107

Chapter IV

LEADERSHIP OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY AND NON-

LEAGUE ORGANIZATIONS

Apart from the Indian Union Muslim League, numerous organizations

have been working among the Muslims of Kerala in the socio-political,

educational, cultural and religious spheres since the first quarter of the 20th century.

Each group offers different interpretations to various religious issues, customs and

practices, and social change and modernity. Some organizations among them are

political in nature, outlook and function whereas others harbour social and

religious ideals and objectives. Whatever be the primary concerns of these

organizations, all of them ultimately consider Muslim community and its affairs as

the reference point. Stated differently, though these organizations differ from each

other and compete among themselves for a niche among the Muslim masses, they

primarily focus – at least outwardly – on the issues affecting the community. This

Chapter seeks to discuss the role of these organs in social change in the

community. The Chapter is divided into two sections: first section is a discussion

on the nature and history of various types of Non-League political outfits and the

second section seeks to analyse the same with regard to various socio-religious and

educational organizations.

Non-Muslim League political organizations – viewed both in a political and

social sense – are numerous in number, though some of them have already become

defunct. Cochin Muslim Education Association (1917), All Travancore Muslim

Association (1935), All India Muslim Majilis (1945), Travancore State Muslim

League (1945), Travancore-Cochin Muslim League (1949), All Kerala State

Muslim League (1957), All India Muslim League (1973), People’s Democratic

Party (1993), National Democratic Front (1993) and Indian National League

(1994) are/were formations which could be considered political in nature. On the

other hand, Jamat-e-Islami (1941), Kerala Naduvathul Mujahid (KNM, 1950), and the

two Sunni factions (1989) are religious in character whereas Muslim Educational

Society (MES, 1964), and Muslim Service Society (MSS, 1980) mainly cater to the

108

social and educational needs of the community. As already stated, some of these

formations have become non-entities in the socio-political landscape of Kerala

whereas few others have only token presence. Among the existing organizations,

the following needs elaborate discussion in regard to their history, objectives and

activities so that a discerning student of Muslim sociology and politics could gather

a comprehensive picture of the subject matter.

1.1. All India Muslim League and Indian National League

Of the Non-Muslim League organizations, All India Muslim League

(AIML) and Indian National League (INL) need primary mention. One obvious

reason for this is that both of them are break-away factions of the Indian Union

Muslim League. These parties separated themselves from the parent organization

on various grounds and at various periods. Further, when compared to other Non-

League political formations – for instance, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and

National Democratic Front (NDF) – both these parties have established themselves

in the state’s political mainstream and have also shared political power by

associating themselves with the two alliances, United Democratic Front (UDF)

and the Left Democratic Front (LDF). Also other parties – PDP and NDF, for

example - have the stigma of extremism attached to them.

Of the above two political parties, All India Muslim League was the first to

be formed. As is the case in majority of the instances, here also it was political

power and influence which gave birth to dissident activities in the League and the

resultant formation of AIML. In order to understand the circumstances leading to

its formation, it is necessary to have a brief look at the power struggle within the

Muslim Legue since 1960. Two such struggles were the ones that took place on the

eve of the 1960 Assembly elections and the other in 1966. In a sense both struggles

had a Communist connection to them. For instance, 1960 saw a minor split in the

League when a new outfit – Progressive Muslim League (PML) - was carved out of

it by a section of the party men which was alleged to be ‘the creation of CPI with a

view to fragment the Muslim votes’ [Radhakrishnan, 2004: 85]. In the election

(1960), the new outfit even contested in some constituencies with the tacit support

109

of the Communist Party though after the election, nothing more was heard about it

[Azeez, 1992: 63]. The second split had an even more explicit Communist

connection as fierce debate took place in the League over its relationship with the

Congress Party and, hence, about the need to have a better understanding with the

Communists. This actually resulted in the formation of two lobbies – (pro and anti-

Communists) - in the party subsequently leading to the next split and formation of

the Samasta Kerala Muslim League [Panicker, 1976: 116]. However, both splits

were short-lived and were also of little consequence as far as the League was

concerned. Thus it proved that it could easily manage such dissident activities and

showed that the base of the party was strong enough to be challenged by these

groups who had little popular clout.

However, later, in the 1970s, dissident activities within the League began to

assume a menacing proportion once again. Trouble broke out on the eve of the Lok

Sabha by-election to Manjeri (1973) when C.H. Mohammed Koya, MLA

representing Kondotty constituency and Minister for Education in the then United

Front Government headed by C.Achutha Menon, was asked to resign from the

Cabinet to contest the by-election. It was alleged that Mohammed Koya

unwillingly left the Ministry on the demand of Bafaky Thangal (President) who,

according to this account, took such a decision in the interest of a splinter group

within the party. However, the issue persisted even after the death of Bafaky

Thangal as the new President - Pukkoya Thangal - had to name a Minister and a

candidate for Kondotty. Inspite of pressure from certain quarters to make

M.Moideen Kutty Haji as Minister and P. M. Aboobakar as the candidate, he

acted on his own and nominated Chakeeri Ahmed Kutty and M.P.M. Abdulla

Kutty Kurikkal respectively as Minister and the candidate for election. Soon

infighting broke out among the top leaders of the party and gradually it percolated

to the lower ranks [Azeez, op.cit., 108-09]. There was also another reason for

aggravating the situation which was related to the handling of the Home Portfolio

by the Congress Party. Many in the League were dissatisfied with this and also

there was much heart burn in regard to the Land Reform Bill, Forest Protection

Bill and Agricultural Workers Bill moved by the United Front Government.

Difference of opinion between the two parties now reached a point of no return

110

and hence demand for the withdrawal of the League from the Ministry became

vocal. In fact the group led by Ummer Bafaky Thangal and C.P Mammukeyi

raised this issue very strongly. The League Executive and State Council meeting on

9th March 1974 witnessed a heated debate and the meeting concluded with the

decision to empower the President to take an appropriate decision in this regard

[Azeez, op.cit., 109-10].

