MUSLIM LEAGUE AND MUSLIM COMMUNITY: A BALANCE SHEET

Chapter III MUSLIM LEAGUE AND MUSLIM COMMUNITY: A BALANCE SHEET In a democracy, group identity can be strengthened, economic advantage can be extracted and social status can be improved only through political mobilization. Democratic politics is often considered as a great leveler as it is based on the principle of one man, one vote and one vote, one value. This means that numbers are significant in democracies and hence individuals have to join hands with each other if they have to be counted. It is here that political mobilization as a channel of articulating ones interest and placing them for consideration before the powers that be assumes salience. That said, a rejoinder is in place here. Political mobilization always need not necessarily be on secular/ideological plane. It can also be on identities based on caste/religious/communitarian solidarity. Each epoch, each society/group and each place has its own logic, rationale and criteria for mobilization which mostly depends on the socio-economic, political and cultural situations. If one applies this brief theoretical exposition in the Indian context one could safely conclude that identity-based politics is gaining upperhand over ideological and secular politics specifically in recent times. A large number of political parties from Samajvadi Party and Bhahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh to Akhali Dal in Punjab, PMK in Tamil Nadu and BJP at the national level are formed on the basis of primordial identities and are also catapulted to power primarily on the strength of group solidarity evinced by their respective religions/castes. Questions are often raised as to why identity politics is gaining importance in Indian polity? What binds the caste/religious groups to such parties? And, what is the nature of relationship that exists between the two ie, the party and its vote bank once theses parties come to power? Most probably, religion is imbibed by birth and is the most influential factor for individuals in forming identity. It is a social force in its own right and can be considered as the first societal interaction from which individual behaviour begins 71

to grow and develop. In India, it is an inescapable historical fact that religion, as a socio-cultural dynamic, occupies a place in human affairs that cannot be expected to wither away [Banatwala, 1992: 2]. In other words, Indian political system is characterized by a preoccupation with communitarian identities, chauvinistic ideologies and movements that exacerbate religious differences. The style of British rule after 1857 played a crucial role in this as it encouraged the development of political consciousness by religious communities. With the formation of the Indian National Congress, the British rulers began to change their attitude towards Muslims. After 1909, the British decided to transfer their patronage from the middle class Muslims to the Muslim League and thus the League was born under its patronage [Mahendra, 2006: 150]. Though the freedom movement was an affair of the Indians as a whole, both the leading political platforms - the Congress and the Muslim League tried to merge religious identities with the movement, indirectly. On the one side the Congress capitalized on the Khilafat Movement clubbing it with the Non-cooperation Movement after the World War I and on the other side, the Muslim League tried to broaden its own base among the Muslims which eventually resulted in the partition of the country. It is from these legacies that identity politics took roots in the country. People s distrust of national parties and communal concentration in different geographical regions also add to this legacy. All the aforesaid points have great relevance in the context of the Muslim League in Kerala as well. The party was formed and consolidated among the Muslims of Kerala in a particular political and historical conjecture which had its origin in the pre-independence period itself. Before the formation of the League in Malabar, the Muslims had, by and large, identified themselves with the Congress Party and fought the British. However, things changed with the Khilafat Movement. Although it was mainly a Muslim Religious Movement, the Khilafat leaders like Mohammad Ali and his brother Maulana Shaukat Ali and Gandhiji agreed to work and fight together for the causes of Khilafat and Swaraj and it ensured Hindu- Muslim unity during the struggle. However, the Congress-Khilafat alliance began withering soon. The Khilafat campaign had been opposed by other political parties 72

such as the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha. Many Hindu religious and political leaders identified the Khilafat cause as Islamic fundamentalism based on a pan-islamic agenda. And many Muslim leaders, on their turn, viewed the Indian National Congress as becoming increasingly dominated by Hindu fundamentalists. Even the Ali brothers later on criticised Gandhi's extreme commitment to nonviolence and suspension of Non-cooperation Movement following the Chauri Chaura incident of 1922 [Wikipedia/Movement]. Thus, consequent upon the Khilafat, a larger section of the Muslims drifted away from the Congress. 1. Formation of the All India Muslim League (AIML) In pre-independence India, since the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 to the first decade of the 20 th century, it had been the only important political platform of the nationalists for ventilating their grievances. Significantly, to a large extent, the party was dominated by the educated elites belonging to the upper caste Hindus. Though Muslims formed about 25-30 per cent of the population of British India, and constituted the majority of the population in Baluchistan, East Bengal, Kashmir, North-West Frontier Province, West Punjab, and the Sindh region of the Karachi Presidency [Wikipedia/All- India_Muslim_League], the Congress did pretty little to enlist the support of the Muslim community in its struggle for Indian independence. Although a section of the community was active in the Congress, majority of Muslim leaders were suspicious of the Hindu predominance of the organization and felt that they did not have the same rights as Hindu members [Ibid.]. This section, therefore, sought a political base for themselves, separate from Hindus and other nationalists who espoused the cause of Indian National Congress [Wikipedia/Muslim_ nationalism_ in_south_asia]. In the meantime, in 1900, the British administration made Hindi, written in the Devanagari script, the official language in the largest Indian state, the United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh). This aggravated minority fears that the Hindu majority would seek to suppress their religion in an independent India [Wikipedia/All-India_Muslim_League]. Further, the partition of Bengal by the 73

