Former Kerala chief minister VS Achuthanandan passes away
The firebrand leader, whose life's story is also the socio-political history of Kerala, was on a life support system for the last 28 days, and he breathed his last at 3.20pm.
He was hospitalised following a massive heart attack on June 23, and true to his nature, put up a tough fight against odds. His trusted lieutenants, who were camping at the hospital, believed until the last moment that he was coming back to life. However, on Monday, his health deteriorated, and the blood pressure went low.
The doctors passed the message to his family members, and chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan himself rushed to the hospital to catch a glimpse of the last surviving founder leader of the
CPM
. The funeral will be held in Alappuzha's 'Valiya Chudukadu' on Wednesday evening, after public homage at AKG Centre on Monday evening and Secretariat Durbar Hall in Thiruvananthapuram on Tuesday and Alappuzha Town Hall on Wednesday.
The demise of Achuthanandan, a staunch Marxist known for his sharp rhetoric, anti-corruption stance and unwavering commitment to social justice, marks the end of an unparalleled era. He demonstrated through his life that it was no different from struggle.
Few politicians in the country must have aged as wisely and fondly as Achuthanandan did. A gifted demagogue and a crowd-puller, he was a born rebel with a rare clarity on the causes he stood for.
He worked as the conscience keeper of the CPM until old age weakened him completely.
VS shot to fame as a crusader against corruption, a green activist, and a humanist during the final phase of his over 80 years of active political career. Unlike many other cult figures carefully crafted by the CPM, the popularity of VS was more incidental, and it baffled and irritated his own party honchos, whom he openly criticised for being crafty revisionists in the age of liberalisation.
Born to Velikkakathu Sankaran and Akkamma on Oct 20, 1923, near Punnapra, Alappuzha, Achuthanandan lost his mother when he was four and his father at 11. He ended his formal education in the seventh grade as there were no means for even a meal a day. The "chovan" (Ezhava) boy also had to face taunts from the upper-caste children.
He was only 21 years old when he was deputed to organise farm workers and labourers in Kuttanad.
He joined the State Congress in 1939, before becoming a member of the Communist Party a year later. He was jailed for over five years during the post-Independence years, besides being forced to spend over four years underground to evade arrest.
In 1957, with the formation of the first govt, Achuthanandan emerged as a prominent state leader. The party split in 1964, battles against policy changes, conflicts, and intense factional struggles, along with his shock defeat in Mararikulam, all intertwined Kerala politics with him.
He was India's first communist leader from a working-class background to rise to the office of the chief minister in 2006. He was the CPM state secretary from 1980 to 1992. He was elected to the assembly four times and twice served as the opposition leader. In the 1996 election, he suffered a shock defeat in Mararikulam.
He was always ready to put up a fight against what he perceived as ideological departure and revisionism in the CPM.
In this fight, he earned the support of fellow comrades in the party. However, Achuthanandan never went the extra mile to protect the interests of his supporters, and as a result, many leaders deserted his camp or got ousted from the party.
He could still find new supporters and new causes. In this process, he was mostly accused of giving weapons to party opponents. Even while raising the banner of revolt against party leadership, VS believed that he had no existence separate from the CPM and was ready to face disciplinary action from the party committees.
Achuthanandan was the first politician in Kerala to identify the potential of green politics, and he meticulously fought against land grab and large-scale paddy reclamation. While serving as the opposition leader, he ardently fought for justice for victims in some of the infamous sexual harassment cases involving politicians and film stars. He was instrumental in former minister R Balakrishna Pillai getting a jail term in connection with a corruption case.
Within the party, he publicly objected to the CPM's overtures to communal forces, including the IUML, PDP, and INL. His open squabbles with the then party state secretary, Pinarayi Vijayan, cost him a place in the politburo. But setbacks and humiliations could not inflict any lasting effect on him. No wonder left intellectual Prof M N Vijayan once accused VS of 'feeding on defeat'!