In the meantime the dissidents under the leadership of Ummer Bafaky

Thangal also began to level criticisms against the League Ministers besides fanning

the flame of anti-Congress feelings [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 146]. Thus the

immediate objective of the dissidents was loud and clear – to pull out of the

Ministry failing which press for a split in the party and they soon opted for the

latter course and as a prelude to this a split occurred in the Calicut Municipal

Corporation Council. It may be recalled that a Congress-League Alliance, called

Poura Munnani (People’s Front) was in power in the Corporation. Some

disturbances took place there when a Congress Municipal Councilor (Vice-

Chairman), joined the League and subsequently defected to the Congress fold. It

was alleged that the Congress had breached faith and showed political immorality

in this issue. Dissidents under P. M. Aboobakar, the Muslim League leader in the

Corporation, decided to break away from the Poura Munnani, without consulting

the City League Committee or League Working Committee which naturally

invited disciplinary actions against them. In the meantime, the dissidents also

organized a Youth League Conference at Calicut against the plea of the party

President. Soon dissident leaders, Ummar Bafaky Thangal and C.K.P. Cheriya

Mammukoyi, were removed from the Direct Board of the Chandrika, party daily.

As a reprisal to it, the dissidents expelled Avukhaderkutty Naha (Minister) from

the Legislature Party leadership and elected Moideen Kutty Haji as the leader.

Further, on 31st March 1975, the dissidents decided to withdraw their support to

the Ministry and Moideen Kutty Haji, the then Speaker and the group leader,

resigned from office. The official group sharply reacted to this and suspended all

dissident MLAs except K. P. Raman from the League Assembly Party. With this

the rift between the two groups was complete and on 2nd April, 1975, the All India

111

Muslim League was formed at a meeting held at Thalassery [Azeez, op.cit., 210-

12]. Following the split, the AIML became a constituent of the LDF led by the

CPI(M). After the 1967-69 alliance between the Communist Party and the Muslim

League, it was the second experiment of the former to align with a Muslim outfit to

gather Muslim votes.

However, the sojourn of the party with the LDF was short-lived. Though it

shared power along with the Front following the 1982 election to the Legislative

Assembly, the relationship between AIML and the CPI(M) was not all that

smooth. The Supreme Court judgment on Shabanu Case (1985)1 and proposal for a

Common Civil Code sealed the fate of this relationship. It was a controversial

divorce law suit that created considerable debate and controversy about the

desirability of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for

Muslims in India. The Muslims felt threatened by what they perceived as an

encroachment on the Muslim Personal Law and, therefore, naturally protested

against it. On the other side, some non-religious organizations and activists

strongly argued in favour of the judgment. E.M.S. Nambudirippad, a master-brain

of CPI(M), joined issue in the ongoing debate arguing for a uniform civil code in

his writings and public speeches. On the other side, various Muslim outfits, both

political as well as social, came around and they put up a brave front against the

CPI(M) stand and argued for the continuance of Islamic Shariat. This placed the All

India Muslim League in a tight spot. While its social base consisting solely of the

Muslim population stood for a religion-based law of inheritance, the political front

of which it was a partner articulated a diametrically opposite stand. Party

leadership rightly understood that continuance of the alliance with the CPI(M)

would be suicidal for it. By now, India Union Muslim League also changed the

rigid stand it had taken earlier and sent clear signals to the AIML leadership for a

truce. This, in fact, was a straw as far as that party (AIML) was concerned and

hence it took the final initiative to end the more than half-a-decade old alliance

with the Left Democratic Front, and to merge with the Muslim League (August

1985).

112

Needless to say, the All India Muslim League at the time of the split from

the parent party wanted to project itself as an alternative to the Muslim League,

both politically as well as socially. Its calculation was that if it could emerge as the

predominant, if not the sole voice of the Muslim masses, it could make use of that

position to mobilize them politically and make a hard bargain with the LDF from a

position of strength. LDF, particularly the CPI(M), on its part also wanted to foist

AIML as a counter to the League so that its influence among the Muslim

population could be neutralised or at least balanced. This was the cold calculation

on both sides. However, electoral statistics belied all expectations which was clear

from the performance of the party at the polls in all the three election since its

inception as a separate political party. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 make this clear.

Table 4.1

Assembly Constituencies AIML Contested (1977 – 1982)

Sl.No Constituency Results of the contest

1977 1980 1982

1. Kasargod F Nil F

2. Peringalom Nil Nil W

3. Edakkad W W Nil

4. Meppayur F W W

5. Kozhikodu II W W W

6. Kunnamangalom W W W

7. Manjeri F F F

8. Malappuram F F F

9. Kondotty F F F

10. Thirurangadi F Nil Nil

11. Thanur F Nil Nil

12. Thirur F F F

13. Kuttippuram F F F

14. Mankada F F F

15. Guruvayoor F Nil Nil

16. Alwye F Nil Nil

17. Mattancherry Nil W F

18. Kazhakkuttom F Nil Nil

Total Contested 16 11 12

Secured 03 05 04

Note : F – Failed; W - Won

Source : Election Commission of India, Statistical Reports on General Election to the Legislative

Assembly of Kerala, 1977, 1980 and 1982, Election Commission, New Delhi.

113

Table 4.2

Voting Trend in Assembly Constituencies AIML Contested (1977 – 1982)

