‘A leader who represented three significant eras of communist history'
V.S. Achuthanandan was that rare leader who represented three significant eras of communist history. Comrade VS began his political life during India's freedom struggle. He was at the forefront of the Punnapra-Vayalar struggle, which symbolised the communist movement against British colonialism. He was also a frontline leader in the campaigns against the princely rule in Travancore and regressive social custom such as casteism. He rose to the leadership of the Communist Party by organising farm labourers and equipping them for a historic struggle.
When the first communist government led by E.M.S. Namboothiripad came to power in Kerala, VS was the district secretary of the Communist Party in Alappuzha. During the 1975 Emergency, during the setbacks faced by communist organisations globally after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the era of globalisation of the 1990s, he evolved into a major communist figure leading the progressive movements. He was perhaps the only leader who played a leadership role in these three phases of the party.
I first met VS, the communist leader during my college days. Later when he was the Leader of Opposition in the Assembly, I got to know him better. He was always keen on studying issues deeply and extending his support wherever it was needed. When he became the Chief Minister, I got the opportunity to work with him as his political secretary. I was serving as the national president of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) when the then Communist Party of India (Marxist) State secretary Pinarayi Vijayan and VS asked me to shoulder this responsibility.
VS was particular that the issues he took up were attended to promptly. He did not care for technicalities. Also, if he was convinced about something, it was very difficult to shake his belief in it. I feel that this was both the positive and negative characteristic of his personality. He was also very disciplined in his diet and exercise regimen.
Mullaperiyar Dam
As Chief Minister, he was able to kickstart many initiatives. One example was the discussions held between Kerala and the Tamil Nadu team led by its then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi on the Mullaperiyar Dam. Although the dispute could not be resolved, these discussions helped in bringing the two States closer. He was keenly interested in new ideas. I was with him when he rode the Delhi Metro before the project was launched in Kochi.
As Chief Minister, he maintained close relations with the Union government. He had very close relations with Lalu Prasad Yadav (the then Union Railway Minister) and many other senior political leaders on the national scene. These relations also worked to Kerala's advantage during the first Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government which had the support of the Left. Kerala benefitted much from VS's national-level connections, especially in matters of development, including railway infrastructure.
I consider it a great experience to have had the opportunity to work with such a tall leader of Indian politics. I also cherish the affection and care that he and the members of his family showered on me.
(The writer is the Finance Minister of Kerala and was the political secretary to V.S. Achuthanandan when he was the Chief Minister)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
a minute ago
- The Wire
July 13 in Kashmir: On Federalised Historiography and the Silent Challenge to Federalism
In a bizarre turn of events, the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu & Kashmir effectively placed the elected government officials, including the chief minister, under house arrest on July 13, as aptly described by one local daily as an instance of 'government locking up government'. The supposed trigger for this action by the LG was the fear that the elected government and the public might commemorate July 13 as Martyrs' Day, an official holiday until 2019, which was discontinued following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. Meanwhile, the BJP's Leader of Opposition has endorsed the LG's actions and branded the 22 people killed by the Dogra ruler in 1931 (in whose memory Martyrs' Day is observed) as traitors. Beyond the political wrangling over what was undoubtedly a watershed moment in the modern history of J&K, and the constitutionally suspect nature of the actions taken by the Lieutenant Governor, the events unfolding in J&K have implications not only for federalised historiography but also for federalism itself, and should therefore concern other states as well. A monolithic past? The first issue with the BJP's actions in J&K is related to its conception of nationalist history and identity. In the BJP's attempts to advance a monolithic version of anti-colonial nationalism, it fails to appreciate that anti-colonial resistance was not a simplistic binary of the coloniser and the colonised, with the latter automatically becoming part of the Indian national movement. In the princely states, for instance, these movements were not necessarily aimed directly at the British, for British rule was not direct in these regions. Consequently, the princely rulers became the primary targets of such movements seeking self-governance, which could not, therefore, be neatly subsumed within the broader Indian national movement. This is what the moment of July 13, 1931, represents in the official histories of J&K, as one of the first major expressions of protest against the Dogra rule. Over time, this moment came to be imbued with broader political meaning, symbolising the demand for self-governance, and ultimately becoming embedded in the region's collective memory as a marker of its autonomous political identity and constitutional status. Simply because it does not align with the BJP's conception of the anti-colonial movement and nationalism, the day has been removed from the list of official holidays, and those who were killed have been branded as traitors. The issue is not merely that the 22 individuals killed on July 13, 1931, were Muslims. The issue at stake here is what the 22 people have come to represent in the official histories - a distinct political trajectory in J&K, one closely tied to the region's demand for autonomy. That is why they cannot be neatly subsumed into the nationalist narrative of the past that the BJP aims to construct. Rather, their memory poses a challenge to this brand of nationalist history, which is why it must either be banished or, worse, recast as treacherous. This explains why, in a context where Article 370 is increasingly