Jose K. Mani interview | ‘Primary focus of INDIA bloc is to articulate a narrative against BJP’

The electoral fight between the constituent parties of the INDIA bloc in States such as Kerala has faced severe criticism from the National Democratic Alliance. As a member of its campaign committee, do you believe this situation has impacted its political communication?

The constituents of the INDIA bloc have reached a mutual understanding to avoid intra-alliance competition in States where the opposing alliance holds significant strength. However, this understanding does not extend to States such as Kerala where the BJP’s presence is negligible. When two alliance partners do engage in electoral competition, it is imperative to ensure that the BJP does not gain any advantage. In Kerala, the possibility of the BJP benefiting from contests between the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) is non-existent. Therefore, direct competition in such regions poses no issue. Additionally, the primary focus of the INDIA bloc remains steadfast: to articulate a narrative against the BJP, a task we have executed effectively. Our strategy is to underscore the ruling party’s efforts to undermine the federal structure, erode cultural diversity, and amend the Constitution, portraying these as threats to national unity.

With the notable attention the BJP is directing towards Kerala in this election cycle, as evidenced by the frequent visits of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, do you believe that this party stands a chance to make gains in the State?

While the Prime Minister’s numerous visits to Kerala may be noted, what truly matters is the allocation of resources from the Centre to Kerala. Despite the State’s significant contributions, for every rupee Kerala generates, it receives only 50 paise, a stark contrast to the ₹3 allotted to Uttar Pradesh and ₹7 to Bihar. This disparity has led to a concerning situation where Kerala’s remarkable achievements in population control, education, and healthcare now impede its overall development. Even as the State effectively manages its population growth, the increased life expectancy raises apprehensions about the expenses associated with caring for its elderly citizens. Unfortunately, the Finance Commission appears to overlook these factors in resource allocation, largely due to the BJP’s intervention. The BJP government has not given anything extra to Kerala. In fact, they have not even given us what we deserve.

But it seems the BJP is making concerted efforts to exert influence within the Church, particularly among its leadership. The screening of The Kerala Story has sparked considerable controversy in this regard?

These actions are part of their strategy to sow divisions within various communities, exploiting fault lines for potential political gain — an approach they have employed across various States. However, the BJP seems less inclined to prioritise the genuine development needs of States. Take, for instance, the case of natural rubber, a cornerstone of Kerala’s economy. While the State government’s capacity to support rubber growers is limited, the Central government can play a pivotal role through policy interventions. Given that rubber is a globally traded commodity, the benefits reaped by those cultivating it hinge largely on Central policies. For example, the ₹7,500 crore in import duty collected by the Central government on rubber essentially represents the hard work of our rubber growers. With 75% of rubber production concentrated in Kerala, allocating a proportionate share of this fund to bolster the stabilisation funds could have significantly uplifted the base price of the commodity, benefiting local growers.

The situation mirrors the allocation of an All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to the State. As the Lok Sabha member, I had approached the then (Union) Health Minister Harsh Vardhan with a proposal to set up the institute in Kottayam. Despite the offer to provide 100 acres of land near the Kottayam Medical College, the proposal was rejected citing insufficient land. However, simultaneously, AIIMS was allotted in Bhubaneswar on a 90-acre property. This pattern suggests that allocations are made by the BJP government only when there are perceived political advantages to be gained.

Do you think the churches won’t be influenced by the BJP’s overtures?

Absolutely not. While churches may advocate for the issues affecting people, they refrain from intervening in party politics. Welcoming political leaders is part of their culture, but it doesn’t imply influence by any party or leader.

Do you think church denominations in Kerala have recently started involving themselves in public issues that were traditionally central to Kerala Congress politics?

There have indeed been certain areas where the KC(M) has made significant interventions. Ours was the first party to advocate for a Sea Rights Act for fishermen, akin to the Forest Rights Act. Our intervention led to an increase in the price of rubber offered under the stabilisation fund, rising from 150 to 180. Additionally, two MPs from our party, including myself, approached the Empowered Committee on Buffer Zones and submitted a comprehensive 40-page report, contributing to addressing the issue. The KC(M) was also the sole party to emphasise ground-level surveys for inventory identification while demarcating forest buffer zones, instead of relying solely on remote sensing. We have also been actively pursuing amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 to ensure protection for humans from wildlife intrusion.

As you mentioned, the Church has also taken up these issues, which is commendable. However, this does not imply any competition between us. We collaborate on various fronts, exchanging ideas and working together towards common goals.

Have you been able to strengthen the party in alliance with the Left?

Absolutely. Following the passing of K.M. Mani, there were efforts to undermine the KC(M), but we successfully defended ourselves and gained recognition from the Election Commission of India. Presently, the KC(M) stands as the sole regional party nationwide retaining its approved election symbol. Our organisational expansion is notable – originating from six feeder organisations, we now boast 18. Within the LDF, our positioning differs significantly from that of the CPI(M) or the CPI. Conversely, within the UDF, Kerala Congress and the Congress vie for similar territory, leading to conflicts between the two parties.

Hasn’t this extensive migration significantly diminished the traditional voter base of Kerala Congress parties?

We are indeed exploring new avenues for growth. For example, the KC(M) is steadily establishing its presence among coastal communities, as well as other groups such as educators and ex-servicemen.

Regarding migration, it’s ingrained in the heritage of central Travancore. People from this region have dispersed worldwide, to Europe, America, and other States in India. There’s an inherent spirit of adventure driving them, which cannot be restrained. The only recourse is to provide them with more enticing opportunities within their home State. This migration impacts all parties and carries social repercussions. As younger generations depart, the elderly are left isolated, prompting concerns about elder care. Addressing this issue becomes a State responsibility, one that necessitates attention.

How is the contest for the Kottayam seat, where rival Kerala Congress factions are engaged in a direct battle, progressing?

The KC(M) is confident of winning this seat as we have fielded the sitting MP, Thomas Chazhikadan, who boasts a flawless record. Our campaign emphasises the developmental strides Mr. Chazhikadan has spearheaded in Kottayam over the past five years, and we also benefit from contesting under the original party symbol — the two leaves. Conversely, the rival candidate is not a voter in this constituency and runs under an independent symbol. Consequently, he remains vulnerable to potential co-optation by the BJP, which habitually targets independents. Furthermore, he carries a chequered history of party and alliance shifts, having switched allegiances four times each in the past decade.