Kannur: After the successful launch of CPM whistleblower V Kunhikrishnan’s book ‘The Rank Should Correct the Leadership’, the party has decided to go to its rank and file to lay bare the accounts related to three funds in which there were allegations of misappropriation.

Speaking to reporters in Kannur, CPM Kannur District Secretary K K Ragesh said family meetings would be organised at the booth-level, where party members, sympathisers and supporters, those who may not be active daily but love the party, would be invited. He said the accounts would be shared with them.

He said he would not share the accounts with the media because they were not of public interest. Resorting to some wordplay, he said money for the family of slain CPM worker C V Dhanraj, and for building the Payyannur Area Committee office, was raised from bahujanam (the masses) and not pothujanam (the general public).

In left discourse, masses carry a political and ideological tone, and include workers, peasants, youth, students, and women. He said that the money was raised from the masses supporting the party and not from the general public, who have no ideological colour.

Ragesh said he was doing it because the party state secretary, M V Govindan, recommended it, considering the widespread “misinformation” around the fundraising in Payyannur.

Kunhikrishnan, a former member of the CPM’s Kannur District Committee, flagged alleged financial misappropriation in three funds - money raised for Dhanraj’s family and legal expenses; money raised for the party office in Payyannur; and the election fund raised during the 2021 assembly election for candidate T I Madhusoodanan. When the first two funds were raised in 2016, Madhusoodanan was the area secretary, and for the third fund, he was the party’s candidate.

However, Ragesh said Kunkrishnan was “baying for Madhusoodanan’s blood” because of personal enmity. His book should have been titled - ‘A Ledger of Revenge’, he said.

He said the people who gathered at the book launch event at Payyannur’s Gandhi Park were known CPM baiters posing as communists.

Ragesh hit out at political commentator Joseph C Mathew, who released the book, for advising the party to make a course correction. “He spoke as if he were a veteran CPM leader, even owning the party in his speech. He has no link with the organisation. He does not need to advise us on how to reform the CPM. We don’t need his advice,” Ragesh said.

To be sure, the book was a sell-out at the launch event itself. Around 2,500 copies were bought by those who gathered for the launch.

One of Kunhikrishnan’s main allegations in the book was that ₹34.25 lakh was shown as an expense towards building a house for Dhanraj’s family in Ramanthali panchayat.

But only ₹29.25 lakh went to the contractor Unni’s account; ₹5 lakh went to the personal account of K P Madhu, a confidant of Madhusoodanan, and now Payyannur municipal councillor.

After Madhusoodanan gave up his post as the Area Secretary to contest the Assembly election, Kunhikrishnan alleged that he nominated K P Madhu to the post so that the financial irregularities could be overlooked.

But Ragesh said Madhusoodanan proposed Madhu’s name at the Karivellur Area Conference after consulting senior leaders from the District Committee, including himself.

However, Madhu had to step down after getting caught in a sleaze case, and the party picked V Kunhikrishnan to be the Payyannur Area Committee.

All the alleged financial irregularities started tumbling out when Kunhikrishnan, a retired cooperative bank secretary, started scrutinising the accounts.

He found that the ₹70 lakh raised from the CPM-leaning cooperative employees (one month’s salary) for building the Payyannur Area committee office was not shown in the accounts.

Also, ₹35 lakh was diverted from Dhanraj’s fund to the party office fund, but later on, in the direction of the District Committee, the total diversion was shown as ₹40 lakh, said Kunhikrishnan.

Explaining that, Ragesh told a grilling media that the District Committee counted the ₹5 lakh that was transferred to K P Madhu’s account.

But that explanation does not add up because that ₹5 lakh was taken from the house budget, which was shown as ₹34.25 lakh, and it was not reduced.

Before coming up with this justification, Ragesh said that sometimes, when there is a cap on withdrawing money from an account, say, like during demonetisation, one would transfer the money to another account to circumvent the cap.

In the hour-long press conference, Ragesh did not explain why the ₹70 lakh was not shown in the accounts.

On the funds raised for the election, the allegation was that Madhusoodanan used two sets of receipt books, one printed in a party-designated press and one outside, but the two sets of receipt books bore the same press name.

The fraudulent receipt book was found because of a typo.

Ragesh said Madhusoodanan used only one receipt book, and he submitted it for auditing. He said the party’s inquiry commission found that it was the office secretary who got the fake receipt book printed without permission, and he was suspended for it. Also, Madhusoodanan was downgraded to the party’s district committee from the powerful district secretariat for not submitting the accounts for auditing on time. “Our disciplinary action is not meant to kill a person’s political future, but to correct mistakes and reform comrades as true communists,” he said. But Kunhikrishnan was not happy with it; he was gunning for the MLA, the party district secretary alleged.

Kunhikrishnan, however, said that Madhusoodanan took two receipt books and did not submit any for auditing. He submitted two books later after the accounts were sent to the District Committee, and that’s when he found out about a glaring difference in the way Left in Left Democratic Front was spelt in Malayalam. At least eight leaves used to raise money were not submitted for auditing, he said after coming across the receipts given to donors.

But Ragesh has made it clear that Madhusoodanan was untouchable, despite reporters reading out from the party’s internal audit report that confirmed diversion of funds and also lapses in printing receipt books. “There is no scope to hold T I Madhusoodanan accountable for receipt book printing,” Ragesh said, adding that auditors found no irregularities in the receipt book submitted by him.