Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 22
Former Devaswom Minister and senior CPI(M) legislator Kadakampally Surendran has emerged as the ruling party's most embattled face in the unfolding Sabarimala gold theft controversy, with developments inside and outside the Kerala Assembly on Thursday underlining a growing dissonance within the Left Front's public narrative.
On Wednesday, breaking his silence amid mounting pressure, Surendran told the media that he had visited the residence of prime accused Unnikrishnan Potti only once, and had not received any gifts or favours from him.
Thirteen people, including three top CPI(M) and one CPI leader, are presently in judicial custody in the Sabarimala gold heist case.
Surendran on Thursday clarified that the visit was to attend a function related to Potti's father and that an earlier reference to a child's programme had been a mistake.
The former minister stressed that Potti was not considered tainted at the time and insisted that he had no improper relationship with the accused.
The political heat intensified on Thursday, when the Sabarimala gold issue dominated proceedings in the Assembly.
As the Opposition mounted a fresh attack, treasury bench legislators sought to deflect the spotlight by invoking a photograph showing Potti in the company of Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, projecting it as evidence of the accused's political reach beyond the Left.
However, even as the ruling front wielded the Sonia–Potti image as a counter-offensive on the Assembly floor, Surendran struck a markedly different note outside.
Speaking to reporters again on Thursday, he said he did not believe that Sonia Gandhi would knowingly allow a tainted individual into her residence, distancing himself from the insinuations being made by his own party colleagues inside the House.
The contrast has not gone unnoticed. While the treasury benches attempted to broaden the political net around Potti, Surendran appeared keen to narrow the focus, emphasising that the investigation into the gold heist was proceeding under High Court supervision and accusing the Opposition of political theatrics.
He has always maintained that there was no necessity for the Devaswom Minister to intervene in every aspect of Sabarimala's administration.
With the Enforcement Directorate intensifying its probe and the Opposition sharpening its attack, Surendran's careful, almost defensive positioning has placed him at the centre of the storm.
The differing tones adopted by the CPI(M) leadership—aggressive inside the Assembly and cautious outside—have exposed a tactical divergence within the ruling front.
As the case gathers momentum, the episode illustrates the political tightrope Surendran is walking on one of the most sensitive controversies confronting the Pinarayi Vijayan government, with Assembly elections round the corner.