Sl.No Constituency

Votes polled by the AIML and its Opponents

1977 1980 1982

AIML Opponent AIML Opponent AIML Opponent

1. Kasargod 22619 29402 ML Nil Nil 15643 25676ML

2. Peringalom Nil Nil Nil Nil 38825 19973INC

3. Edakkad 34266 30947INC 39843 29886JP Nil Nil

4. Meppayur 34808 40642 ML 43851 36044 ML 42022 34835 ML

5. Kozhikodu II 33531 32433 ML 40160 34931JP 35109 29155Ind

6. Kunnamangalom 30289 SC 28601CPI 35234 SC 31173INC 28901 SC 27266Ind

7. Manjeri 16807 43626 ML 21905 43209 ML 19031 38681 ML

8. Malappuram 15724 39362 ML 17272 36602 ML 13500 35464 ML

9. Kondotty 20159 41731 ML 26650 41848 ML 20885 37671 ML

10. Thirurangadi 21479 40540 ML Nil Nil Nil Nil

11. Thanur 12158 42886 ML Nil Nil Nil Nil

12. Thirur 26127 41675 ML 36201 38469 ML 30571 36315 ML

13. Kuttippuram 12023 36367 ML 15703 33863 ML 13263 31521 ML

14. Mankada 26207 33597 ML 31861 35623 ML 28845 33208 ML

15. Guruvayoor 20071 34063 ML Nil Nil Nil Nil

16. Alwye 36259 37017INC Nil Nil Nil Nil

17. Mattancherry Nil Nil 26543 24757JP 24031 25589 ML

18. Kazhakkuttom 22637 37014INC Nil Nil Nil Nil

Total

Total votes 385164 589903 335223 386405 310626 375354

Contested 16 16 11 11 12 12

Secured 03 13 05 06 04 08

Notes : CPI - Communist Party of India; INC – Congress; JP – Janata Party; Ind. - Independent

(UDF); ML - Muslim League; SC - Reserved for SC.

Source : Election Commission, op.cit.

114

As stated earlier, in electoral politics the AIML was supposed to be a force

to bring the Muslim votes to the LDF fold. That was why in the 1977 election, first

election since its formation, it was given sixteen seats to contest, mostly against the

parent organization. However, the election result showed that the All India

Muslim League could not prove to be a strong opponent to the League in its

strongholds in Calicut and Malappuram districts [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 153].

Out of the 16 candidates fielded by the party, 12 had as their opponent candidates

belonging to the Muslim League, including eight in Malappuram district, where

the League had a clear edge. Among the three seats it won – only one (Kozhikode

II) – was snatched from the parent organization. On the whole, it got 3,85,164

votes as against 5,89,903 votes harnessed by its opponents and this meant 4.39 per

cent of the total valid votes at the state level and 39.86 per cent of the total valid

votes in the seats it contested [Election Commission, 1977: 8]. In the 1980

elections, the party contested five seats less than it did in the previous election. To

put it plainly it was given only eleven seats this time as against 16 in the 1977

election. This ineffect meant a realization by the LDF of its declining importance

vis-à-vis the Indian Union Muslim League. And of these eleven seats, the party this

time won five seats, two more than its previous tally with 3,35,223 votes against

3,86,405 of its opponents. This was 3.51 per cent of the state total and 46.08 per

cent of votes polled in all the eleven seats taken together, and this meant an

increase of 6.22 per cent from the 1977 polls. The success rate also increased this

time with 45.45 per cent compared to the 18.75 percent in the previous case. In

1980, there were seven constituencies, including six in Malappuram district, where

the AIML had a face-to-face fight with IUML. Among them, the former had won

only one (Meppayur) along with other four. The last election AIML contested as a

separate political party was the one which was held in 1982. It was given twelve

seats and in four of them the party candidates got elected. Nine seats, including six

in Malappuram district, witnessed a fight between the two League outfits. This

time around also it could win just one seat – Meppayur – and in all the rest Muslim

League emerged successful. Votes polled came to 3,10,626. It was 3.25 per cent of

the total valid votes in the state and 40.86 percent of the votes in the constituencies

contested.

115

Table 4.3

AIML- IUML Contests in Malappuram District, 1977 - 1982

Constituency 1977 1980 1982

AIML IUML IUML IUML AIML IUML

Manjeri 16807 43626 21905 43209 19031 38681

Malappuram 15724 39362 17272 36602 13500 35464

Kondotty 20159 41731 26650 41848 20885 37671

Thirurangadi 21479 40540 Nil Nil Nil Nil

Thanur 12158 42886 Nil Nil Nil Nil

Thirur 26127 41675 36201 38469 30571 36315

Kuttippuram 12023 36367 15703 33863 13263 31521

Mankada 26207 33597 31861 35623 28845 33208

Total 150684 319784 149592 229614 126095 212860

Difference 169100

(52.88 per cent) 80022

(34.85 per cent) 86765

(40.76 per cent) Source : Election Commission, op.cit.

Electoral performance of the AIML thus gave a clear indication that it

would not be able to act as a match to the Muslim League as it failed to make dent

in the traditional support which the Muslim community has been extending to that

party. In the contests between the two parties in the three elections, the AIML had

won a total of 2,61,713, 1,93,443 and 1,65,769 respectively against 4,56,324,

2,65,658 and 2,64,125, respectively of the IUML [Election Commission, 1977,

1980 and 1982]. Thus, IUML had a clear edge over its rival by securing a margin of

1,94,611 (42.65 per cent) votes in 1977; 92,215 (27.18 per cent) votes in 1980; and

98,356 (32.24 per cent) in the 1982 elections. This shows that the AIML lost each

seat to the League for an average vote share of 16,218 in 1977, 10,316 votes in 1980

and 10,928 in 1982. Again, interestingly, in the case of the constituencies where

the League won against the AIML, the margin of victory was notable: 1,87,828 in

1977, 64,408 in 1980 and 91,169 in 1982. This means that AIML lost each seat for

an average difference of 17,075 (1977), 10,735 (1980) and 11,396 (1982). At the

116

same time, the margin in seats where the AIML defeated the League was very

small 6,783 (1970), 7,807 (1980) and 7,187 (1982) votes.

This would be clear if one looks at the Malappuram district. The League

had a thumbing victory both in terms of seats and votes, all the time. The party

defeated its AIML opponents with a sizeable margin, fairly better than the margin

of victory it had in other constituencies. Calculations show that the League had a

huge difference of 1,69,100 (52.88 per cent) with an average surplus of 21,138 votes

in each seat in 1977; 80,022 (34.85 per cent) with a surplus of 13,337 votes in 1980;

and 86,705 (40.76 per cent) with a surplus of 14,461 votes in the 1982 elections.