The indomitable spirit of VS was visible even in his 90s when he appointed a tutor to teach him Hindi after he was appointed the administrative reforms committee chairman.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble
Published : Jul 22, 2025 22:27 IST - 10 MINS READ Of course, he will not respond to this article, despite his call for a national debate. Of course, his statement was just an ideological floater intended to tease and not a reasoned argument. But since he is the sarkaryavah (general secretary) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which rules the country both directly and indirectly, we must take his statement seriously. High officials of the Sangh Parivar do not make statements casually. That, however, is not the main reason for this response. The more important reason is that since 2004 he has been the sah baudhik pramukh (second in command) of the intellectual wing of the Sangh Parivar. That makes him one of the foremost intellectuals of the RSS. In my experience, intellectuals choose their words very carefully. They think before they speak. Their language is measured, suggesting a universe of thought that exists behind what is spoken. This is a universe waiting to be discovered. Terry Eagleton, the Marxist theorist, described intellectuals as people who 'seek to bring ideas to an entire culture'. That is what Dattatreya Hosabale was doing when he asked for 'secular' and 'socialist' to be removed from the Preamble of the Constitution. There are two aspects to what he said that require our consideration. One is acceptable, the other debatable. Unfortunately, the public response has been mostly to the latter. In the best traditions of purva paksha, I shall, therefore, respond to both aspects. (Purva paksha is a traditional approach involving deep familiarity with the opponent's point of view before criticising it.) Hosabale's objections Hosabale's statement contains four objections. He is critical of (i) the context in which the words were introduced into the Preamble, (ii) the procedure that was followed, (iii) the constraints that they, especially 'socialist', would impose on future policymaking by government, and (iv) the impact the two words would have of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. All four are important points and must be considered. To do so, I have adopted the following method. I first re-read the Preamble. Then I revisited the Constituent Assembly debates on the Preamble that took place on October 17, 1949. And finally, going further back, I studied the discussion in the Constituent Assembly that took place on December 13, 1946, when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru. (The Objectives Resolution was the ethical basis for the Preamble.) Also Read | Preamble politics All three steps were necessary to respond meaningfully to Hosabale's discontent. Doing so added hugely to my understanding of the vision of India that was being shaped. In fact, I felt compelled to rededicate myself to the India being imagined. This is my rededication. Debates on Preamble The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the Preamble involved a diversity of members across gender, religion, caste, place, and perspective. Those who spoke were H.V. Kamath, K.M. Munshi, Hasrat Mohani, Deshbandhu Gupta, B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Jai Narain Vyas, K. Santhanam, A. Thanu Pillai, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Shibban Lal Saxena, M. Thirumala Rao, Mahavir Tyagi, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Satyanarayan Sinha, Govind Malaviya, B.R. Ambedkar, J.B. Kripalani, P.S. Deshmukh, Satish Chandra, Brajeshwar Prasad, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Purnima Banerji. Rajendra Prasad conducted the proceedings. I have listed them here to acknowledge them and give them our gratitude. Although the discussions were intense—and some members were obstinate about their amendments—they were very cordial with each other and even showed a touch of humour. Munshi, for example, responded to a point of order raised by Hasrat Mohani, by saying: 'Once in my life I support the Maulana Saheb!' That, sadly, was of a time long ago and far away. Because Hosabale has an aversion to the word 'secularism', it is interesting to note the discussions on 'god' in the Assembly. Saxena proposed the following amendment: 'In the name of god the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation…' Mahatma Gandhi's name was immediately opposed since this was not a Gandhian Constitution. But, more interestingly, having 'god' was also opposed. Banerji said: 'I appeal to Mr Kamath [who had originally proposed adding god] not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon god.' In other words, do not bring god into this. Chaudhuri wanted 'In the name of god' to be changed to 'In the name of goddess' because, as he said, he 'belongs to Kamrup where Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped'. Both proposals were rejected, and nobody got offended. Spirit of secularism Further, Thanu Pillai argued against the compulsion implicit in the amendment by