CPI(M) Fuels Natesan’s Communal Rhetoric: Polarisation Danger Ahead of Kerala Polls

As Kerala moves closer to the Assembly elections, likely to be held in April 2026, signs of sharpening communal polarisation are becoming increasingly evident. What was once widely seen as the BJP’s electoral strategy now appears to be finding resonance elsewhere, with the CPI(M) seemingly willing to employ similar methods, using Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP) general secretary Vellappally Natesan as a key voice.

Earlier this week, Natesan claimed that if the United Democratic Front (UDF) were to return to power, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) would effectively run the state. While conceding that Kerala had not witnessed communal riots during the past decade of Left Democratic Front (LDF) rule, he asserted that the idea of Hindu unity had weakened. Calling for consolidation, he urged Hindus across caste lines and Christians to stand together. His incendiary comments have stoked communal tension fires.

The remarks followed a statement made in early January by CPI(M) leader A.K. Balan, who claimed that if the UDF came to power, the Home Department could be handed over to Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (JIH). He also warned of “Marad-type riots” in such a situation.

A few days later, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan backed Balan, saying he was merely reminding people of the communal riots on Kozhikode’s Marad beach. Vijayan said there was no error in Balan’s observation that the UDF, which he alleged was working with organisations such as Jamaat-e-Islami Hind to gain power, could create a “dangerous situation” in the state. He also said the UDF lacked a clear stance on communal conflicts—despite the fact that 70 CPI(M) workers, along with members of other parties, were accused in the case.

CPI(M) leaders echo BJP-style rhetoric

Responding to these statements, Kollam MP and RSP leader N.K. Premachandran said Kerala was healing from the Marad riots, which took place 22 years ago. He accused the CPI(M) of repeatedly invoking the violence to “inject a fear that does not exist in society”.

Known for his proximity to the CPI(M), Natesan also targeted Opposition Leader V.D. Satheesan, accusing him of hostility towards the Ezhava community. He alleged that Satheesan’s resentment stemmed from seeing leaders from backward communities, including the Chief Minister, exercise power. According to Natesan, Satheesan’s political strategy was rooted in communalism and driven by ambition for the Chief Minister’s post.

In July 2025, Natesan warned that Kerala would become a Muslim-majority state by 2040. He claimed that Muslims had become an “unbeatable force” in state politics and alleged that religious leaders wielded undue influence over governments, regardless of the party in power. He further said reforms could not be introduced without the consent of Malappuram, the state’s Muslim-majority district.

“Natesan has been spreading hateful rhetoric for over eight months, and the Chief Minister has continued to support him despite this. He is now talking of a Hindu–Christian political alignment—against whom, Muslims? Is this what politics has been reduced to?” asked IUML Rajya Sabha MP Haris Beeran.

Despite the polarising nature of these remarks, Natesan received support from within the Left. In July 2025, Left-backed independent MLA K.T. Jaleel defended him, saying the comments reflected Natesan’s negative experiences with the IUML during its time in the UDF government. Jaleel rejected the view that the remarks targeted Muslims or Malappuram, and noted that the IUML had maintained close ties with Natesan for decades, including during his leadership of the Pinnokka Samudaya Munnani.

Responding to the controversy, IUML National General Secretary P.K. Kunhalikutty said he would not comment on statements made by “irresponsible leaders”, but accused the CPI(M) of spreading “communalism, not communism”. “They have lost ground and have no face. So they are trying to garner attention,” he said.

Polarisation and governance failures in Kerala

In April 2025, Natesan triggered outrage by calling Malappuram a “special country” dominated by a “special section of people”. Speaking at an SNDP meeting, he claimed Ezhava community members in the district lived in fear and were unable to express themselves freely.

Natesan has a history of provocative remarks. In 2015, he alleged that welfare benefits were distributed on religious lines, claiming Muslims alone received assistance and remarking that one had to “die as a Muslim” to qualify. A hate speech case was later filed against him.

His organisation, the Bharath Dharma Jana Sena, was allied with the BJP until a few years ago. Earlier this year, senior BJP leader Prakash Javadekar met Natesan in Alappuzha, which the BJP described as a courtesy call. “We share a bond… there is nothing political in it,” Javadekar said, amid speculation that Natesan was moving closer to the CPI(M) and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Sabarimala event: CPI(M) accused of politicising religion

Critics argue that the CPI(M), facing a weakening hold over its traditional Hindu base, is resorting to divisive rhetoric instead of addressing governance failures.

The debate intensified in September 2025 during the Global Ayyappa Sangamam at Pampa near Sabarimala, organised by the CPI(M)-led government. Both the Congress and BJP accused the LDF of politicising the event. Despite Natesan’s earlier remarks, the Chief Minister arrived in the SNDP leader’s car, a move widely seen as an endorsement. Critics claim that the LDF government, which had taken a firm stand supporting the entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 to the shrine based on the Supreme Court verdict, has watered down its earlier stand. The Congress-led UDF called the event a CPI(M) ploy to attract the Hindu community ahead of the local body and assembly polls. They pointed out that the government has not withdrawn cases against Ayyappa devotees from the 2018 protests.

