Thiruvananthapuram: Without denouncing the controversial  ‘mother-in-law’ remark made by CPM senior leader and politburo member A Vijayaraghavan during CPM Kunnamkulam area conference on Thursday, CPM state secretary MV Govindan has justified the senior leader’s comments and termed it as figurative expression. While defending party’s road blockade at Vanchiyoor, Vijayaraghavan had made some controversial remarks which included a reference to ‘mother-in-law’. 

At the same time, Govindan has expressed the disagreement of the party in connection with CPM Kozhikode district secretary P Mohanan’s speech against MEC 7. 

Responding to a question about Mec 7, Govindan said that such organisations exist in many places. He clarified that the CPI(M) has a clear stance on issues involving communal and extremist forces in different regions. However, he emphasised that the party has not claimed that the Mec 7 group, which is related to healthcare, operates as a tool of communal forces.

“It cannot be said that all associations are communal by nature. Communalism is a concern for all democratic believers. Regarding Mec 7, Mohanan has already clarified his statements. CPI(M) does not hold the view that every activity like physical training conducted by certain groups is inherently communal,” Govindan explained.

Addressing the controversy surrounding Vijayaraghavan’s “mother-in-law” remark, Govindan questioned whether every figurative expression used in speeches needs to be analysed ideologically. “There’s nothing to discuss on this matter. Whether it’s Vijayaraghavan or someone else, it’s not an issue of ideological significance. The media has nothing else to target CPI(M) with, so they’re attempting to create an issue,” he added.

The controversy originated during the CPI(M)’s Kunnamkulam area meeting, where A. Vijayaraghavan defended the road blockade in Vanchiyoor. He commented, "Does anyone question how much space is needed for ten cars to pass? Why doesn’t anyone think about whether all these people need to travel in cars? Can’t they just walk? Didn’t we used to walk before? No one asks such questions anymore. Do we really need such big cars? Wouldn’t a small car suffice? When 25 cars go, it’s just 25 people traveling.”

He continued, “Worse, the cars move very slowly. Sundays have less traffic. People are traveling to places like their mother-in-law’s house. They talk, take their time, and travel leisurely. Only those with essential needs are traveling, and they’re very few. I’m not against that. People with cars will use cars. Just as they have the freedom to travel in cars, poor people should also be given the freedom to conduct marches. This is my humble request.”