British Government in 1905 greatly embittered the relations between Hindus and Muslims. Though this ensured a number of political benefits for the Muslims, the Hindus reacted towards partition in a hostile and violent manner which convinced the educated Muslims that their lot could be redeemed only if they created their own political force under their own leadership [Ibid.]. It was under this situation, the All India Muslim League was formed in (on 30 th December, at Dacca; Agha Khan was the President), 1906, to seek political rights for the Muslims and to protect the community from Hindu domination and the British persecution [Ahmad, 2000: 55]. It was concerned with the secular interests of the Muslims, ie., share in power and employment and did not at all bother about doctrinal or religious problems of Islam initially [Puri, 2007 : 18]. Interestingly, when the idea of a separate Muslim State was put forth by Muslim poet Muhammed Iqubal, in 1930, it had few takers either within the community or within the League. 1.1. The Muslim Majilis : Predecessor of AIML in Kerala The Muslim Majilis was formed at the annual conference of Kerala Muslim Aikya Sanghom, in August, 1931, at Thalassery, under the presidentship of Jamal Muhammed Sahib [Kunju, 1989: 139]. It was formed to focus the problems of the community and became the nucleus of the Muslim political activities in Malabar. It was a forum of both political leaders and social reformers under one umbrella [Radhakrishnan, 2004: 41], and was, perhaps, the first political organization solely constituted by the Muslims of Malabar, prior to the birth of the Muslim League [Panicker, 1976: 62]. Muhammed Abdurahman Sahib and E.Moidu Moulavi (both belonging to the then Congress party) and Abdul Sathar Sait, K.Uppi Sahib and B.Pokker Sahib (all of them of the Muslim League vintage) worked together in it for the progress of the community without party differences. Its activities stopped when they began to pull in opposite directions [Kunju, op.cit., 139-40] which factor was very clear right from the beginning onwards as there was an attempt to drag the Majilis either to the Congress or to the Muslim League depending on the political affiliation of those who are involved in this process. However, as history was to prove later, this attempt finally resulted in the party transforming itself as the nucleus of the Muslim League in Malabar, with a strong streak of anti- 74

Congressism [Panicker, op.cit., 6] proving, in the process the trenchant criticism raised by E.Moidu Moulavi that within the Majilis there was a strong lobby of moderates and pro-britishers who could not agree with the policies of the Congress Party [Azeez, 1992; 23-24]. It is interesting to note that the early leaders of Muslim League, like K. M. Seethi Saheb, B. Pokker Sahib, K. Uppi Sahib, Abdul Sattar Sait and Abdul Rahman Ali Raja received their political training under the Majilis and later became leaders of Muslim League. At the other end of the spectrum, Congressmen under the leadership of Abdurahman Sahib who argued that the Muslims needed no political organization other than the Congress left the Majilis to join the fold of the Indian National Congress. With this the Muslim Majilis got itself transformed into All India Muslim League (AIML) at its annual conference on 25 th May, 1936. 1.2. AIML in Kerala The AIML thus made entry into Kerala politics through Malabar with the formation of a provincial (Madras) unit in 1916 at the initiative of B.Pokker Sahib, a practicing lawyer who was closely associated with the Muslim League in the then Madras State [Ibid., 25]. Incidentally this was the period in which the Mapila Muslims in Malabar were facing serious socio-religious problems which culminated ultimately in the Malabar Rebellion of 1921. With the failure of Congress in addressing these problems there was no viable political organization for the community to depend upon and this created a favourable ambience for Muslim League to flourish. Naturally, a large number of League-minded Congressmen in Malabar left the Congress fold to join the League. K.M Seethi Sahib, Sultan Abdurahiman Ali Raja, A. K. Kunhimayin Haji, C. P. Mammukeyi, Abdussathar Sait and K. Uppi Sahib were some of the prominent persons who came out of the Congress to work for the Muslim League [Kunju, op.cit., 140-41]. Even prior to the formation of the official unit of the League in Kerala, Seethi Sahib successfully took a significant number of Muslims to Muslim League during 1932-34 period. The organization became powerful in Malabar only in 1934 and became a strong force in several parts of the region, especially in Eranad, Valluvanad and Ponnani Taluks. In the election to the Central Legislative 75

Assembly (1934), Abdul Sathar Sait, a League candidate, even defeated the Congress candidate Muhammed Abdulrahiman Sahib [Engineer, 1995: 11]. However, there were no official branches or units of the party during this period. In Kerala, the first branch of the Muslim League was founded at Calicut in 1937 and in the beginning, it was controlled by wealthy merchants and businessmen [Lemernicer, 1983: 220]. The Malabar District Muslim League was constituted at Thalassery on 20 th December, 1937 under the Presidentship of Arakal Abdul Rahiman Ali Raja [Panicker, op.cit., 45]. As a political party in Kerala, the Muslim League is a late comer when compared to the Indian National Congress and also junior to the Congress Socialist Party. But it is older than many other parties including the the Communist Party of India, which was formed in 1940 at Thalassery [Ibid, 16]. On 29 th April, 1940, a mammoth meeting of Malabar Muslim League was held at Calicut with A. K. Abdul Haq, the then Chief Minister of Bengal, in the Chair and it approved the Lahore Resolution of the AIML regarding the partition of the country. This shows that during pre-independence period, Muslim League of North Kerala supported the demand for Pakistan, but at the same time, it did not create serious communal tension in Kerala [Azeez, op.cit., 25-26]. In the 1946 election, all the Muslim League candidates in this area defeated Congress- Muslim Majilis rivals [Kunju, op.cit., 144] which provided some amount of confidence among the Leaguers regarding Mapila support for them. After the League victory in the election to the Central Legislative Assembly and Madras Legislative Assembly, the Muslim League took some crucial decisions which included the decision to observe August 16 th 1946 as Direct Action Day for attaining Pakistan, which was observed under a tense situation [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 46-47]. This was besides the pledge taken by a convention of MLAs and Members to the Central Legislative Assembly held at Delhi and all of them pledged to make any sacrifice for the achievement of Pakistan. Significantly, all representatives belonging to Malabar also participated in it [Panicker, op.cit., 49-50]. Just before the partition, in June, 1947, the Malabar Muslim leadership created a controversy for a special Muslim state, Mapilasthan, in the South. To the Government proposal to divide the Madras presidency into four sections on 76