1.2. The Indian National League

Significantly the next round of split in the IUML and the consequent

formation of the Indian National League (INL) were also related to the party’s

relationship with the Indian National Congress. This time around, the immediate

provocation was the demolition of the Babri Masjid2 on 6th December, 1992. A

section of the League under the leadership of Ibrahim Sulaiman Sait argued for the

immediate termination of the alliance with the Congress and as the leadership did

not pay heed to this demand, they walked out of the party along with U. A. Beeran

(the then Thirurangadi MLA) and P. M. Aboobaker (the then Guruvayoor MLA),

and formed another political party INL [Radhakrishnan, op. cit., 224-25]. Officially,

it was launched in 1994 and, compared to IUML, its social base was confined to

certain strong holds in the Malappuram district, viz., Tanur, Parappanangdi and

Manjeri. Ibrahim Sulaiman Sait, a leader with a nation-wide appeal, was the

moving force behind the party. To him, the Left parties were more sensitive than

the Congress on many issues affecting the secular fabric of the country and also on

issues affecting the Muslim population. As far as the LDF was concerned,

calculation was that erosion of the League in its strongholds meant eroding the

strength of the UDF in state politics.

All these created an atmosphere in favour of a close relationship between

the INL and the LDF though, till now, this continues only as electoral

understanding without accommodating the party either in the Front as a full

117

partner or in the Ministries led by the CPI(M). This ‘touch-me-notism’ of the LDF

and its leader CPI(M) has been a heartburn for the INL leadership. It is well aware

of the fact that to keep its social base intact it has not merely to find

accommodation in either of the two political fronts but also has to gain a share in

political power. Being in power actually has two implications : only under such a

situation it could ‘serve’ the interest of the Muslim community, at least in a

minimal sense; and the same (sharing of power) is also needed for distribution of

patronage. Out of power perpetually, therefore, means political wilderness and

erosion in the social base. For, after all, without political power or atleast a

prospect of obtaining it, how could a party survive? The question assumes a rare

salience in the Kerala situation where politics is bipolar and also where politics is

controlled, to a certain extent, by caste/communal forces. This is the greatest

dilemma INL faces and this has also been a major issue of discussion within the

party. In fact this has even resulted in a minor split in the party with a splinter

group led by Siraj Sait merging with the IUML prior to the Assembly poll of 2011

[Malatyala Manorama, 2011].

After the emergence of the INL, the first election to be held in the state was

the one to the civic bodies in 1995. Along with the People’s Democratic Party

(PDP), another non-League political platform, INL formed an alliance called

‘People’s Front’, with the primary object of taking on the League in its strongholds.

It contested (People’s Front) on its own in certain Muslim majority constituencies

and in others lent tacit support to the LDF. In this election, the Muslim League

faced defeat even in the Malappuram district. The party lost its hold in all the five

Municipalities in Malappuram district, first ever in the electoral history of Kerala.

Thus, the CPI(M) got an opportunity to get a space in Muslim pockets with the

help of the INL. Another experiment was in the by-election to the Guruvayoor

constituency, following the resignation of P.M.Aboobaker who joined INL. In the

election, LDF fielded P.T.Kunju Muhammed, an independent, against Abdul

Samad Samadani of the Muslim League. The INL extended wholehearted support

to the LDF and in Kerala politics, this is described as the ‘Guruvayur Strategy’.

Since the 1996 elections to the Legislative Assembly, INL began to contest the

118

general elections with the support of the LDF. Following Table makes clear its

electoral performance.

Table 4.4

Performance of INL in Constituencies it Contested alone: 1996 Election

Name of Constituency Votes polled Percentage

Kannur 4476 4.85

Edakkad 115 0.10

Koilandy 389 0.31

Perambra 390 0.32

Koduvally 1968 1.74

Kozhikode - II 138 0.14

Beypore 146 0.11

Kunnamangalam (SC) 296 0.27

Wandoor (SC) 458 0.40

Manjeri 301 0.29

Mankada 528 0.48

Mannarkkad 337 0.29

Total 9542 3.94

Source : Election Commission of India, 1996, op. cit., pp. 8 & 155-65

In the 1996 elections, held simultaneously to the Lok Sabha and Assembly,

INL candidates got the support of the LDF in two Assembly segments,

Malappuram and Kuttipuram [Radhakrishnan, op. cit., 229-30]. The party polled

54,319 votes as against 99,536 polled by the League. Besides this, the INL also

contested on its own in 12 constituencies, including two constituencies reserved for

Schedule Castes (Table 4.4). However, it could gather only 9,542 votes from all

these constituencies. As per the official data of the Election Commission, the party

got only 0.45 per cent of the total valid votes in the state and 3.94 per cent of votes

in the seats contested [Election Commission, 1996: 8]. In the Lok Sabha (1996)

Election, the presence of the PDP and INL resulted in the fragmentation of the

Muslim votes which proved fatal for the League candidates. In Manjeri, votes

polled by the League came down to 47.25 per cent and in Ponnai to 48.98 per cent

119

in the place of 51.3 and 53.08 per cent, respectively in 1991 [The New Indian

Express, 1996]. In the Civic Elections (2000), the INL contested alone and the

result, as could be inferred, was unimpressive. In the 2001 Assembly elections, the

scenario underwent a drastic change with CPI(M) offering electoral support to the

party (INL).

Table 4.5

Assembly Constituencies where INL Contested During 2001 – 2011 Elections

Constituencies

Votes polled by INL and its Opponents

2001 2006 2011

NL Opponent NL Opponent NL Opponent

Kasargod NC NA 27790 38774 ML 53068 43330 ML

Kannur 38947 58080 NC NA NC NA

Kuthuparamba NC NA NC NA 53861 57164

Kozhikodu II NC NA 51130 37037 ML NC NA

Manjeri NC NA 61274 76646 ML NC NA

Vengara NC NA NC NA 24901 63138 ML

Tirur 45511 58270 ML NC NA NC NA

Total Votes 84458

(38.98)

116350

(53.70)

140194

(40.61)

152457

(44.16)

131830

(28.55)

163632

(51.98)

Notes : ML - Muslim League; NL - National League; NC – Not Contested;

NA – Not Applicable (National League had not contested in the constituency, this time)

Sources : Election Commission, Statistical Reports On General Election to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala - 2001, 2006 and 2011, Election Commission, New Delhi.