saying that 'a man has a right to believe in god or not'. Note the phrase 'or not'. He went on to say that even though he is a believer, the words make belief in god a compulsion. Thanu Pillai seemed to be equating the rights of atheists with those of believers. Amazing broad-mindedness. From these interventions, it is obvious that secularism was an idea that infused the spirit of the Preamble. Another gem that emerged from these debates, and which supports Hosabale's description of the Preamble as 'eternal', is the statement of Kripalani: 'Sir, I want, at this solemn hour to remind the House that what we have stated in this Preamble are not legal and political principles only. They are also great moral and spiritual principles and if I may say so, they are mystic principles.' While describing the Preamble as 'eternal', Hosabale is making an important point. Something that is 'eternal' stands beyond time, place, context, and regime. It cannot be amended or ignored. If it has to be amended, then it should only be done in the rarest of rare circumstances. Eternal principles Is Hosabale, by his reference to 'eternal', asking his governments at the Union and State levels to commit themselves to 'secure to all its citizens, justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and opportunity) and fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation)'? These are eternal principles. Will Hosabale tell his governments in Assam, where citizenship is being undermined, and in Uttar Pradesh, where liberty is being eroded, and in the nation where fraternity is being degraded, that they are violating the Preamble, tarnishing its 'eternal' glow? If Hosabale deliberately chose to use the word 'eternal', such deliberateness being the hallmark of an intellectual, then do we share a common understanding of the special status of the Preamble? There are many things that one can also glean from a reading of the Objectives Resolution, but I shall mention just two. Nehru, on noticing that many members were absent from the session, advised those present to keep in the mind the interests of those absent and to 'do nothing which may cause uneasiness in others or goes against any principle'. Their absence, for him, 'increases our responsibility'. Noble sentiments that I often feel are missing in our Parliament and State Assemblies. Another aspect I found inspiring was Nehru's suggestion that the Resolution be endorsed not by a 'raising of hands' but 'by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew'. Would Hosabale agree that it is time, in the 75th year of the Indian republic, for us to renew this pledge? With this as background, let me now attend to the four discontents. On the first, the context: I agree with his general argument that constitutional changes introduced during a period of authoritarian rule have little legitimacy. During authoritarian periods, both during a declared or an undeclared emergency, fundamental changes that have been introduced have little normative value (although they may be legally correct), and therefore, if they are made, they should be reversed. Changes in 42nd Amendment The many changes of the 42nd Amendment, introduced during the Emergency period in 1976, were reversed by the 44th Amendment during the Janata Party rule in 1978. It is a mystery why the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were retained. Perhaps Hosabale can enlighten us since the Jana Sangh (the precursor of the BJP) was an important constituent of the Janata Party. I also agree with Hosabale's second objection: of the use of improper procedure in introducing the amendments to the Preamble. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were part of the omnibus 42nd Amendment. If they were to be introduced, they merited a distinct and separate Amendment. Of course, I mean one introduced in non-Emergency times. Let me state unequivocally here that it is my belief that no constitution is fixed in stone for all time. All sections can be amended using the procedures prescribed. But I have a caveat. Amendments to core ideas must be carefully done, with lots of hesitation, introspection, and also done very rarely, the rarest of the rare, because they are the core guiding aspects of our founding document. They should be like Ashoka pillars. They constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, an idea I like, since it accepts that core aspects are capacious, allowing for a different inhabiting as social mores of a society change. Also Read | Secularism and the state That is why the right to life now includes the right to a clean environment. Core aspects must endure, must have long lives, and should only be changed in extreme circumstances. Legitimate changes to core aspects can be likened to apad dharma (moral principles during calamities) being applied to sadharana dharma (everyday moral principles). Perhaps that is why the Janata Party did not remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble when it passed the 44th Amendment. I have a question for Hosabale here: How does abrogating Article 370 stand up to this rule? 