linguistic basis after the independence viz. Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, the Muslim League proposed an amendment with the insertion of the words with provision of Mapilasthan after the word Kerala 1 [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 47]. 2. Indian Union Muslim League: Origin It may be remembered that in India there were only two major political parties the Congress and the All India Muslim League at the time of the freedom movement. With the birth of Pakistan, large number of Muslim League leaders big and small, moved to the new country leaving the bewildered community leaderless. This had created a feeling among a large section of the Muslims who remained in India that Muslim League had lost its relevance in the country. Thus the once powerful League had disintegrated itself except in old Madras province, and its members had either migrated to Pakistan or retired from politics or joined the Congress [Khalidi, 1996: 175]. For instance, Hasrad Mohani, who was a great freedom fighter and active participant in the formation of the party and the one who, even before Mahatma Gandhi, demanded freedom and moved the resolution for complete freedom for India in the Ahmadabad Congress in 1922, withdrew completely from the political field [iuml.com/aboutiuml.]. After the partition of the country, a convention of Muslim League was called at Calcutta, at the residence of H.S. Suhrawardi, on the 9 th and 10 th November 1947, to discuss the future of the Muslim League. Though predominant opinion was in favour of dissolution of the party, Muhamed Ismail Sahib and K. M. Seethi Sahib strongly argued against such attempts [Kareem, 1997: 639]. Interestingly, those who argued for the continuance of the League were mostly from the South, including Muhamed Ismail Sahib (Madras) and K. M. Seethi Sahib (Kerala). On 10 th March, 1948, at the Madras Convention, it was decided to continue the legacy of the League with the name, Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). Muhamed Ismail and Mahabub Ali Baig (both belonging to Madras) were elected as President and Secretary, respectively [Azeez, op.cit., 35-36]. Thus, the Muslim League which remained almost defunct for sometime, subsequently gave birth to Indian Union Muslim League [Kunju, op.cit., 144]. In Malabar, under the presidentship of 77

Abdurahman Bafaky Thangal, the party got a new lease of life though there was stiff resistance within the community. Officially Muslim League was formed with an object of achieving the constitutional rights of Muslims, other backward and minority people of India. Muslim League has been standing always for democracy and the integrity of the nation and its all round development and the League's motto is secularism and communal harmony [iuml.com/aboutiuml.]. Following were also identified as the important aims and objectives of the party ; to uphold, defend, maintain, and assist in upholding, defending and maintaining the independence, freedom and honour of the Indian Union and to work for and contribute towards the ever increasing strength, prosperity and happiness of the people; to secure and protect the rights and interests of the Muslims and other minorities in the state; and to promote mutual understanding, goodwill, amity, cordiality, harmony and unity between the Muslims and every other community of India [Ibid.]. The renewal of the League created at the national level led to the emergence of a state party in Kerala politics fulfilling the aspiration of Muhamed Ismail Sahib and K. M. Seethi Sahib for a political forum to safeguard the interest of the biggest minority in independent India. In other states of India, its units are feeble, due to a which reason the party can be equated with the Kerala branch. Both of them strongly argued that the partition had diminished their numbers and influence and that, therefore, Muslims needed separate electorate. But Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Syama Prasad Mukherjee were against it and argued for abolition of separate electorate in 1949, when the issue was considered by the Constituent Assembly [Khalidi, op.cit., 181-182]. In protest against the Madras decision to form the IUML, many leaders resigned from the party. In Madras a prominent leader, Abdul Hameed Khan, and seven other MLAs of Madras League Association resigned from the party and, in Malabar, P. P. Hassan Koya and office bearers of Calicut Town Muslim League resigned [Kunju, 1989: 37]. 78

On the eve of the formation of Kerala, the Muslim League adopted schemes to broaden its base beyond Malabar region. Accordingly, on 7 th October 1956, the Malabar District Muslim League Committee decided to extend its activities to Travancore-Cochin also [Azeez, op.cit., 47]. As such, on 11 th November, a delegates conference, held at Ernakulam, officially formed the Kerala State Muslim League (KSML) with Muhammed Abdurahman Bafaky Thangal as the President and K. M. Seethi Sahib as the Secretary [Kareem, op.cit., 641]. Subsequently its branches were established in various parts of Tavancore-Cochin area. The birth of Kerala State on first November, 1956, the disintegration of the All Kerala State Muslim League, the successor of the Travancore-Cochin Muslim League, and the growth of the Muslim League in the Malabar region provided a setting conducive to the extension of the League activities to the former Travancore-Cochin region [Panicker, op.cit., 103]. The demographic concentration of the Muslim population in the state is numerous enough in some pockets to enable an exclusive Muslim party to return its candidates to the Legislature on its own strength [Puri, 2007: 61]. Besides, being far away from the bloody scenes of communal clashes during the partition days in the North, Kerala has been comparatively unaffected by anti-league sentiment [Sharafudeen, 1993: 77]. Another political factor was that the other prominent parties, the Congress and Communist Party, could not be very effective in weaning the Muslims away from the League. While in the case of Congress, the party could not regain confidence of the community since the lapses committed by it during the Khilafat days, the Communist Party failed in this regard mainly due to ideological reasons and the absence of a national significance. Regarding the significance of the Muslim League in Kerala, National Delegates Conference of the IUML at Bangalore, 2010, observes: Kerala shows the way to the Muslims of other parts of the country. In Kerala under the able leadership of Syed Abdurahiman Bafaky Thangal, K.M. Seethi Sahib, Panakkad P.M.S.A Pookoya Thangal and Syed Mohammed Ali Shihab Thangal it has become a political power nobody can ignore. The party in Kerala has been sharing power at various times in coalition Governments, holding portfolios like 79