In the elections the party fielded two candidates as LDF independents in

Kannur and Tirur constituencies, but lost to the Congress and the Muslim League,

respectively. It had polled only 38.98 per cent votes from these seats, while the

opponents polled 53.70 per cent. In the next election to the civic bodies (2005)

CPI(M) entered into local alliance with the INL and reaped rich dividend out of it.

For instance, it came to power in Tenjippalom Panchayat with the support of the

lone INL member and the same also stood in good stead for the party in Talannur

Grama Panchayat. In the 2006 Assembly election, this relationship continued and

120

INL contested three seats (Kasargod, Kozhikode-II and Manjeri) out of which it

won one (Kozhikode II) against the Muslim League. In the simultaneous elections

to the Lok Sabha, the CPI(M) gained Manjeri seat (Lok Sabha) and the support of

the INL here proved crucial. Further, Muslim League had to sweat profusely for

winning the Manjeri seat to the Legislative Assembly due to the active presence of

the INL there [Prakash, 2010]. The INL polled an aggregate of 1,40,194 votes,

which was 0.90 per cent of the state average and 40.61 per cent of votes in the seats

contested. It is, however, worth noting that despite the electoral alliance, INL did

not get any berth in the cabinet. Instead, it was given the chairmanship of a Board

and a Corporation.3

In the 2011 Assembly poll, INL contested in three constituencies

(Kasargod, Kuthuparamba and Vengara), with the active help of the LDF. The

election, however, proved disastrous for the party – all of its candidates failed and

the votes polled by them also fell drastically. Its three candidates altogether won

only 28.55 per cent of the votes (95,229 in absolute terms) while the opponents got

51.98 per cent. In the Kasargod constituency, INL was reduced to the third

position where the BJP became the immediate opponent of the League with 37.08

per cent of the votes polled. In Vengara constituency in the Malappuram district,

it got only 25.05 per cent votes when its League opponent got 63.53 per cent. The

only saving grace for the party came from Koothuparamba where its candidate

(S.A.Puthiyavalappil) put up a decent show by polling 45.93 per cent votes against

48.75 per cent of the Socialist Janata Dal.

1.3. The People’s Democratic Party

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was formed in 1993 and its origin

could be really traced back to the Islamic Seva Sangh (ISS) formed in 1989, a

militant Islamic group led by Abdul Nazar Mau’dani with the aim of protecting the

interest of the community from the assault of Hindu ‘fundamentalist’ groups.

Mau’dani was a religious scholar and an eloquent orator whose speech attracted a

section of the Muslims, especially the youth. In passing, it needs to be mentioned

that the ISS was the first militant organization among the Muslims of Kerala

121

though it was not received well by the mass of the people who were very much part

and parcel of a plural culture and secular world view. It is another thing that the

organization was banned by the Central Government due to its militant nature and

extremist outlook. It was under this circumstance that it changed its nomenclature

and formed a new party with the name PDP.

The Party, according to its Constitution, stands for the uplift of all

marginalized sections irrespective of religious or communal considerations and,

since its inception it was highly critical of the Muslim League for its failure in

protecting the interest of the community. Interestingly, both the LDF and UDF

continue to have covert or overt understanding with the PDP with a view to

reducing the influence of the Muslim League [Radhakrishnan, op. cit., 260]. For

instance, in 1996, the LDF arranged a platform for Abdul Nazar Mau’dani in

Thalassery, when E.K.Nayanar, the then Chief Minister, contested in the by-

election to the Assembly against Adv. Asif Ali. Not to be left behind in this race,

United Democratic Front also tried to woo the party a number of times,

particularly during periods of elections.

In electoral politics, PDP had tried to make its presence felt since the civic

polls of 1995. Here it is important to note that the party contested the election by

fielding its own candidates in only two elections, 1995 and 2011 Assembly

elections. In the elections that were held in between (between 1995 and 2011), the

party merely extended its support to either of the two Fronts – LDF and UDF. For

instance, in the 2001 election the support was for the UDF and in 2006 it offered

support to the LDF. Its role along with INL was expected to jolt the fortunes of the

Muslim League atleast in Malappuram district. Needless to say, the popular base

of a political party is tested mainly through its performance in elections to the

various representative bodies, whether it is the State Legislature or the Parliament.

In Kerala, such an opportunity came to the PDP for the first time in 1996. In the

elections, it adopted a policy to field its own candidates in constituencies

(Legislative Assembly) wherever it has a sizable base and which is strong enough

to challenge League candidates, and in the case of Lok Sabha, Manjeri and Ponnai

were selected as a test case. However, for the remaining seats, both in the

122

Assembly and Lok Sabha, it did not have a clear stand. Following Table shows its

performance in the election to the Legislative Assembly.

Table 4.6

District-wise Performance of PDP in 1996

District PDP

contested Votes polled

Votes percentage

Kannur 02 607 0.29

Kozhikode 03 1211 0.35

Malappuram 11 22753 2.19

Palakkad 07 6292 0.88

Ernakulam 04 14562 3.85

Kottayam 02 800 0.46

Alappuzha 05 8761 1.74

Pathanamthitta 02 1606 0.84

Kollam 06 24599 4.03

Thiruvananthapuram 08 21035 2.76

Total 50 102226 0.21

Note : Votes and percentage distribution are calculated on the basis of the total votes polled in the constituencies wherever the PDP contested.

Source : Election Commission, 1996, op. cit., pp. 156-89.

To the Assembly, PDP contested in 50 constituencies from 10 districts.

