The controversy sparked by Vellappally Natesan’s claim that Kerala is on the path to becoming a Muslim-majority state by 2040 has laid bare a deep political contradiction: non-BJP parties in Kerala appear to be adopting strategies they long accused the BJP of—identity-driven politics and communal signaling.
Natesan, the general secretary of SNDP Yogam, an influential body representing the Ezhava community (OBC, ~25% of Kerala’s population), alleged that Muslim leaders hold disproportionate sway over Kerala’s governance and politics. His comments, laced with demographic anxiety and charges of minority appeasement, have:
-
Provoked a bitter intra-Opposition fight between the Congress-IUML alliance and the ruling CPI(M).
-
Brought to surface fault lines that Kerala’s carefully cultivated secular political culture has long tried to contain.
-
Revealed how vote bank arithmetic is increasingly dictating narratives, even among traditional Left and centrist parties.
What’s Happening
-
Vellappally Natesan’s RhetoricAt a July 19 SNDP meeting, Natesan warned of Kerala turning Muslim-majority by 2040 and accused both LDF and UDF of bending to the will of Muslim community leaders, particularly Sunni cleric Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musliyar. He implied that Malappuram, a Muslim-majority district, exercises veto power over state policies.
-
Political Context
-
SNDP’s political arm, the BDJS, is aligned with the BJP-led NDA.
-
The CPI(M) has historically counted on Ezhava support, but recent electoral trends suggest this base is drifting towards the BJP.
-
With the 2026 Assembly elections nearing, Natesan’s remarks seem designed to reassert Ezhava identity politics, possibly to consolidate majority Hindu votes.
-
-
Congress & IUML Reaction
-
Congress leader VD Satheesan accused Natesan of echoing BJP-style divisiveness and aiding CPI(M)’s communal realignment.
-
The IUML—which has faced repeated attacks from both BJP and CPI(M) for being a Muslim-only party—lashed out, calling the remarks blatantly communal and legally actionable.
-
IUML and Congress argue that the CPM is using Natesan as a proxy to test Hindu consolidation tactics without directly tarnishing its secular image.
-
-
CPI(M)’s Balancing Act
-
While not endorsing Natesan’s statement, the CPI(M) has been non-committal, urging SNDP to stay true to Sree Narayana Guru’s values.
-
This reflects a political tightrope: the CPI(M) cannot alienate SNDP/Ezhava support, yet must preserve its secular credentials.
-
Past instances—like Pinarayi Vijayan’s defence of Natesan's “Malappuram is a separate nation” comment—suggest patterned leniency, likely motivated by electoral calculations.
-
Broader Implications
This controversy represents more than a rhetorical slip; it signals a strategic shift in Kerala politics:
-
Majoritarian language, once confined to the Hindutva playbook, is seeping into mainstream non-BJP discourse.
-
As caste dynamics (Ezhava consolidation) and religious narratives collide, traditional alliances are under stress.
-
Secularism in Kerala, once seen as a benchmark for inclusive politics in India, is now being tested by the very actors who built their politics around it.
This also reflects how demographic fears—often used by the Right to create polarisation—are now being weaponized by caste-based organisations allied with both Left and Right, in a bid to retain political relevance in an increasingly fractured voter landscape.
In Summary
-
Vellappally Natesan’s remarks, while provocative, are symptomatic of deeper churn in Kerala’s political fabric.
-
The Left’s silence, the Congress’s outrage, and the IUML’s defensive posture reveal a crisis of ideological consistency.
-
With the 2026 polls approaching, Kerala’s famed binary politics (LDF vs UDF) could become more polarised, fractured, and identity-driven than ever before.
This unfolding scenario showcases how even Kerala, long celebrated for its progressive politics, is not immune to communal undercurrents and electoral compulsions.