Education, Home, Industries, Public Works, Local Administration, Social Welfare and Fisheries, and leaders of the party were elevated even to the Chief Ministership and Deputy Chief Ministership [Mohideen, 2011]. The middle class and the rich Muslims form the strong support base of the Party who reap much of the benefits of Muslim League being a ruling party [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 269]. 2.1. Nature of League Leadership The leadership of the Muslim League has been confined to a motely group of men whose power is both spiritual and economic. Spiritually the Thangal family 2 has the final say within the party. Economically businessmen and landed interests have a dominant say in the League. The League outwardly functions as a democratic political party. However, most of the party functionaries, candidates and nominees to the Council of Ministers are nominated by the party supremo. This practice has been the rule during the period in which members from Thangal family lead the organization. Abdul Sathar Sait was the President of Malabar Muslim League while the IUML was formed. But he instantly decided to migrate to Pakistan and consequent upon it Abdul Rahman Bafaky Thangal became the President of Malabar Muslim League. On 4 th April 1972, on the death of Muhammed Ismail Sahib, National President of the League and the MP from Manjeri, Bafaky Thangal was unanimously elected as the President [Azeez, op.cit., 101]. Since then the leadership of the Muslim League has been adorned by the Thangals (Syeds). They are also leading figures of a major section of Sunni Islamic Movement in Kerala. Change in the presidenship of the party normally occurs only when the incumbent is diseases or he demits office voluntarily. It is thus an unwritten dictum that the party organization has been dominated by a group of men in whose hands both religious and political leadership confluenced apart from the already existing control over resources. Although the leadership of the Thangal family has remained undisputed for long, internal feuds in the party are not unknown and this has occasionally led to split and formation of parallel organizations. 3 However, in most cases the leadership of the Thangal family also succeeded in preventing the differences of opinion between the leaders from Malappuram and other districts on several issues from reaching a flash point as the 80

controversial issues were left to the decision of the family supremo [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 269]. 2.2. Non-Muslims in the Muslim League Though the Muslim League has been generally branded as a communal party, it has given accommodation to Non-Muslims also. Many people, including its leaders, emphasise that the League in Kerala is a national and secular party which believes in democracy as well as in socialism and which has been rendering its whole hearted co-operation for successful working of democracy. It is, however, worth remembering that the 1988 Constitution of the League, while discussing the question of eligibility for membership in the organ contained direct reference to the religious identity of the applicants. For instance Part 3(a) of the Constitution said: An Indian resident who accepts the aims and objectives, Constitution, by-laws and discipline of the Muslim League and any Muslim man or woman and any citizen, having not below 18 years of age is eligible to be a member in the Muslim League [IUML, Kerala State Committee, 1988:3]. Later the constitution was amended in 2011 with the following provision: Part 10(a) of it says: Any Indian resident not below 18 years of age who agrees with the Constitution and declared policies of the Muslim League can be member in the Muslim League [IUML, Kerala State Committee, 2011:10]. A close observation of the amendment makes it clear that the words Muslim man and woman were omitted. Since the formation, non-muslims, especially Backward Hindus, have expressed affinity to the League in its strongholds. In 1991, an organizational wing, Dalit League was formed in Malappuram under the leadership of A.T.Unnikrishnan, who has been continuing as the General Secretary along with U.C.Raman, the President. At present it has nearly 1,20,000 members and has Committees in all the Districts, except Pathanamthitta. Its President, Secretary and Treasurer are also ex-officio members in the State Committee of the Muslim League [Unnikrishnan, 2012]. This, however, does not mean that the non-muslim membership of the League is confined to the Dalit community alone. In fact it has a few non-dalists also within its fold. Such people can be found even in leadership 81

role in the party. A clear case in this regard is that of Syam Sunder who is the Vicepresident of Kerala State Swathanthra Karshaka Sanghom, an auxiliary organization of the League. In electoral politics also the League has considered non-muslims as contestants. For example, in 1952, M.Chadayan contested the election to the Madras Legislature from Malappuram dual-member constituency and was elected with a huge majority than the fellow candidate, Seethi Sahib. He continued in Madras Legislature till 1957 and later, during 1957-1970, in Kerala Legislative Assembly also. The tradition was continued through K.P.Raman who was elected from Manjeri, first time in 1970, and thrice from Kunnamangalam (Reserved for Scheduled Caste) though he was defeated in 1987 at Thrithala. U.C.Raman, who was elected twice from Kunnamangalom in 2001 and 2006 is yet another instance in this regard [Malayala Manorama, 2011]. In 2011, when the Kunnamangalam constituency has been declared as a general seat, the Muslim League proved its secular credential by fielding him (U.C.Raman) against a Muslim candidate of the Left Democratic Front. He had lost the seat for just 3,269 votes [ceokerala.gov.in]. In addition to this, there are 268 Dalits who represent the Muslim League in the three-tier Panchayats all over Kerala, with the highest number being form Malapuram District [Malayala Manorama, op.cit.]. 2.3. Performance of the League in General Elections In a democracy, performance in elections is a prime concern for a political party as its recognition and acceptance among the public depends on it. In the electoral history of Kerala, the Muslim League has established itself as the biggest state party. Long before the birth of Kerala State, the Muslim League has established itself as a decisive force in state politics, next to the Congress and CPI. It has been particularly able to prove its strength in the Muslim belt of Malabar, without much effort. However, for some time in the beginning, the League was considered as a leper by the national political parties as they considered it as a communal political outfit and kept it from the coalition arrangement then in existence. 82

