Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – A sharp political critique from senior Kerala Congress leader G. Sudhakaran has stirred debate in the state’s political circles, as he asserted that the ruling CPI(M) in Kerala could have sidestepped its present ideological and organizational turmoil if it had properly understood the core teachings of Vladimir Lenin.
Speaking at a public forum in the state capital on Wednesday, Sudhakaran, a prominent figure in the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), did not mince words. He argued that the Marxist party’s current predicament—ranging from internal dissent to electoral setbacks and governance challenges—is a direct result of abandoning Lenin’s fundamental principle of “revolutionary discipline” and “democratic centralism.”
“The CPI(M) leadership in Kerala today is a textbook example of what happens when a party forgets its theoretical roots. Lenin was clear: a revolutionary party must maintain ideological clarity and organizational unity. The party has failed on both counts,” Sudhakaran stated.
The Lenin Reference Explained
According to political observers, Sudhakaran’s reference to Lenin is not a mere rhetorical flourish. Lenin, the architect of the Russian Revolution and founder of the Soviet state, emphasized that a Marxist party must remain a vanguard force, constantly self-correcting and staying connected to the masses. He warned against both bureaucratic ossification and factionalism.
“Lenin said that without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. The CPI(M) in Kerala has become a party of power, not a party of change. They have forgotten that their ideology is a tool for liberation, not for clinging to ministerial chairs,” Sudhakaran added.
The Congress leader’s remarks come at a time when the CPI(M)-led LDF government in Kerala is facing multiple challenges: a slowing economy, criticism over the KIIFB (Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board) model, and growing discontent within its own cadres over the party’s handling of the Kerala Legislative Assembly Speaker’s position and internal complaints of autocracy.
Internal Strife and Public Perception
Observers note that the CPI(M) has been grappling with visible rifts between the old guard and younger leaders, especially over issues like the re-induction of former district secretaries and the party’s stance on corruption allegations. The recent controversy over the party’s Kerala state committee meetings and the absence of prominent leaders has only fueled the narrative of a Marxist ship without a steady rudder.
“We see the CPI(M) making alliances with groups it once condemned, and embracing policies it once opposed—like privatization and gold loans. If Lenin were alive, he would ask: ‘Where is the class struggle?’” Sudhakaran said.
He also drew parallels between Lenin’s critique of “economism”—the focus on short-term economic gains over long-term political goals—and the CPI(M)’s current priorities. “They have become experts in managing crisis, not in preventing it. That is not Marxism. That is managerial politics,” he added.
Political Reactions and Context
While the CPI(M) has not yet issued an official response, party insiders dismissed Sudhakaran’s comments as “typical Congress theatrics.” However, the remark has found resonance among some left-leaning intellectuals and critics who feel the party has strayed from its ideological moorings.
The Congress leader’s statement also comes ahead of the 2025 local body elections in Kerala, with both the UDF and LDF preparing for the next electoral battle. The Congress party has been trying to position itself as a credible alternative to the ruling front, especially on issues of governance, transparency, and ideological coherence.
Conclusion
In a state where political rhetoric often takes center stage, G. Sudhakaran’s pointed critique of the CPI(M) using Lenin’s own words is likely to deepen the ongoing debate about the Marxist party’s ideological identity in Kerala. Whether the CPI(M) chooses to respond to the accusation of abandoning Lenin’s principles or dismisses it as political posturing, the question remains: Can the party reclaim its revolutionary spirit without shaking its current foundations? For now, the Congress has drawn a sharp ideological line, and the ball is in the CPI(M)’s court—to defend or to reform.