'Socialist' constraint His third anxiety, that the word 'socialist' would constrain policymaking, is weak on at least three grounds. All founding principles—such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are supposed to constrain governments since such constraint is the measure of a constitutional order. Constraining policymaking is, therefore, not an anxiety worth worrying about. Further, both Nehru and Ambedkar saw the Constitution as being socialist in spirit. That is why Nehru did not insist on introducing the word in the Constitution and Ambedkar saw many of the other provisions as being expressions of socialism. And, finally, which socialism is Hosabale uneasy about since we have, in India, many varieties, such as Gandhian, Lohiaite, and Nehruvian, and the socialistic ideas of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and S.A. Dange, among others? Is not the BJP's Antyodaya concept a socialist idea by another name? And finally, the fourth objection: of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. Linguistically, 'socialist' and 'secular' are a bit cumbersome there. They do not have the same status as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The former are ideologies. The latter are principles. But Hosabale is not making a linguistic point about the loss in the aesthetics of the Preamble. His is a fluffy point, undefended by serious argument. It is a bias. He does not like secularism or socialism because that is the party line, not an intellectual formulation. It would be interesting to see why he thinks these words sully the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. I hope this is the kind of discussion that he wanted. If not, he should let us know and we will begin anew. Peter Ronald deSouza is an independent scholar. He was formerly Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Peas in a podcast: Devouring the past
Wars have long made ancient sites vulnerable to looting, and in post-Assad Syria , this grim tradition continues. In Syria's treasure-hunting fever, a compelling episode from The Guardian's podcast, reporter William Christou talks to Michael Safi about the ongoing plunder of the ancient city of Palmyra . Once a jewel of the Roman Empire and a Unesco World Heritage site , Palmyra now lies pockmarked with holes - dug by desperate Syrians in search of millennia-old burial explains how the collapse of Syria's security infrastructure and the deep poverty left in war's wake have driven ordinary people to hunt for antiquities. Joining the discussion is archaeologist Amr Al-Azm, founder of the Athar Project, which monitors online trafficking of looted artefacts. He describes how the Islamic State's earlier exploitation of cultural heritage sites has fuelled a lasting appetite for illegal the looters are not the only ones to blame. Al-Azm points to the global antiquities market - particularly buyers in Europe and North America - as complicit. Without tackling demand, he warns, the destruction will continue. This sobering episode is a must-listen for anyone concerned about the survival of our shared cultural heritage.
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Paddy, wetland conservation Act, three fold growth in IT sector key highlights of VS government
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Among the many initiatives undertaken by the VS Achuthanandan-led government from 2006-11, the most remembered one was the legislation to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict its conversion or reclamation. The Act was aimed to promote the state's agricultural growth and sustain its fragile ecological system. Enacted in 2008, the Act intended to curb the indiscriminate reclamation and conversion of paddy land and wetland in the state. The legislation also increased the level of awareness in society against the reclamation of wetlands and the need to conserve them. The legislation was passed after the select committee of the Assembly held 22 sittings across Kerala which were attended by a large number of people. "This Bill received the highest number of suggestions from a wide spectrum of stakeholders and it was also noted internationally," remembered KP Rajendran, who piloted the Bill as the then Revenue Minister. Achuthanandan's detractors would often cite his role in the agitation against computers decades ago. But it was during his tenure as CM that IT exports grew significantly, with the growth even surpassing the national average. "It should be noted that the three fold growth in IT exports was recorded despite the worst global recession of 2008. Besides, the VS government is credited with adding many new IT parks in the state's technological landscape and permitting many IT majors to set up base in the state," said Joseph C Mathew, Achuthanandan's former IT advisor. The idea for the first district IT park in Kerala at Kollam was announced in January 2009 when Achuthanandan was CM and was opened on February 15, 2011. The first phase of Koratty IT Park became operational on October 10, 2009. It was launched as the first IT park in Kerala under the "Hub and Spoke Model," with Infopark Kochi acting as the hub.