Its debut in electoral politics has begun with the by-election of 1950 when its candidate M.P.M Hassankutty Kurikkal was elected to the Assembly securing 7,754 votes against the Congress candidate Palat Kunhikoya's 214 votes in Manjeri [iuml.com/aboutiuml.html, 27.8.2012]. The election in 1952 was the first one that the Muslim League faced after the abolition of reservation of seats for the community. In the election, B. Pokker Sahib was elected to the Lok Sabha from Malappuram along with other five Leagures out of nine contestants, to the Madras Assembly from Malabar 4 [iuml.com/aboutiuml.]. As far as the League was concerned it was a morale booster though the result was not upto its expectations because of the peculiar political situation created by the partition and abolition of reserved constituencies for Muslims. In Malabar (1952) the CPI won seven seats out of 14 contested seats. The Congress won only four seats out of 32 contested. The election results showed the influence of the Muslim League and the CPI in Malabar among the rural people from where they got majority of the seats [Radhakrishnan, op.cit, 60-64]. This was a sure sign of the growing strength of Muslim League in Malabar and was a threat to Congress and CPI alike. The support of the League among the Muslim masses has been proved time and again in the successive elections in Malabar and in Kerala as a whole, to a limited extent, since 1956. It has been projecting itself as the champion of the welfare and progress of the Muslims in Kerala with some success [Gangadharan, 1995: 214]. This growing influence of the Muslim League was an eye-opener for the Congress and its leadership as a result of which it was now prepared to seek alliance with the party. The first attempt in this regard, though proved futile, was made during the 1957 election itself. For the purpose, S.K. Patil (then PCC President of Bombay) along with Panampilli Govinda Menon and R. Shankar even met Seethi Sahib, but could not move forward because the Indore AICC forbade the KPCC from having any truck with the Muslim League [Radhakrishnan, op.cit, 67-68]. However, where Congress failed PSP succeeded as Dr.K.B. Menon on behalf of PSP and Seethi Sahib for the League clinched the deal which proved to be a landmark in the political history of Kerala [iuml.com/aboutiuml.]. Electoral Performance of the Muslim League in Kerala has been given in the following Table and Figure. 83

Table 3.1 Electoral Performances of the Muslim League in Kerala : Assembly Elections (1957 2011) Year of Election Alliance in which the League was/is partner Seats Contested Seats Won Success Rate Votes Polled Percentage of Votes 1957 N.A 19 08 42.10 N.A 04.72 1960 INC 12 11 91.66 401925 4.96 1965 N.A 16 6 37.5 242529 3.83 1967 CPM 15 14 93.33 424159 06.75 1970 UDF 21 12 57.14 569220 07.72 1977 UDF 16 13 81.25 584642 06.66 1980 UDF 20 14 70 684910 07.18 1982 UDF 18 14 77.77 590255 06.17 1987 UDF 23 15 65.21 985011 07.73 1991 UDF 22 19 86.36 1044582 07.36 1996 UDF 22 13 59.09 1025556 07.19 2001 UDF 23 17 73.91 1193843 07.32 2006 UDF 22 08 36.36 1135098 7.30 2011 UDF 24 20 83.33 1383670 7.92 Note : CPM Communist Party of Indian (Marxist); INC Indian National Congress; N.A Not Applicable; UDF United Democratic Front Source : Election Commission, Kerala Assembly Elections, Various Years, www.ceokerala.gov.in. An analysis of the election to Kerala State Legislative Assembly since 1957 proves beyond doubt that the Muslim League is the premier political organization of the Muslims in the State. The League made its first notable achievement in the first General election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly (1957) itself. In the election, though it had no official recognition as a party and no concrete alliance with any party, League put up 19 candidates of which eight were elected. All the seats were won from Malabar area which later became part of Malappuram district. Also the defeated candidates of the party lost by a very narrow margin. 84

The League could also garner 4.72 per cent votes [Azeez, 1992: 51]. After the 1957election, the Election Commission recognized Muslim League as a state party and assigned ladder as its symbol [Ibid: 47]. Figure 1. Change in Percentage of Votes to Muslim League over the Years 9 8 7 6 6.75 7.72 6.66 7.18 6.17 7.73 7.36 7.19 7.32 7.3 7.92 5 4.96 4 3 4.72 3.83 2 1 0 1957 1960 1965 1967 1970 1977 1980 1982 1987 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Source : Election Commission, Kerala Assembly Elections, Various Years, www.ceokerala.gov.in. The 1960 election was a monumental event in Kerala politics and also in the history of the Muslim League. The Congress, PSP and the Muslim League who were in the forefront of the liberation struggle allied themselves and contested the election as coalition partners and this, for all practical purposes, put an end to the exclusion of the party as a political untouchable. In the election, League fought in alliance with the Congress in 12 constituencies and won 11 seats 5 [iuml.com/aboutiuml.]. Many Congress candidates were also greatly obliged to the Muslim League for their success. The voting percentage of Muslim League now increased to five per cent in 1960 than the previous tally of 4.72 per cent [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 70-88]. In the next election in1962, at a time when no 85

