TRIGGERED by a dramatic fallout between the left front-backed MLA P.V. Anvar and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan—one that saw Anvar quit the front and his post—the Nilambur byelection became more than a local contest. It became a preview of deeper currents reshaping Kerala’s political landscape.
In the high-spirited fight between the United Democratic Front’s Aryadan Shoukath, the Left Democratic Front’s M. Swaraj, the now independent Anvar and the BJP’s Mohan George, the UDF emerged victorious with a margin of 11,077 votes.
“[Even though they are UDF allies], Congress workers in many parts of Malappuram have traditionally been staunchly anti-Muslim League,” noted political observer A. Jayashankar. “In fact, the UDF candidate had a rocky relationship with the Muslim League in the past.”
Yet, this time, the Congress and the League fought as one. “All parties came together in an unprecedented effort,” said Wandoor MLA A.P. Anilkumar, the de-facto UDF poll manager. “A loss would’ve triggered a negative ripple effect.”
Shoukath’s victory has boosted the stature of leader of opposition V.D. Satheesan, who took a political gamble by backing him despite pressure from Anvar. Anvar had offered to bring in votes if the UDF replaced its candidate and accepted him as an ally.
“Had Anvar been accommodated and the margin widened to, say, 25,000, the credit would’ve gone to him,” said political observer Sunnykutty Abraham. He added that some senior Congress leaders had anticipated Satheesan’s stature overshadowing theirs. “Which is why some now argue Anvar should’ve been brought in earlier to earn a better margin,” he said. “Anvar consistently insulted the UDF leadership and fought against the alliance—why should he be accepted back? If the UDF started welcoming anyone just based on the vote count, then what’s the point of values or discipline?”
Political observer N.M. Pearson, however, said the UDF should have absorbed Anvar early on, “neutralised” him and earned a margin close to 40,000 to create a larger wave that sustains. “This wasn’t a grand victory,” he said. “And no one’s really talking about the fact that the UDF couldn’t even reach the vote count they had in 2021. With the current margin, the LDF can claim it wasn’t a serious loss.”
During the campaign, the CPI(M) alleged that the UDF was aligning with communal forces—pointing to the Jamaat-e-Islami-backed Welfare Party’s support for Shoukath. The UDF hit back, citing the LDF’s past acceptance of Jamaat votes and its alliance with the Islamist-backed People’s Democratic Party. After the results, the CPI(M) doubled down, claiming the UDF’s win was due to an “unholy nexus.”
Pearson said that despite the loss, the LDF effectively test-marketed this narrative in Nilambur. “The LDF wants to brand the UDF as a pro-Muslim front,” he said. “In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the perception that the LDF was pro-Muslim [cost it] (the LDF won only one of the 20 seats). To counter that, the CPI(M) is now subtly playing the hindutva card.” As evidence, Pearson cited party secretary M.V. Govindan’s remark about the CPI(M) working with the RSS during the Emergency.
“Both [fronts] have shown they’ll align with anyone for electoral gain,” said social critic Hameed Chennamangaloor. “Muslim League leaders like M.K. Muneer and K.M. Shaji, who once opposed ties with the Jamaat, stayed silent this time. That speaks volumes. Nilambur was a signal. If the UDF had lost, it would’ve been seen as absence of anti-incumbency. If the CPI(M) wins a third term in 2026, the UDF could collapse. In desperation, they’re accepting support from all quarters.”