Among the candidates so fielded, 16 were non-Muslims including four in

constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes. The highest number of candidates

was in Malappuram district where 11 candidates including three non-Muslims

were on the fray. On the whole, from all the seats contested, it polled 1,02,226

votes, which was 0.72 per cent of the total votes polled at the state level and 2.04

per cent of the aggregate votes in the seats the party contested [Election

Commission, 1996: 8]. District-wise analysis of votes shows that Kollam, the home

district of Mau’dani, stands first (24,599) followed by Malapppuram (22,753),

Thiruvanthapuram (21,035) and Ernakulam (14,562). It is to be noted that it

gained only 22,753 votes from the largest Muslim populated district (Malappuram),

123

though it contested 11 seats. The party got the highest number of votes (4,803)

from the Ponnani constituency, where the UDF fielded a non-Muslim candidate

(P.T. Mohanakrishnan) against Paloli Muhammed Kutty (CPI - M, won by a

Table 4.7

Constituencies in which PDP polled 2000 and above votes (1996)

Sl.No Constituency Votes polled Votes

percentage

1. Wandoor (SC) 2827 2.48

2. Manjeri 2014 6.93

3. Malappuram 2046 2.23

4. Tanur 3182 3.51

5. Tirur 2160 2.00

6. Ponnani 4803 4.65

7. Mattancherry 5238 8.83

8. Alwaye 7485 6.14

9. Alleppey 3847 4.34

10. Kayamkulam 2646 2.70

11. Chadayamangalam 3258 3.73

12. Kunnathur (SC) 7231 6.52

13. Karunagapally 8314 8.51

14. Eravipuram 3012 2.62

15. Chathanoor 2447 2.33

16. Vamanapuram 5758 5.70

17. Ariyanad 2381 2.61

18. Kazhakuttam 4479 4.27

19. Trivandrum West 4614 5.52

Source : Election Commission, 1996, op. cit., pp.156-89.

margin of 8618 votes). Constituency-wise trend shows that its votes ranged from 75

to 8,314 with an average of 2,045. There were 19 constituencies in which PDP

polled above 2000 votes and in constituencies like Karunagappally (8,314), Alwaye

(7,485), Kunnathur (7,231) and Mattancherry (5,238) this was above 5000. Among

124

them, Karunagappally and Kunnathur (SC) are very close to the native place of

Mau’dani. PDP succeeded in giving a shock to the League in Mattancherry where

the LDF candidate (M.A.Thomas) defeated the party’s (League’s) nominee,

T.A.Ahamed Kabeer, by a nominal margin of 425, while the PDP got 5,238 votes.

Table 4.8

Performance of PDP : 2011 Assembly Election

Constituency Votes District District

total

1. Vallikkunnu 2666

(2.63)

Malappuram 11776

(2.57)

2. Tirurangadi 4281

(4.27)

3. Tirur 1802

(1.42)

4. Kottakkal 3027

(2.56)

5. Thrithala 590

(0.48) Palakkad

1308

(0.54) 6. Pattambi

718

(0.61)

7. Perumbavoor 1094

(0.87) Ernakulam

1094

(0.87)

8. Kunnathur (SC) 1354

(0.94) Kollam

4588

(1.58) 9. Eravipuram

3234

(3.10)

Total votes18766 (0.11 per cent)

Note : According to the Official Report of the Election Commission, PDP contested only in

seven seats and it got 14,178 votes ( 0.08 %). This was because Kunnathur and

Eravipuram seats were not included in PDP account.

Source : Election Commission 2011, op. cit., p. 46.

Performance of PDP in this election was very poor. It got an aggregate of

18,766 votes (0.11 per cent of the state total) and 1.76 per cent of the votes polled in

the constituencies in which it contested. The highest polling in favour of the party

125

was registered in Eravipuram Constituency in Kollam district where its candidate

Mylakkad Shah, a close camp follower of Abdul Nazar Mau’dani, got 3,234 (03.10

per cent) out of 1,0,4083 votes polled. The party candidate in Kunnathur

constituency, situated in the native place of Mau’dani, got only 1,354 (0.95 per

cent) votes out of a total of 1,42,990. In Malappuram district, in Kottackal

constituency, the party candidate polled the highest with 3,027 (02.56 per cent)

votes [Government of Kerala, 2011: 7].

Thus the electoral data show that, like INL, PDP’s dream of emerging as an

alternative to the Muslim League has proved futile. It is nowhere near even putting

up a strong challenge to the League. One prominent reason for this is the bipolar

nature of state politics where a party has to identity itself with either of the two

fronts – LDF and UDF – or face political oblivion. Further PDP has never tasted

power and it did not have control over the vast political patronage which power

gives. In both counts, Muslim League stands above PDP and there is no

comparison between the two either in terms of support of the Muslim community

or in the matter of helping the community to achieve progress in various fields.

1.4. Other Non-League Political Outfits

There are a few other political outfits who are desirous of obtaining a

political space among the Muslims of Kerala. Of theses, mention should be made

of National Democratic Front (NDF)/ Popular Front of India (PFI)/ Social

Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Compared to the Indian Union Muslim

League, it is a mere splinter group/party with hardly any clear-cut socio-political

programme or a mass base. It does not have the recognition of the Election

Commission of India as it has not shown its electoral presence in a meaningful

sense.

Actually this party, which bears different titles - NDF, PFI and SDPI - is

different manifestations of the same political force. For instance, NDF4 was formed

in 1993. Later in 2006, it merged with the Karnataka Forum for Dignity and

Manitha Neethi Pasarai of Tamilnadu to form the Popular Front of India [PFI,

2011]. Again in 2009, PFI together with like-minded organizations, viz.,

126

Association for Social Justice (Andhra Pradesh), Citizens’ Forum (Goa), Social

and Educational Forum (Rajastan), Nagarik Adhikar Suraksha Samiti (West Bengal)

and Lillong Social Forum (Manipur) decided to form a strong political party at the

national level [Times of India, 2009]. The Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI)

was the product of this ambitious plan. The SDPI published its manifesto on

October 18, 2009 at its first National Delegates Meet with the slogan “Freedom

from Hunger, Freedom from Fear” and since then it has been demanding balanced

representation of all social groups in legislatures and all administrative bodies

nominated by the government in proportion to their population [Bari, 2009].

Article 3 of the Party Constitution declares its aims and objectives as the fulfillment

of a socio-political system emphasizing Justice, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity,

and to bring all the deprived sections under the roof of a national political

organization. Further, it aims at upholding a political ideology promoting dignity

and safety of marginalized sections, and to empower the communities which are

backward and in a minority in India [SDPI, 2009: 1]. It means that it mainly

focuses on the political empowerment of the downtrodden and marginalized

sections belonging to all religions and sections of the Indian society.