single party in the state dared to face election on its own it was a privilege for the Muslim League to do so and win both the Parliament seats by the election of Muhammed Ismail Sahib (Quaide Millath) and C.H. Mohammed Koya from Manjeri and Kozhikkode respectively [iuml.com/ aboutiuml.]. During the 1965 election, the Muslim League renounced its earlier anti- Communist attitude for electoral gains as it clinched a secret understanding with the Communist Party in certain areas. It contested 16 seats with the help of this alliance which also consisted of Kerala Congress, SSP and RSP [Azeez, op.cit., 72]. But it did not prove to be highly advantageous to the party because, out of the sixteen seats it had contested it could succeed only in six constituencies with 3.83 per cent votes. Incidentally, all the seats it had won were from strong Muslims pockets. As no party was able to secure majority required to form a government, the Assembly had to be dissolved without a single sitting. Next time, in 1967, the Muslim League went to the elections as the major constituent of a political Front comprising of the CPI (M), PSP, KTP, and the KSP. It provided the League with a chance to prove itself as a strong force by securing 14 out of 15 seats (except Kasargod), with 6.75 per cent of votes [Radhakrishnan, op.cit,104-15]. It was the first time that the League brought representatives from outside Malabar region to the Legislature through Mattancheri (in former Cochin State) and Kazhakkuttom (in former Travancore ) constituencies. In the simultaneous election to Lok Sabha its candidates were elected from two seats - Manjeri and Calicut [Azeez, op.cit. 76]. In the mid-term election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 1970, the party as a constituent of the UDF, led by the Congress, contested in 20 seats and won 12 in the traditional Muslim dominant constituencies with a total of 7.7 per cent votes. In terms of both the number of contested seats and percentage of votes polled, League could better its record though this did not result in getting a proportionate share of seats in the House. In Malabar region, the party lost Kannur, Kozhikode and Ponnani seats which were in its hands in 1967. In the 1977 election, held immediately after the emergency when the Congress was practically wiped from North India, the Southern States, especially Kerala, stood solidly behind it as proved by the election results. In the Assembly, the United 86

Front won 111 out of 140 seats. The Muslim League as partner of the United Front, got elected 13 out of its 16 candidates and polled 6.4 per cent votes [Department of Public Relations, 1987: 20]. Also Sulaiman Sait was returned from the Manjeri seat and G.M. Banathwalla from Ponnani seat to the Parliament [iuml.com/ aboutiuml.]. In 1980, the League secured 14 out of 20 seats it had contested to the State Legislative Assembly with 7.18 per cent votes, and in the case of the Parliamentary election its tally was cent per cent as it won both seats it contested. Following the defeat of the UDF in this election, the Muslim League was forced to sit in the opposition bench after 13 years of sharing power as part of the then ruling front. In the interim elections of 1982, party won 14 out of 18 seats, with 6.17 per cent votes and which was, of course, lower than its previous tally - 7.18 per cent [Radhakrishnan, 2004: 183]. But considering the fact that this time around it contested only 18 seats as against 20 previously, the dip in the voting percentage was not significant. Meantime with the merger of the erstwhile AIML with the IUML, the strength of the party in the Assembly came to 18 seats [iuml.com/aboutiuml.]. In the following election (1987), despite the merger of the two Leagues, the number of seats the united party got dipped to fifteen. The election result had shown that the League had lost some of its strong holds in both Kannur and Kozhikode districts. It could also poll only 7.73 per cent votes though it contested 23 seats. In 1991, out of 22 candidates of the Muslim League 19 were elected with a 7.36 per cent votes. In the simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and Assembly in 1996, the IUML fielded 22 candidates for the Assembly and got 13 of them elected with a tally of 7.19 per cent votes. The most salient feature of the 1996 election, from the vantage point of the party, was that the League which until then was never known for a women friendly approach in politics, had thrown a surprise by fielding Quamarnessa Anwar - in Kozhikode-II seat. Although she had lost the seat it had created an impression that the League was changing its policy of not promoting women in politics [Ibid., 235]. 87

Table 3.2 Performance of Muslim League in Lok Sabha Election from Kerala Year Constituency Votes Polled Margin League Rival 1952 Malappuram INC 79470 62494 16976 (38.98) (30.65) (8.33) 1957 Manjeri INC 99777 78822 20955 (43.49) (34.36) (9.13) Kozhikode INC 89550 103492 13942 (33.33) (38.52) (5.19) 1962 Kozhikode CPI 104277 103514 763 (33.97) (33.72) (0.25) Manjeri CPI 97290 92962 4328 (40.50) (38.70) (1.80) 1967 Kozhikode INC 215136 133263 81873 (57.59) (35.67) (21.92) 198732 91238 107494 Manjeri INC (68.54) (31.46) (37.07) 1971 195206 123130 72076 Kozhikode LI (53.76) (33.91) (19.85) 171496 51659 119837 Manjeri LI (67.60) (20.36) (47.24) 1977 264235 167034 97201 Manjeri AL (61.27) (38.73) (22.54) Ponnani AL 269491 151945 117546 (63.95) (36.05) (27.89) 1980 Manjeri AL 231401 196820 34581 (53.61) ( 45.60) (8.01) 222834 171971 50863 Ponnani CU (55.53) (42.86) (12.68) 1984 287538 216363 71175 Manjeri CPM (50.90) (38.30) (12.60) 288216 185890 102326 Ponnani CPI (58.47) (37.71) (20.76) 1989 Manjeri LI 401975 331693 70282 (49.84) (41.13) (8.71) 378347 270828 107519 Ponnani CPI (53.69) (38.44) (15.26) 1991 Manjeri LI 375456 286133 89323 (51.32) (39.11) (12.21) Ponnani CPI 339766 244060 95706 (53.08) (38.13) (14.95) 376001 321030 54971 Manjeri CPM 1996 (48.46) (41.37) (7.08) Ponnani CPI 354808 275513 79295 88

