Veteran Politician Venugopal Slams CPI(M) Over Rahul Gandhi Jibe, Claims Party Is Driven by an Inferiority Complex

When asked about the uproar that followed Rahul Gandhi’s off‑hand remark on the CPI(M) last week, V. Venugopal didn’t mince words. The seasoned politician, known for his blunt style, said the left‑leaning party’s reaction was less about policy and more about a deep‑seated inferiority complex.

“It’s as if every jibe against them triggers a reflex‑ive outrage,” Venugopal said, chuckling lightly before launching into his critique. “Instead of engaging with the substance, they get caught up in proving they’re not inferior.” He paused, glanced at his notes, and added, “I’ve seen this pattern before – the louder the criticism, the louder the defence, and it never ends well for constructive dialogue.”

Rahul Gandhi’s comment, delivered during a rally in southern India, hinted that the CPI(M) was “out of touch” with the aspirations of ordinary citizens. The remark, though brief, set off a chain reaction: CPI(M) leaders denounced it as “an insult to the working class,” while social media lit up with both supporters and detractors.

Venugopal, who has served in various capacities in the state legislature, argued that the left’s defensive posture stems from a lingering fear of losing relevance. “The party’s legacy is impressive, no doubt,” he acknowledged, “but legacy alone can’t shield you from criticism. What you need is confidence, not constant rebuttal.”

He went on to say that the CPI(M)’s emphasis on ideological purity sometimes blinds it to the evolving concerns of voters. “When you’re stuck in a textbook, you forget that people on the ground are dealing with jobs, education, health,” Venugopal observed. “A party that truly cares would listen first, then respond.”

Reactions to Venugopal’s remarks have been mixed. Some CPI(M) cadres dismissed his comments as “political theater,” while others quietly agreed that the party could benefit from a fresh approach. A senior party spokesperson, speaking on condition of anonymity, hinted that internal discussions are already underway to re‑evaluate communication strategies.

Meanwhile, Rahul Gandhi’s team has remained relatively silent, letting the controversy simmer. Political analysts suggest that the episode may serve as a litmus test for how both parties will navigate the increasingly polarized climate ahead of upcoming state elections.

In the end, Venugopal’s blunt assessment underscores a broader truth: Indian politics, like any other arena, thrives on robust debate, not on the defense of egos. Whether the CPI(M) can set aside its perceived inferiority complex and engage more openly remains to be seen, but the conversation has undeniably been sparked.