Summary of this article
SDPI is contesting in multiple key seats where tight races could make vote fragmentation decisive.
Critics argue its presence may indirectly benefit the BJP, while some see signs of tacit alignment with the Left.
The party is simultaneously expanding its base, especially in regions where traditional players like the IUML are weaker.
On the last day of campaigning on Tuesday, Communist Party of India (CPI) MLA J. Chinchu Rani, contesting from Kollam’s Chadayamangalam constituency, made a telling call to local Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) leader to ensure their cadre wouldn’t campaign aggressively in the area. If SDPI supporters mobilised strongly, they could split votes and cost her the election.
This is what SDPI, the political wing of the proscribed Popular Front of India, in 36 seats where they have put up their candidates. The party has fielded candidates against CPI(M) in Thalassery, Kalliyassery, Mattannur, Mankada, Ponnani, Tavanur, Kochi, Thrikkakara, Thrithala, Nenmara, Guruvayur, Chelakkara, Manalur, Kottayam and Attingal. Here, SDPI’s electoral strategy is focused where contests between the CPI(M) and UDF are closely fought, with a few exceptions driven by local dynamics.
And they are contesting in several key seats against the CPI candidates too as a policy. In several such seats, SDPI is contesting against candidates from the CPI, including Pattambi, Mannarkkad, Kaipamangalam, Paravur, Muvattupuzha, Chadayamangalam, and Nedumangad. In these seats the SDPI candidates could split votes, a factor that could indirectly benefit the BJP, especially in Thiruvananthapuram’s Nedumangad, Kollam’s Chadayamangalam and Ernakulam’s Paravur.
In Paravur, which sees V.D. Satheesan, the Leader of Opposition challenging for his post, the SDPI has nominated V.M. Faisal. There has already been a lot of heat generated in the contest, with SDPI state president C.P.A. Latheef slamming Satheesan for his anti-SDPI stance.
Writer and civil rights activist M.N. Karasseri sees a larger political logic at play. He argues that despite a history of hostility, “They were once bitter enemies,” he recalls, referring to cases such as the killing of CPI(M) worker Abhimanyu allegedly involving SDPI-linked individuals, the party is now actively supporting the Left. According to him, this shift is driven less by ideology and more by political opportunity.
Karasseri points out that while the UDF has consistently labelled the SDPI an extremist organisation, the CPI(M) has mostly avoided such language. He added that even senior leaders have remained largely silent on the issue. Karasseri observes that the SDPI is gaining ground in southern Kerala, particularly in Travancore, where the IUML’s organisational presence is weaker than in its Malabar stronghold, creating space for the party to expand.
Cultural activist and writer Azad echoes this view, arguing that the SDPI has, in practice, aligned with the CPI(M) in local contests. “Publicly, the CPI(M) calls them out, but it has not refused their support,” he says, citing the SDPI’s open backing of CPI(M) candidate V. Sivankutty in Nemom.
Azad situates this within a broader pattern of shifting political narratives. Referring to the Jamaat-e-Islami–linked Welfare Party, he remarks: “When they supported the Left, there was no issue. Once they backed the UDF, they were portrayed as extremist.” He warns that such selective positioning and increasing emphasis on religious identities could deepen polarisation. “This kind of politics may ultimately benefit the BJP, not the CPI(M),” he adds.
The CPI(M), however, has firmly rejected allegations of any understanding with the SDPI. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has dismissed the claims as baseless, accusing the UDF of exploiting the issue for political gain.
The controversy gained traction after SDPI extended support to V. Sivankutty in Nemom and indicated backing for CPI(M) candidates in several northern constituencies, including Kuttiadi, Perinthalmanna, Tanur, Vengara and Kannur, many of these seats are where IUML is a key player.
In some cases, they have acted in accordance with public outcry. In politically sensitive northernmost Kasaragod’s Manjeshwaram, for instance, the SDPI fielded a candidate (Ashraf M.K.) with a name similar to that of the Indian Union Muslim League’s incumbent MLA, A.K.M. Ashraf. This was widely seen as an attempt to split votes, but following public outrage, they eventually withdrew their candidate.
In Vengara, the CPI(M) has fielded a candidate (Sabah Kundupuzhakkal) who previously contested on an SDPI ticket in 2021, further blurring political lines.
Latheef has said that such support followed local-level outreach by CPI(M) leaders. CPI(M) leader Thomas Isaac stated that LDF will not reject votes from any group, including SDPI. Adding to this was CPM general secretary MA Baby who asked why they should stop SDPI from voting for the LDF.
In the immediate aftermath of the 2022 ban on the PFI, SDPI maintained some inactivity, but soon after it decided to be politically active. Its recent moves suggest an attempt to test informal cooperation with the Left while simultaneously challenging the IUML’s base.
IUML, an alliance partner of UDF, has managed to counter the SDPI’s influence in parts of north Kerala, including Manjeshwaram and Erattupetta, underlining the struggle for power amongst Muslims in the state..
Apart from Kerala, the SDPI has formed alliances. It left the AIADMK alliance in Tamil Nadu to join the DMK alliance for the 2026 Assembly election and is contesting in one seat under DMK’s rising sun symbol. In 2023, the party had contested in 16 seats across Karnataka Assembly elections and has won more than 40 seats in gram panchayats in the state. This suggests a calculated effort to expand its footprint.