1998 1999 2004 2009 Manjeri CPM 400609 (49.65) Ponnani CPI 344461 (50.23) Manjeri CPM 437563 (54.01) Ponnani CPI 372572 (54.08) Manjeri 6 379177 (41.79) Ponnani CPI 354051 (47.48) Malappuram CPM 427940 (54.63) Ponnani LI 385801 (50.14) (49.63) (38.54) (11.09) 294600 106009 (36.51) (13.14) 240217 104244 (35.03) (15.20) 314152 123411 (38.78) (15.23) 243094 129478 (35.29) (18.79) 426920 47743 (47.05) (5.26) 251293 102758 (34.40) (14.07) 312343 115597 (39.87) (14.76) 303117 82684 (39.39) (10.75) Note : AL All India Muslim League; CPI Communist Party of India; CPM Communist Party of India (Marxist); CU - Congress (U); INC Indian National Congress; LI - Left Independents Source : Election Commission, Statistical Report on General Elections at various Times from 1951 to 2009, www.ceokerala.gov.in. Election results of 2001, once again established the supremacy of the Muslim League over other Muslim parties in Kerala. League contested 23 seats and bagged 17 with 7.32 per cent votes [Radhakrishnan, op.cit, 247]. However, the worst ever election for the party was the one in 2006. It is another thing that it had more than made up for this in the latest election of April 2011, by electing 20 out of 24 candidates. This time around it polled 7.92 per cent of votes also. The recent entry of two forces of political Islam the Jama at-e-islami and Popular Front of India (PFI) into the electoral arena in Kerala created a dynamic that actually helped the Muslim League. The major Muslim organizations in the state united against the religious fundamentalism of the likes of the Jama at-e-islami and Popular Front, especially in the wake of the sporadic incidents of violence perpetuated by these parties. The Muslim League positioned itself in the forefront of the united campaign of Muslim organizations against extremism and projected itself as a dependable, moderate force, which paid rich dividends when the elections came [Ashley, 2011]. 89

Since the first to the present House, the Muslim League has representation in the Lok Sabha from Kerala (Appendix IX). In all the 15 elections, the League fielded two candidates each time, except in 1951-52 when there was only one seat in Malappuram. As far as the first three elections were concerned 1951-52, 1957 and 1962 the League, Congress and the Communist parties were in triangular competition. Later, the League was in alliance first with the CPI(M) in 1967 and then with the Congress since 1971 onwards which still continues. In the 1952 election, B. Poker Sahib represented the party in the House from Malappuram constituency defeating the Congress with a margin of 8.33 per cent votes. Since the formation of the Kerala State, the party has contributed two members to the Lok Sabha from Kerala in all elections, except in the 1957 and 2004 elections in which it could elect only one candidate B.Pokker and E.Ahmed, respectively, out of the two fielded. In 1957, Congress defeated the League candidate, Seethi Sahib Kottapurath, in Kozhikode constituency by a margin of 5.19 per cent votes. In 2004, the League lost the Manjeri seat, a traditional stronghold of the party, to CPI(M) with a margin of 5.26 per cent votes. Interestingly in the constituencies where the League contested, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Manjeri and Ponnani are found to have heavy concentration of Muslim voters. Since the formation of the Malappuram district, the party concentrated the Lok Sabha seats falling in that area. As such, Manjeri and Ponnani became the pocket boroughs of the League. Manjeri constituency to Lok Sabha stood with the party all the time except once in 2004. In the election, when the League lost the seat to the CPI(M) with a margin of 5.26 per cent votes, the contest was between K.P.A.Majeed (League), a Mujahid sympathizer, and T.K.Hamsa (CPI-M), a former Congress leader strongly supported by Sunni faction led by Kandapuram A.P.Abubakker Musliar. 6 However Ponnani seat does not have much a history and in every election the voters of the constituency threw their lot with IUML. From outside Kerala also League could get some representation in the Lok Sabha a total of eight times from states like Tamilnadu (seven instances) and West Bengal (one instance). Besides this, the Muslim League also has opportunity to send its representation to the Rajya Sabha (Appendix X), a benefit it got by being part of coalition politics. It has been seen that since 1960 the first time it 90

succeeded in sending its representation - there were only two occasions in which League did not have representation in the Rajya Sabha once during the period from 3 rd April, 1966 to 15 th April, 1967 and a second time since April 2010. 2.4. League in Power Since 1960, the Muslim League has been playing a decisive role in the coalition politics of Kerala, and on many occasions, it has held key to the life of coalition governments as well. Naturally, whenever the coalition of which the League was a partner has won majority in the Legislative Assembly, the party has got opportunity to assume political offices at different levels. It has emerged as a very powerful partner of the ruling governments and has been playing its trumpcard to secure benefits for its community [Ghosh, 1987: 5-6]. It is a historical fact that the League enjoyed the office of Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and many important portfolios in the state administration including those of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Chief Whip of United Democratic Front in the Legislature. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 show the number of years and the ministry in which League held political office in Kerala. Since the formation of the Kerala State, during the past 55 years, fourteen elections to the state Legislative Assembly took place including the abortive election of 1965. During this period, Governments have been formed twenty times and League became partner in fourteen such Governments. Besides, the party held the Chair of Speaker of the Assembly during 1960-61 as a constituent of the Congress-PSP alliance, without getting any other berth in the Government. 7 Obviously, this was the first time when the party was accommodated in a Government and hence a stepping stone for it to the power structure. And the actual entry of the party in the Government began with the second E.M.S Namboodirippad Ministry during 1967-1969. It was the first and the only time in which the League shared power with the CPI (M). 8 According to Table 3.3, Muslim League shared governmental power for an aggregate period of 31 years and 11.5 months since 1960. While in power the party held many an important portfolio including that of the Chief Minister, Deputy 91

