How Kerala CM Pinarayi used a book to claim Congress-RSS 'tacit understanding'

In the Nilambur bypoll in Kerala, where voting is currently underway, a political biography published in New Delhi, unexpectedly became a flashpoint.

It was not local allegiances and caste arithmetic that marked the election campaign at Nilambur but Neerja Chowdhury’s How Prime Ministers Decide, a meticulously researched work. The book, which chronicles the decision-making styles of India’s prime ministers from Indira Gandhi to Manmohan Singh, became the talking point at a press conference held by Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in early June 2025.

Also Read: Ground Report | Nilambur bypoll race hots up, with last-minute twists

Pragmatic Indira

Neerja Chowdhury, a senior political journalist with decades of experience, had based her book on archival research and interviews with insiders.

In the chapter on Indira Gandhi, she outlines how, after her drubbing in 1977, how the former PM had sought to rebuild her base by reaching out to groups that had opposed her Emergency — which, ironically, included the RSS. Chowdhury describes this as a pragmatic move by a leader who had once jailed thousands of Sangh workers but now saw political advantage in opening channels of communication.

Controversial comment

The trigger was a controversial remark by CPI(M) state secretary MV Govindan, who, in what was perceived as an attempt to contextualise Left politics during the Emergency, noted that “even the CPI(M) had stood with the Jan Sangh and RSS at certain junctures”.

The comment, though historically arguable in its broader framing, was seized upon by Congress leaders in Kerala and beyond as a major embarrassment for the Left, especially in a state where political lines have been sharply drawn between secular and Hindutva forces.

Also Read: 9 years as Kerala CM: Why Pinarayi Vijayan's legacy is a paradox

Damage control

Sensing the damage such a statement could do during a high-stakes byelection, especially one necessitated by the resignation of CPI(M)’s controversial MLA PV Anvar and his subsequent re-nomination, the Chief Minister decided to take matters into his own hands.

At a press conference called ostensibly to outline development plans for the region, Vijayan veered sharply off-script.

Holding up a copy of the book, the veteran Communist leader embarked on a long quotation, reading aloud from the chapter dealing with the post-Emergency years. The portion he emphasised detailed how, after the 1977 Lok Sabha defeat, Indira Gandhi sought to reassert herself politically by reaching out to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

'Tacit understanding'

According to Chowdhury’s book, which draws on a combination of archival research and extensive interviews, Indira Gandhi, after her electoral debacle, had sent overtures to the Sangh leadership, and there were quiet conversations between Congress leaders and RSS representatives, aimed at undermining the Janata Party alliance.

Vijayan used this narrative to claim that Congress had a "tacit understanding" with the RSS, long before any such accusation had ever been levelled at the Left.

“The Congress has always had a dual approach — one for public consumption, and another in private. When Indira Gandhi tried to rehabilitate herself after the Emergency, she did not hesitate to reach out to the RSS. This is documented by Neerja Chowdhury, a senior journalist not known for any Communist sympathy. If anyone has compromised with communal forces, it is the Congress,” Vijayan asserted.

He continued: “When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, it was with the help of the same forces that she had once jailed. These are historical facts. If anyone has colluded with the RSS, it is the Congress. They have entered into quiet arrangements and even seat adjustments with the Sangh in various parts of India.”

Also Read: Nilambur bypoll: High-stakes battle between LDF, UDF after Anvar's exit

Congress and BJP

Vijayan referred to specific instances mentioned in Chowdhury’s book and elsewhere, including reports of a 1982 meeting between then-prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras.

“It is this party,” Vijayan said, “that opened the doors of the Babri Masjid in 1986, and it is this party that has constantly walked both sides of the communal divide.”

He did not stop there. Vijayan also pointed to electoral tie-ups and informal alliances at the constituency level.

“In Kerala, there have been many such cases. In the 1980s and 1990s, Congress and BJP have supported each other in select seats. In Palakkad, in Beypore, in Vadakara — there are records,” he said.

Political expediency

Meanwhile, within the CPI(M), there was a concerted effort to insulate Govindan from further criticism. The party clarified that his remarks had been misrepresented.

In a damage control press conference, Govindan stated: “I was speaking of specific historical moments where the Left and other non-Congress forces aligned against authoritarianism and Emergency excesses. It was not about ideological affinity but political expediency in very specific contexts.”

But the clarification did little to stem the political fallout. For many in the Muslim community, especially those in Nilambur — a constituency with a significant minority presence — the idea that the CPI(M) could have ever “stood with” the RSS was deeply unsettling, regardless of the context.

Also Read: Why Pinarayi's speech on Narayana Guru triggered a political storm

Pinarayi's masterstroke

This is where Vijayan’s move to cite Chowdhury’s book served a dual purpose. It not only attempted to deflect the heat from Govindan’s admission but also sought to reframe the Congress as the original sinner in its dealings with Hindutva forces.

The narrative was designed to make voters wary of Congress’s credibility as a secular bulwark, particularly in comparison to the CPI(M), which prides itself on ideological clarity.

In the final stretch of the campaign, How Prime Ministers Decide became more than a book. It became a weapon — an unlikely one, not wielded in television studios or think tanks, but on the dusty trail of a rural by-election in Kerala.

Vijayan’s choice to anchor his rebuttal in a widely-read, non-partisan political book was a strategic one.

By quoting a Delhi-based journalist rather than relying solely on party literature, he sought to gain credibility among undecided voters and shift the narrative away from Govindan’s misstep. “We don’t need to defend history selectively. The facts are there, documented,” he stated.

Political analysts believed that Vijayan’s intervention helped the CPI(M) regain control of the narrative, at least temporarily.

As Nilambur voters cast their votes, it’s clear that the election has become about more than local development or candidate profiles. It has evolved into a referendum on secular politics itself — and in that battle, a political biography from Delhi has unexpectedly become a crucial piece of evidence.