigation. As Achuthanandan said, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure that the investigation follows the law of the land. It is not the party’s responsibility. Two: the party’s stand that it will investigate the case and take action if anybody is involved. This stand justifies the allegation of the opposition that the party pursues an extra-constitutional mechanism on criminal cases. Three: The Kannur district secretary of CPM, P Jayarajan, who is also a member of the state committee, said the party will protect its people. He said this also in connection with another murder case for which the CBI is knocking at the door of some CPM functionaries who are absconding. Four: Public defiance by senior leaders by organising marches and rallies. The party’s march to the office of a superintendent of police in Kozhikkode is a case in point. A former industries minister and state secretariat member Elamanam Karim threatened one of the members of the investigation team, his family as well as the media. Earlier, another state level leader sat in protest at a police station to get an office functionary out of custody. Mani is not a party heavy-weight and is most likely to be arrested. The state police has registered a non-bailable case against him for murder and conspiracy under IPC 302, 109 and118. If the CPM can cooperate with law in Mani’s case, why does it make such a fuss on the Chandrasekharan case?