Briefing the circumstances which led to the formation of NDF and later of

the SDPI, Nazaruddin Elamarum says, ‘since independence, the Muslims and

other downtrodden sections have remained marginalized and the mainstream

political parties have utilized them only as their vote-banks without addressing the

basic issues they confront or having any concrete programmes for their upliftment’

[Elamarum, 2011]. It has since then been trying to rope in disgruntled Muslim

youths who felt that the Indian Union Muslim League had not done anything

concrete for the Muslim cause [The New Indian Express, 2009]. It highlights the

inefficiency of the Muslim League on the one side and the ‘weaknesses’ of the

secular parties, like Communists and the Congress on the other, in solving

problems that the community confronts [Radhakrishnan, op.cit., 270]. Here it is

worth noting that the real target of the SDPI was the disgruntled and unemployed

youth who began feeling insecure when the Sangh Parivar elements started

harassing the Muslims in different parts of the country on different issues.

Demolition of Babri Masjid and communal riots in Kerala and in various places in

127

India offered added reasons for the sustenance of a party like SDPI. Further, the

perceived ‘failure’ of the Muslim League to measure up to outfits like RSS has been

widely propagated among the youth to rally them under its banner [Kurup and

Ismail, 2008 : 233].

Interestingly, even global issues like American imperialism and its

occupation of the Muslim countries for its own vested interests were used (and are

being used) to aggravate Muslims’ feeling of insecurity. The SDPI and its earlier

versions used (still use) an explosive mix of Pan-Islamism5, Muslim League’s

failure on various counts and the alleged insecurity of the community nationally as

the raison d’être for their existence. These outfits which consider RSS as their main

adversary play the twin role, of a protagonist of Islamic extremism and the

mouthpiece of Islamic revivalism [Kurup and Ismail, op.cit., 357-358]. Whatever

may be the aims and objectives of the party, it needs to be noted that the latter

avatars like PFI and SDPI are suspected of extremist activities. The organization

has been categorized as a militant group which was under the scrutiny of the

Union Home Ministry in 2006 for fanning fanaticism along with some other hard-

line groups.

In the beginning, the NDF was not interested in participating in electoral

politics as it then thought it prudent first to consolidate itself organizationally

before taking a plunge into the electoral arena. And only after its change of identity

into SDPI that the party began to participate in elections very seriously and, that

too, on the basis of its conviction that empowering the Muslims politically was the

only answer to many of the problems faced by the community in the country [The

New Indian Express, 2009]. The first ever election it contested was the by-election

to the Kannur Assembly seat in November 2009. In the election, its candidate, P

Abdul Majeed Faisy, General Secretary of the party, could get only 3,500 votes.

But in the civic elections of 2010, it opened its account in some of the Grama

Panchayats, in one Block Panchayat and in a couple of Municipalities, though its

performance was not very convincing. The following Table shows the wards where

the SDPI could prove its strength.

128

It is seen that SDPI has won one seat each in Kannur, Thodupuzha and

Pathanamthitta Municipalities without any support from others and one

Independent candidate is elected to the Palakkad Municipality with its support. In

Grama Panchayats, it has won four seats without any support and two

independents were elected from two wards and in one seat (Kunnikkara) its

candidate polled the same number of votes its Muslim League opponent got. In the

Table 4.9

Wards where SDPI Proved its Strength : Civic Elections 2010

No. Ward Name of LSGI District Category

1 Kasanakotta South Kannur

Municipality Kannur Female

2 Keerikode Thodupuzha

Municipality Idukki Female

3 Kulashekharapathi Pathanamthitta

Municipality Pathanamthitta Female

4 Municipal Office Shornor

Municipality Palakkad Female

5 Mathakkal Erattupetta Grama

Panchayat Kottayam SC

6 Pazhunnan Chowannur Grama

Panchayat Thrissur Female

7 Machampady Manjeswaram

Grama Panchayat Kasargode Female

8 Mayyathumkara Poruvazhi

GramaPanchayat Kollam Female

9 Mannadisseri Kulashekharapuram

Grama Panchayat Kollam General

10 Areekulam Vengara Grama

Panchayat Malappuram Female

11 Kunnikkara Kadungallur Grama

Panchayat Ernakulam Female

12 Vanchinadu Vazhakkulam Block

Panchayat Ernakulam General

Source : Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala, ceokerala.gov.in

Block Panchayat, it has won one seat. This victory is very notable as its candidate,

Prof. Anas, contested the election while in detention as an accused in having given

129

protection to those who attacked Prof. Joseph6. He has won from Vanchinadu

division in Vazhakkulam Block in Ernakulam district by a margin of 1,903 votes.

He bagged 3,992 votes while the UDF’s M.A. Muhammed (Congress (I)) got 2,089

and LDF’s Muhammed Kunju Sulaiman (Cong-S) got only 1,666 votes

[twocirlces.net, 2010].

An analysis of the election result also brings to the fore a strange fact that

SDPI has succeeded mostly in constituencies reserved for women. Also among the

elected was one candidate who was a Non-Muslim. Another interesting thing is

that the party could not disturb in any manner the vote banks of the Muslim

League in the Malappuram district. Its achievement in the district was confined to

the election of an independent candidate in the Vengara Grama Panchayat.

However, the first Assembly election contested by the party was that of

2011. It fielded 82 candidates in the election and bagged a total of 1,61,096 votes,

which was 0.92 per cent of the total polled votes in the state. And this formed 1.60

per cent of the votes polled in the 82 constituencies it had contested

[ceokerala.gov.in, 2011]. In the Malappuram district, the party fielded candidates

in all the 16 constituencies and polled 44,415 votes (02.34 per cent). The highest

tally of votes was in Vengara constituency where Abdul Majeed Faisy, State

General Secretary, gained 04.71 per cent (4,683) votes. Among other districts, in

Kozhikode it got 14265 votes (0.99 per cent); in Kannur 16,046 votes (1.84 per

cent); in Ernakulam 17,338 (1.82 per cent); in Idukki 7,154 (2.03 per cent) and in

Kollam 12,923 votes (2.49 per cent). There were three constituencies - Azhikode,

Manalur and Vadakara- where SDPI polled votes higher than the margin of votes

obtained by LDF/UDF.