projected as anti-India, the BJP can simultaneously appropriate someone like Maqbool Sherwani as pro-Indian while erasing the history of Martyrs' Day in Kashmir. This, of course, is riddled with absurdities. The BJP's attempt to excise from J&K's past what it retrospectively deems anti-national and treacherous, in order to produce a monolithic account of nationalist history, is historically untenable. But there is another problem here. This monolithic account of the past allows the BJP to fashion a monistic legal order i.e, fashioning the post-colonial in unitary terms and producing an account of anti-colonial history in the service of this legal order, which brings me to the question of constitutional federalism. The federal argument Nationalist history is not solely a concern of historiography; it is deeply imbricated with constitutionalism, particularly how federal units draw on history in fashioning their sense of self and political identity. July 13 was designated an official state holiday by the government led by Sheikh Abdullah, and in J&K's federated constitutional framework, came to symbolise the region's distinct constitutional identity. Following the reading down of Article 370, the BJP swiftly moved to integrate J&K by applying previously inapplicable laws to the region. However, this project of unification extends beyond the legal domain into the realm of history itself. Any historical moment (Martyrs' Day as well as Sheikh Abdullah's birthday) that has come to represent J&K's Article 370-inflected trajectory is being systematically erased, as part of a broader effort to impose homogeneity not only in the constitutional framework but also in the historical narrative now being constructed by the BJP government. That is, even in its abrogation, it is the spectre of Article 370 that haunts the BJP – hence the erasure of history. But these events or historical moments constitute more than temporal landmarks; they are central to how individual federal units understand, construct, and express their identities. It is appropriate in a federal polity for units to have a distinct imagination of history and a sense of self that is not derivative of the central government. The policies of the BJP are such that the self-conception of federal units will have to conform to the central government's imposing vision of the Indian nation and the state. Consequently, the federal units will be relegated to the status of appendages of the central government, with their existence deemed meaningful only insofar as it aligns with the centre's vision. This undermines, to the extent of even negating the possibility of the federal units cultivating sub-national identities that might diverge from the narrative set by the central government. All this is done, it must be noted, without formally altering the powers of the governments of the federal units. Constitutional debates on federalism in India have for long treated it as a matter of power-sharing between the states and the centre when in fact it also bears on questions such as self-conception of federal units, constitutional identity, and history. The actions of the BJP reflect a broader tendency on the part of the central government to impose a particular historical-cultural narrative upon federal units and consequently, shape their political identity and sense of self. This goes beyond the traditional debates on Indian federalism, raising constitutional concerns that involve a deeper contestation over the very imagination of India as a nation-state. For such practices of the central government fundamentally erode the principles of federalism and present a new challenge compared to those faced under previous central governments. Zaid Deva is a DPhil candidate with the Faculty of Law at the University of Oxford. click here.
Hans India
a minute ago
- Hans India
Centre not responsible for GST notices to small traders, says Joshi
Bengaluru: Union Minister for Consumer Affairs Pralhad Joshi on Tuesday squarely blamed the Karnataka state government for issuing GST-related tax notices to small traders, refuting Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar's claim that the Centre was responsible. 'It is laughable that the state government, after taking all the decisions, now tries to wash its hands of the consequences,' Joshi said. Responding to widespread backlash against GST dues notices served to fruit vendors, milk sellers, vegetable traders and other petty merchants in Karnataka, Joshi stated that such notices were issued solely by the state's commercial tax department, not by any Central authority. He emphasised that if it had been a directive from the Centre, similar actions would have been observed across other states — which has not been the case. 'The Karnataka government is misleading the public by denying its role and shirking responsibility,' Joshi alleged. 'Instead of protecting small traders, they are being harassed with tax recovery notices in the name of GST.' Clarifying the structure of GST, Joshi noted that while the Centre controls CGST, the SGST component and its implementation fall under the state's jurisdiction. 'States hold two-thirds of the decision-making power in the GST Council. The Centre only has a one-third vote,' he said. He also criticised the Congress-led Karnataka government for undermining public trust in UPI-based digital payments. 'Such harassment discourages transparent digital transactions, which India proudly showcases to the world,' Joshi said, terming it a 'reckless political misadventure.'
New Indian Express
a minute ago
- New Indian Express
VS always stood by common man: Mar Thoma Metropolitan
PATHANAMTHITTA : Mar Thoma Church supremo Theodosius Mar Thoma Metropolitan has said former chief minister V S Achuthanandan's life was defined by relentless commitment to justice and people's struggles. He described VS as a leader who stood unwaveringly with the common man. In a condolence message, he recalled how Achuthanandan rose from the agitations of Kuttanad's agricultural workers and remained a powerful voice for the marginalised throughout his political career. 'Whether as chief minister or Leader of Opposition, he stood by the people at every turn,' the metropolitan said. Highlighting that VS was the one who implemented Paddy, Wetland Conservation Act, he said VS did everything from his experiences. 'His life experience was his textbook, and his politics was rooted in lived realities. He strongly advocated for environmental protection, including protection of paddy fields. With his demise, Kerala has lost not just a leader, but the voice of the poor and the ordinary citizen,' he said.
