Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has found himself at the centre of a 'public relations (PR) controversy' after an interview with The Hindu sparked debates over his stance on gold smuggling and hawala transactions in Malappuram. Though the Chief Minister’s office quickly distanced itself from the remarks, a correction note issued by The Hindu has deepened the controversy, bringing the role of PR agencies into sharp focus.
Here’s a breakdown of what happened and why it matters.
The interview and the controversial remarks
In an interview published on September 30 by The Hindu, Vijayan was asked about allegations that top-ranking police officers were secretly meeting with RSS functionaries. While addressing the topic, the Chief Minister reportedly said: "150 kg of gold and hawala money worth Rs 123 crore were seized by the state police in the last five years from Malappuram district. This money is entering Kerala for anti-state and anti-national activities."
This statement linking Malappuram’s gold smuggling to extremist activities drew backlash from the Muslim League and opposition leaders, who demanded evidence for the claim that funds were being used for anti-national activities.
Chief Minister disowns the statements
As the controversy grew, the Chief Minister’s office issued a press note, claiming that the remarks made in the interview did not reflect the CM’s views or the state government's stance. In a subsequent party convention, Vijayan himself stated that The Hindu had issued a correction and that his words were "misinterpreted." He claimed that parts of the interview he did not say had led to the controversy.
The correction note from The Hindu
In response to the Chief Minister's denial, The Hindu issued a correction note that added another layer to the controversy. The note stated:
- PR agency Kaizzen had approached The Hindu offering an interview with the Chief Minister.
- During the interview, two representatives from the PR agency were present alongside Vijayan at Kerala House in New Delhi.
- After the interview, one of the PR representatives requested the inclusion of specific details about gold smuggling and hawala transactions in Malappuram, statements that the CM later disowned.
This correction established three key points:
- A PR agency was involved in arranging the interview.
- PR representatives were present during the interview.
- PR representatives attempted to influence the content of the interview by adding statements later disowned by the Chief Minister.
Past denials and allegations
The involvement of PR agencies in Vijayan’s communication strategy contradicts the CM’s previous denials of using PR support. Back in May 2020, Vijayan had strongly refuted claims of employing PR agencies during his COVID-era press conferences, stating, "I don’t wait for cues from any agency. This land knows me very well."
In 2021, ahead of the assembly elections, similar allegations surfaced, with opposition leader V D Satheesan claiming that Vijayan consulted a Mumbai-based PR agency for an image makeover. However, Vijayan had dismissed these claims, asserting that his supporters on social media handled his public defense.
The unanswered questions
The correction note from The Hindu raises troubling questions about the extent of PR influence in shaping the Chief Minister's public image. Despite the disavowal of certain remarks, the Chief Minister's office has yet to address the revelation that PR representatives were present during the interview and influenced its content. So far, there has been no official comment from Kaizzen, the PR agency involved, regarding their role in the interview or their relationship with the Kerala Chief Minister’s office.
The political fallout
The controversial statements linking gold smuggling in Malappuram to anti-national activities have caused significant political damage. Muslim League leaders have demanded an explanation from Vijayan, while other opposition figures like P A Anvar, MLA, have used the opportunity to criticise the Chief Minister.
The situation has now escalated into a broader debate about the ethics of using PR agencies to manage political messaging and how much influence these agencies have over the narrative presented to the public.