Kottayam: At the CITU state conference, delegates launched severe criticism against the second Pinarayi government’s performance and the anti-worker stances of former ministers. The main allegation raised was that the government, which was supposed to protect the rights and welfare of workers, neglected the fundamental issues confronting the working-class community once it came to power. Delegates accused the government’s anti-worker approach and failures in addressing the crises faced by laborers across various sectors as key reasons behind the election defeat.
Strong criticism was directed at former ministers P. Rajeev, K.N. Balagopal, M.B. Rajesh, and V. Shivankutty during the conference. Delegates alleged that those who came to power with the support of worker movements later turned away from workers’ demands and did not afford due consideration to worker interests in administrative decisions.
There was also sharp criticism against former Finance Minister K.N. Balagopal and KSFE Chairman K. Varadarajan. Worker representatives from KSFE expressed protest against both individuals’ attitudes towards workers’ demands and mockingly suggested that they be honored with the 'Workers Excellence Award'. This mockery reflected deep dissatisfaction with the positions taken by those expected to work for the welfare of workers.
Another major criticism focused on the finance department’s failure to provide the necessary financial assistance to various welfare fund boards. Delegates noted that the unavailability of timely funds directly impacted the lives of workers. They emphasized that the government cannot evade responsibility for the disruption caused to workers’ welfare benefits and financial assistance.
Delegates also targeted former Excise Minister M.B. Rajesh and representatives of traditional occupational sectors with strong criticism. While the government swiftly took steps to grant licenses for more bars, it was accused of lacking equal interest in protecting the employment and livelihoods of traditional illicit liquor workers. The government’s alcohol policy reportedly adversely affected the survival of the illicit liquor industry, and the Excise Department was criticized for its failure to resolve issues faced by workers dependent on this sector. The conference raised a strong objection that the prioritization of bar industry demands came at the expense of traditional illicit liquor workers’ job security and welfare.
Former Industry Minister P. Rajeev also faced severe criticism. Rajeev, who was active in the trade union movement before becoming minister, was accused by delegates of distancing himself from workers’ issues after assuming office and prioritizing relations with large industrialists. There was particular criticism that the Industry Department was ineffective in addressing the crises faced by the traditional coir industry and the workers reliant on it. Delegates alleged that no substantial measures were taken for the employment protection and welfare of coir workers. It was also claimed that even union leaders often found it difficult to meet the minister to raise workers’ demands. Delegates expressed disappointment over the approach of someone who emerged from the labor movement yet did not meet workers’ expectations.
Former Labour Minister V. Shivankutty’s tenure was also sharply criticized by conference delegates. The department responsible for safeguarding workers’ rights and resolving labor sector issues was said to have fallen short of expectations. Delegates alleged that the Labour Department failed to effectively intervene in workers’ problems and meet their demands. Shivankutty’s performance as minister was described as a failure, and the government was accused of adopting an administrative approach that did not prioritize worker welfare.
Beyond individual ministers’ performance, the conference witnessed strong criticism of the overall governance policies of the second Pinarayi government. Delegates assessed that while the first Pinarayi government’s achievements created conditions for continued rule, the policies and administrative lapses of the second government contributed to the loss of public support. The neglect of working-class needs, failure to address crises in traditional employment sectors, and shortcomings in the implementation of welfare schemes were said to have intensified public dissatisfaction.
Though the first Pinarayi government paved the way for the continuation of LDF rule, delegates argued that the second government’s actions created circumstances that enabled the UDF government led by V.D. Satheesan to come to power. The conference also raised criticism that the alienation between the leadership and the working-class community resulted in a political setback.
n
Original Malayalam report: Malayalam Daily News
