Reading out a resolution on the issue, a grim-faced general secretary Prakash Karat said both of them “have made remarks and criticisms regarding each other to the media. These remarks and open criticisms by the two senior leaders in Kerala have violated the norms of the party...that the state leadership should not air their differences publicly.” Such behaviour, he said, is “unacceptable” and, therefore, the Politburo (PB) decided to suspend them and place the matter before the central committee (CC) which meets exactly a month from now from June 24-26.

The two comrades “will continue to discharge all their other party responsibilities,” Karat added, making it clear that Achuthanandan, popularly known as VS, will continue to function as chief minister and Vijayan as state secretary.

Today’s decision may have been triggered off by the open war between the two bitter rivals in Kerala — its latest battle over the state government’s demolition drive in Munnar — but the problem of factionalism in Kerala and the helplessness of the central leadership in bringing the state unit to heel has a much longer history.

As such, today’s PB decision is not just a signal to the Kerala leaders to mend their ways ahead of organizational elections from the branch level upwards that will soon get underway, but also an attempt to restore the declining authority of the central leadership over state units and ensure that the principal organizational tenet of a communist party — democratic centralism — is not allowed to get eroded.

True, this is not the first time that the party’s central leadership has had to take action against errant members on account of factionalism or indiscipline. Tripura stalwart Nripen Chakraborty faced expulsion — but only after he ceased to be the chief minister and had been eased out of the Politburo. Similarly, one of the nine founding PB members, P Ramamurthy, was also dropped — but gently and away from the public eye.

Over the years, the scourge of factionalism and indiscipline has periodically surfaced in several state units and senior state leaders and central committee members have been suspended or expelled from time to time. Former Punjab unit secretary Mangat Ram Pasla, for instance, was expelled but only after being “dropped” from the CC. The state units of Orissa, Bihar, Rajasthan and Karnataka among others too have been brought to heel by the central leadership in the past - with serving CC members dropped when factionalism proved intractable.

Apart from cases of indiscipline, the only time serving leaders face action in a communist party is when there are deep ideological differences at the top. The undivided CPI general secretary P C Joshi, for instance, was forced to step down from leadership at the party’s second congress in 1948 after his line was defeated. His successor B.T. Ranadive also suffered the same fate a few years later. And when ideological differences reached a breaking point, the party split in 1964. And then again in 1967, when those who came to be known as Naxalites left the then fledgling CPM.

But the problem in Kerala — and the challenge it poses to the central leadership — is on an entirely different scale for a number of reasons.

Supporters of both Achuthanandan and Vijayan privately concede that there is no serious ideological issue at stake in the battle even though VS might be the “hardliner” and Vijayan the “pragmatic” reformist. Unlike the intra-communist battles in 1948, 1952 or in the 1960s, the factional war in Kerala is essentially a struggle for power that has degenerated into bitter and implacable hostility between the two leaders and their diehard supporters.

While Vijayan has managed to establish complete control of the party machinery, VS has mass support that goes well beyond the CPM’s cadre base. That is why the central leadership was forced to revise its earlier decision and field VS in the assembly elections last year and make him chief minister — even though the Vijayan faction had established its supremacy in the infamous Mallapuram state conference ahead of the CPM’s 18th Congress in 2005.

If the Kerala battle cannot be compared to classic ideological wars that the communist movement has faced from time to time, neither is it at par with the periodic problems of factionalism in other state units of the CPM. The “weaker” states are far more amenable to central intervention than the strong states of Kerala and West Bengal. But while the West Bengal CPM might have trouble grappling with the fallout of the industrialization policy, the state leadership has always maintained strict organizational discipline and upheld Party norms - including public deference to the principle of democratic centralism.

Kerala has been the exact opposite — with factional feuds plaguing the party at regular intervals. Party stalwarts M V Raghavan and K R Gowri were both removed but neither were PB or CC members. And then a bitter battle between the party organization and the state CITU leadership raged for years which was replaced by the ‘mother of all factional feuds’ between VS and Pinarayi—that shows no signs of ending.

In fact, CPM political-organisational reports published at the end of every party congress invariably devote a separate section on the “inner party situation” in Kerala with the exhortation to the state leaders to unite. The 18th Congress report (April 2005), for instance, ends the Kerala section with the words: “The Party expresses serious concern at the persisting disunity and factional tendencies in Kerala, which is one of the strong centres of the Party in India. The Party cannot allow such a situation to continue.”

But the situation not only continued but only got worse despite the CPM-led LDF getting the highest number of seats ever in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections and following that with a spectacular victory in the Assembly elections in 2006.

Since taking over as general secretary in 2005, Karat has made innumerable trips to Kerala to contain the factionalism in the state but sustained attempts by the central leadership have failed to make any real difference. Today’s move may seem an extreme measure, but party insiders remain skeptical whether it will resolve the endemic factionalism that has spread deep and wide in the state unit of the party. The central leadership, some feel, should have acted decisively much earlier — coming out clearly against one or the other faction instead of trying to accommodate both.

While today’s decision may seem like cracking the central whip, the even-handed treatment to both leaders—with every possibility that the Central Committee will revoke the suspensions next month—could end up escalating the crisis and further eroding the authority of the central leadership.

What’s fight about

• Seems ideological — VS, the Marxist vs Vijayan, the reformist — but is as much a power struggle

• VS popular with masses, Vijayan controls party machinery

• Turf war began in 1990s when VS purged Vijayan’s men; 2005 was payback time, Vijayan stalled induction into state secretariat of 12 VS men

• In run-up to Assembly polls last year, Vijayan got VS’s name scrapped. After protests, VS became CM, Vijayan packed Cabinet with his men

What’s new

• VS cracked down on illegal encroachments in Munnar

• Vijayan, preparing to seek second term as party unit chief, claimed glory belonged to party, not individual; said media coverage contrived. VS accused rival of manipulating media.

And Bosses in Delhi?

• Central leadership wrung hands, took no action

• Now authority at stake, had to reprimand both

What next

• No replacements so both stay

• Tough for VS to run Govt, battle-lines may harden