Table 3.3 Muslim League in Government Sl. Legislature Period Number of Chief Minister No No Period from to years/periods 1 E.M.S. 2 years and 7.5 6.3.1967 1.11.1969 III 1967-69 Nampudiripad months 2 C.Achutha Menon 1.11.1969 1.8.1970 9 months 3 IV 1970-77 C.Achutha Menon 4.10.1970 25.3.1977 6 years and 5.75 months 4 K.Karunakaran 25.3.1977 25.4.1977 one month 5 A.K.Antony 27.4.1977 27.10.1978 1.5 years 6 V 1977-79 P.K.Vasudevan Nair 29.10.1978 7.10.1979 11.25 months 7 C.H.MuhammedKoy 12.10.1979 a 1.12.1979 50 days 8 VI 1980-82 K.Karunakaran 28.12.1981 17.3.1982 2.33 months 9 VII 1982-87 K.Karunakaran 24.5.1982 25.3.1987 4 years and 10 months 4 years and 9 10 K.Karunakaran 24.6.1991 16.3.1995 months IX 1991-96 one year and 1.75 11 A.K.Antony 22.3.1995 9.5.1996 months 3 years and 3.33 12 A.K.Antony 17.5.2001 29.8.2004 months XI 2001-06 one year and 8.66 13 Oommen Chandy 31.8.2004 12.5.2006 months 14 XIII 2011- Oommen Chandy 18.5.2011 continues one year and 4 months Aggregate period as on December 31, 2012 31 years and 11.5 months Sources : 1. www.stateofkerala.in/niyamasabha/ministries%20of%20kerala.php 2. www.stateofkerala.in/niyamasabha/speakers%20of%20kerala.php 3. www.stateofkerala.in/niyamasabha/deputy%20speakers%20of%20kerala.php Chief Minister and Home Minister. However, Local Administration Department and Education Department happened to be the two portfolios the party held for the longest duration. In fact this was a record which no other political party in Kerala could achieve. In case of the Local Administration Department this duration is about 28 years, and in the case of the Education portfolio the same is 24 years. Next to these two, comes the Industries Department with 16 years followed by the portfolio of Community Development/Social 92

Table 3.4 League Share of Power in Government: Portfolios Held with Duration Portfolio/Offices Period Aggregate number from to of years/periods Speaker 22.02.1960 10.11.1961 9 years and 3 22.10.1970 08.05.1975 months 28.3.1977 14.2.1980 Deputy Speaker 20.03.1967 26.6.1970 10 years and 4.5 21.02.1980 25.03.1987 months Chief Minister 12.10.1979 1.12. 1979 50 days Deputy Chief-Minister 28.12.1981 17.3. 1982 3 years and 7.25 24.10.1983 25.3. 1987 months 9.11.1968 7.10.1979 24.5. 1982 25.3. 1987 Local Administration/ 27 years and 10 29.6.1991 9.5.1996 Self Government months 26.5.2001 12.5. 2006 18.5.2011 continues Education Industries Social Welfare/ Community Development 6.3. 1967 7.10.1979 29.6.1991 09.05.1996 26.5.2001 12.5. 2006 18.5. 2011 continues 24.5.1982 25.3.1987 24.6.1991 9.5.1996 17.5.2001 12.5. 2006 18.5.2011 continues 6.3.1967 21.10.1969 27.1.1978 3.10.1978 24.6.1991 9.5.1996 17.5.2001 12.5. 2006 18.5. 2011 continues 23 years and 9 months 16 years and 2 months 14 years and 7 months Food and Civil Supplies 4.10. 1970 25.3.1977 11 years and 5 24.5.1982 25.3.1987 months Public Works 29.6.1991 16.3.1995 10 years and 2.5 26.5.2001 12.5. 2006 months 18.5. 2011 continues Information Technology 17.5.2001 29.8.2004 4 years and 7.5 18.5. 2011 continues months Municipality/Urban Affairs 22.3.1995 9.5.1996 2 years and 5.5 18.5. 2011 continues months Home Minister 1.11. 1969 24.9.1971 1 year and 11 months Fisheries 9.11.1968 21.10.1969 11 months and 12 days Sources : 1. www.stateofkerala.in/niyamasabha/ministries%20of%20kerala.php 2. www.stateofkerala.in/niyamasabha/speakers%20of%20kerala.php 3. www.stateofkerala.in/niyamasabha/deputy%20speakers%20of%20kerala.php 93

Welfare for nearly 14 years. Food and Civil Supplies is another prominent Department that came to be associated with the League. The party controlled it for nearly 11 years. In the case of the Public Works Department also it enjoyed a moderate stint in office, nearly 10 years. Besides these, the League has administered major portfolios like Information Technology for nearly five years, Urban Development/Municipal Administration for nearly three years, Home Affairs for nearly two years, and Fisheries for nearly one year. 2.5. The Muslim League and the Muslim Community As already mentioned the Indian Union Muslim League is the oldest political organization of the Muslims of India at the national level. Though there was resistance initially from among the members of the community in re-launching the Muslim League in the form of the Indian Union Muslim League, the party could successfully tide over it and gain support base in Muslim dominated areas. Strength of the party, both in terms of membership and electoral support, shows that the party has become a stable force in state politics. Since inception the membership of the party has been registering steady growth. It was 14,50,000 in 1990-91, reached 15,00,000 in 1997, 16,00,000 in 2002 and 17,00,000 in 2007 [Siddik: 2012). In the most recent membership campaign conducted in 2011 this reached an all-time high of 1950700. District-wise details of membership of the party are given below (Table 3.5 and Figure 2). Malabar region, particularly Malappuram District, is the all time strong hold of the party. Among the present 19,50,700 members, 15,17,200 (77.78 per cent), belonged to the six Districts from Malabar region, namely, Kasargod, Kannur, Wayanad, Kozhikode, Malappuram and Palakkad. Out of this, 6,35,000 members, which is 32.55 per cent of the state total and 41.85 per cent of regional total (Malabar region), are from Malappuram district. The party has only 4,35,500 members in the remaining eight districts stretching from Thrissur to Thiruvananthapuram. It is only 22.22 per cent of the total membership. Interestingly, out of the 14 districts the smallest share of membership comes from Idukki followed by Pathanamthitta and Kottayam. These three districts are 94