Clash of Ideologies: CPI(M), Mahatma Gandhi, and the Malappattam Incident
The recent violent clash in Malappattam, Kannur, between CPI(M) and Youth Congress workers has once again drawn attention to a complex and historical ideological conflict within Indian politics. Triggered by the alleged vandalism of a Mahatma Gandhi statue, the incident is not merely an isolated act of political aggression. It serves as a symbolic reminder of the enduring ideological rift between Gandhian philosophy and Marxist-Leninist politics—an ideological divide that has existed since the early years of India’s freedom struggle.
The Incident in Malappattam
On May 15, 2025, tensions flared in Malappattam village in Kannur district, Kerala, following the alleged desecration of a Mahatma Gandhi memorial. Local media reported that members of the Youth Congress and the CPI(M) clashed violently over the damage done to the memorial, each blaming the other for the provocation. What followed was not just physical altercation but a wider political discourse around Gandhi’s place in the ideological landscape of Kerala—a state often seen as a Left bastion in Indian politics.
While police investigation is ongoing, the symbolic weight of the Gandhi statue’s alleged defacement cannot be ignored. Gandhi is a national icon whose legacy has shaped India’s identity. Yet, within the ideological framework of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), Gandhi’s philosophy has often stood at odds with their foundational Marxist worldview.
CPI(M) and Its Ideological Roots
To understand the present, we must revisit the past. The CPI(M) was formed in 1964 after a split in the Communist Party of India (CPI). The CPI itself was founded in 1925, making it one of the oldest political parties in the country. During Mahatma Gandhi’s lifetime, the CPI was vocally critical of his approach to India’s freedom struggle. Gandhi’s reliance on non-violence, religious symbolism, and moral persuasion was seen by communists as ineffective and bourgeois in character.
In contrast, the CPI (and later the CPI(M)) believed in Marxist principles of class conflict, proletarian revolution, and scientific materialism. They rejected the idea that India could achieve genuine socio-economic transformation through Gandhian non-violence or spiritual politics. Gandhi’s focus on village self-reliance and traditional industries like khadi was mocked by many communists as backward-looking in an age of industrial revolution.
Clash During National Movements
This ideological rift became most visible during major national movements. While Gandhi led the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920), Civil Disobedience (1930), and the Quit India Movement (1942) with mass participation and an emphasis on peaceful protest, the communists often sat these movements out—or actively opposed them.
During the Quit India Movement, the CPI, under instructions from the Soviet-led Comintern, chose not to support Gandhi’s call for immediate British withdrawal. The Soviet Union was allied with Britain in World War II at the time, and the CPI felt supporting the war effort was a priority over nationalist agitation. This decision created a deep wedge between Gandhian and Communist factions, casting the latter as being aloof from nationalist fervor at a time when the country was in the grip of anti-colonial sentiment.
Post-Independence Perspectives
Following independence and Gandhi’s assassination in 1948, the CPI initially continued to be critical of Gandhian ideology, branding it as unsuitable for post-colonial economic and social transformation. However, over time, both the CPI and CPI(M) began acknowledging Gandhi’s role in mass mobilization and nation-building—albeit with caveats.
CPI(M) leaders, including E.M.S. Namboodiripad and Harkishan Singh Surjeet, occasionally recognized Gandhi’s moral authority but never accepted his methods or ideology as viable for creating a socialist state. Gandhi’s spiritual dimension, particularly his use of Hindu idioms and practices in politics, was seen as problematic by the Marxists, who championed secularism of a different nature—one rooted in state neutrality and atheistic rationalism.
Kerala: A Unique Political Landscape
Kerala has long been a stronghold of the Left, particularly the CPI(M). At the same time, the state also has a robust Congress tradition, and Gandhian values have had a historical presence through movements led by leaders like K. Kelappan and others who followed Gandhi’s call for social reform and temple entry movements.
In such a context, the CPI(M)’s dominance often coexists uneasily with the legacy of Gandhi. While Left-led governments have named institutions and roads after Gandhi and included his teachings in school textbooks, they have seldom allowed Gandhian thought to influence actual policy, which remains rooted in class-based materialist politics.
The Symbolism of the Statue
The alleged vandalism of a Gandhi statue in Malappattam is more than just an act of physical defacement. Statues in India often represent political ideologies and social values. To damage a Gandhi statue is to challenge the moral legacy he left behind. Whether the act was deliberate or accidental, its political repercussions are being felt because Gandhi occupies a moral space in Indian public life that transcends political lines.
The CPI(M)’s critics have seized this opportunity to question the party’s sincerity towards national icons. On the other hand, the CPI(M) leadership has distanced itself from the incident, calling for an impartial investigation and condemning any desecration of national symbols. Still, the incident has reignited debates over the party’s historical discomfort with Gandhian ideals.
An Unresolved Legacy
The CPI(M)’s relationship with Mahatma Gandhi remains complex. While the party has moved towards broader democratic engagement and occasionally participated in nationalistic initiatives, its fundamental ideological difference with Gandhi’s worldview persists. The CPI(M) is rooted in a class-based, dialectical materialist understanding of history and society, whereas Gandhi emphasized conscience, non-violence, and moral transformation of individuals and society.
This divergence is not just academic. It continues to influence political culture in places like Kerala, where everyday interactions between Congress workers and CPI(M) cadres are informed by these deeper philosophical divisions. When tempers flare, as they did in Malappattam, these ideological ghosts often return to haunt political discourse.
Conclusion
The Malappattam clash in May 2025 is not merely a local skirmish; it is emblematic of the ideological tensions that have long defined Indian politics. The CPI(M)’s historical ambivalence towards Mahatma Gandhi’s methods and message continues to manifest in political conflicts, especially when symbols like statues are involved. As India continues to evolve, the question remains whether political parties—especially those with revolutionary pasts—can reconcile with the moral and spiritual legacy of the man who led the nation to freedom. The Gandhi-CPI(M) divide is more than a political rivalry; it is a philosophical confrontation between two visions of India.
Comments are closed.