The controversy escalated after remarks by Kerala’s Minister for Cultural Affairs and senior CPI(M) leader Saji Cherian. Referring to recent local body election results in Kasaragod and Malappuram, Cherian said, “Look at the list of winners in the Kasaragod Municipality and Malappuram district panchayat. There will be a situation where a person cannot win in a place where his community is not in the majority.”

He added, “In the 39-member Kasaragod municipality, the CPI(M) got only one seat and Congress got two. The BJP, which promoted communalism, won 12 seats, while the IUML secured 22. I wanted this situation not to happen elsewhere in Kerala.” Cherian later withdrew the statement following strong criticism.

Reacting sharply, Premachandran said the “tone and tenor” of Cherian’s remarks mirrored the BJP’s narrative. “From the comments, you will not be able to differentiate the two. PM Modi said you can identify people from their clothes, and Saji Cherian is saying look at the names to identify. Both are the same,” he said.

Premachandran, whose Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) left the LDF in 2014 after being denied a Lok Sabha seat, alleged that the CPI(M) was “fostering communal passions and divisions to appease the majority community in the hope that all Hindus will vote for them”. “They are injecting communal aspersions into Kerala society. This is what the Chief Minister is doing,” he added, claiming recent developments showed the BJP and CPI(M) “speaking in the same tone”.

Cherian’s remarks echoed earlier comments by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who had called Malappuram a hub of “anti-national” activity, citing seizures of 150 kg of gold and hawala money worth ₹123 crore over five years. Vijayan later withdrew the statement, after which the Congress-led UDF accused the Left government of pushing a “dangerous communal agenda”.

Speaking to Outlook, Congress Attingal MP and UDF convenor Adoor Prakash said that such rhetoric was out of place in Kerala, where people are independent thinkers. “UDF stood for inclusive growth and will not discriminate between communities. All attempts at polarisation would fail,” said Prakash.

Echoing this sentiment, KPCC president Sunny Joseph noted that Cherian had been forced to retract his comments due to public pressure. “They are targeting the Opposition leader because the shortcomings of the government are being highlighted by V.D. Satheesan,” said Joseph to Outlook.

Prakash also linked the communalising tactics to the Sabarimala gold theft scandal, holding the CPI(M) and the Devaswom Board minister responsible. “The court has held them accountable. The polarising statements were intended to distract voters from the temple gold theft. CPI(M) will use anyone or any organisation to secure a consecutive third term.”

 While CPI(M) and the LDF faced backlash in the local body elections, they are looking for cracks in the state’s unity to exploit. “The people of the state have seen through the CPI(M); they cannot pull the wool over our eyes,” added Prakash.

Joseph added that while the BJP has long pursued polarising politics, the CPI(M)’s current strategy only aided the BJP by mirroring it. “Kerala’s largely secular electorate will not fall for such tactics,” underlined Joseph.

Historical Roots of Kerala’s Communal Polarisation

This has roots in history too. Hindu Mahasabha leader V.D. Savarkar made an appeal on July 6, 1959, at the height of the liberation struggle, a mass anti-Communist movement. The directive to Hindu Mahasabha activists was to provide full support to the communist government led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad in its fight against the Christian, Congress and Muslim League united front, which were enemies of Hindu interests. Savarkar assured all cooperation to the E.M.S. government, which was facing threats to bring a bill to free the education sector in Kerala from Christian domination. This has been noted in a biography titled VD Savarkar by Dhananjay Keer.

Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan, speaking to the media, accused the CPI(M) of copying Sangh Parivar tactics to secure electoral gains through social and religious divisions, the CPI-M-led bloc of “appeasement of majority communalism” stemming out of its 2024 poll loss.

Long-Term damage of polarising tactics

IUML Rajya Sabha MP Haris Beeran said earlier concerns were about a secret pact between the CPI(M) and the BJP, but during the last Parliament session it became evident that CPI(M) MP John Brittas was acting as a go-between for the LDF government and the BJP, without the knowledge of LDF alliance partners. He said this began after the ED case involving the Chief Minister and his daughter.

He warned that such actions were causing irreparable damage to society, with effects that would remain long after elections. “This is exactly what the Sangh Parivar wants to exploit. Today, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the BJP and the CPI(M). The repeated Islamophobic rhetoric by CPI(M) leaders such as A.K. Balan and Saji Cherian is a deliberate strategy to deepen divisions,” he told Outlook.

As the election campaign gathers pace, critics warn that Kerala’s political discourse is being steadily reshaped by calculated polarisation, with the Left now accused of sharpening a tool it once claimed to oppose.