The aforesaid analysis shows that Non-League political formations have

little political clout among the Muslim masses of Kerala. Many of these formations

were formed at various periods either as products of the power struggle within the

Muslim League or due to differences of opinions with it (League) on certain social

and political issues. Among the latter, one major issue over which one of the

longest and more thorough going discussions that took place was on the question

relating to League’s relationship with the Indian National Congress in Kerala.

130

Table 4.10

District-wise Performance of SDPI : 2011 Assembly Election

Constituency Total Votes Polled Votes polled by SDPI

District

Total

SDPI

Contested

District-wise

In SDPI

contested

Constituencies

Votes

% to the total of

SDPI contested

Constituencies

% to the

District Total

Kasaragod 05 03 653316 381048 4266 01.11 00.65

Kannur 11 07 1390131 867579 16046 01.84 01.15

Wayanad 03 02 394944 249841 3939 01.57 00.99

Kozhikode 13 11 1678277 1438708 14265 00.99 01.42

Malappuram 16 16 1897444 1897444 44415 02.34 02.34

Palakkad 12 07 1468267 879869 14299 01.62 00.97

Thrissur 13 03 1687397 399840 6704 01.67 00.39

Ernakulam 14 08 1711598 948120 17338 01.82 01.01

Idukki 05 03 578543 352402 7154 02.03 01.23

Kottayam 09 02 1052683 225345 4486 01.99 00.42

Alappuzha 09 04 1212527 539565 3813 00.70 00.31

Pathanamthitta 05 03 646958 382978 1985 00.51 00.30

Kollam 11 04 1387240 519802 12923 02.49 00.93

Thiruvananthapuram

14 09 1628326 933873 9463 01.01

00.58

Kerala 140 82 17387651

10016414 161096

01.60 00.93

Source : Election Commission 2011, op. cit., p. 46.

Such debates even bordered on picking up and playing with the age old enmity

between the Congress and the Muslim League of Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s vintage,

though nothing of any serious consequence happened apart from a couple of minor

and inconsequential splits in the parent organization. Also of significance were the

debates on issues like the Muslim Personal Law and the demolition of Babri

Masjid. However, the Non-League political parties were not able to make political

gains on these issues so as to pose any serious challenge to the prominence of the

131

Muslim League. This has created a situation in which one ‘League Goliath’ is

surrounded by many Non-League ‘Lilliputians’ who, by themselves, were/are not

capable enough to address many a social, cultural, economic and political issue

affecting the community. At best they are capable enough to make sounds and

furies signifying nothing. By implication, this means that these organizations are

hardly capable enough to exploit and make beneficial use of situation in which the

identity and political behaviour of the Muslim community are changing in subtle

ways.

2. Non-Political Organisations

Figure 3

Religious Sects among Muslims and their Comparative strength

33%

8%

12%

4% 4%

38%

EK Sunni Faction

A P Sunni Faction

Other Sunni Faction

Mujahid Faction

Jamat-e-Islami

Other Muslims

Source : Wikipedia

Besides political formations, various non-political organizations - social and

educational agencies – are also active among the Muslims of Kerala. These

132

organizations could be distinguished from their political counterparts on the basis

of their involvement or absence of such involvement in things, political. These

organs, therefore, do not harbor any political ambitions. As such they primarily

focus on the social and religious issues festering the community. Sometimes they

act in unison and at other times, they function in isolation in realizing their aims

and objectives. These organizations include religious sects like Kerala Naduvathul

Mujahidin (KNM), Jamat-e-Islami and the two Sunni factions, educational agencies

like MES and MSS and forum for social activism like the Jama’at Federation. All

these contribute, in varying degree, to the well-being of the community.

2.1. Religious Organizations: 1. Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen

Earlier organizational attempts in Kerala to reform the Muslim community

initiated through the Islam Dharma Paripalana Sanghom of Vakkom Abdul Khader

Moulavi and the Kerala Muslim Aikya Sanghom led by K.M.Moulavi could not

mobilize the community in the desired measure and direction. Also ordinary Islahi

workers had no platform to coordinate their activities in respect of spreading the

universal message of Thouhid.7 The formation of Kerala Naduvathul Mujahid

(KNM), on 20th April 1950, as a popular Islamic Organization, a subsidiary to the

Kerala Jamiyat-ul- Ulama, bringing within its fold all classes of people was basically

aimed at this [Ahamedkutty, 1995 :75]. The organization otherwise called as the

Mujahid Movement of Kerala, is affiliated to the All-India Ahle- Hadith, an

organization with identical aims and objectives [Ibid., 70]. Its membership is

opened to all those who accept and agree with the preaching of the Prophet

Muhammad, in its purity and genuine tradition. It was registered under the

Societies Act in 1957 and K.M. Moulavi and N.V. Abdussalam Moulavi were its

founding President and Secretary, respectively.

The main objective of KNM is to unite the Muslims of Kerala in the light of

Holy Quran and Sunnah (practices of the Last Prophet) and thereby to eradicate

superstitious beliefs and practices that prevailed/prevail among the Muslims

[angelfire.com, 2010]. Following the measures initiated by earlier reformists, it has

tried to reform the community through promoting religious and secular education.

133

Further, the organization also attempts to spread the true injections of Islam on the

individual and social life, to promote welfare of the members of the community

and establish harmonious relationship and cordiality with co-religionists

[Muhammed, S. 1960: 154].

Also KNM’s opposition towards terrorism, communalism and extremism of

all kinds which disturb the social order is uncompromising [Salafi, 2010]. From the

start, Islahi scholars began to make the people aware of the need for education and

persuade them to attain it. For this, it had formed a Board of Education in 1957,

with Amani Moulavi as the first Chairman and since then the Board has been

doing everything to give training to teachers so that they could acquire modern

methods and techniques of teaching. For the first time, the Quran was translated

into Malayalam, the native language of Kerala, and Arabic Colleges and High

Schools were started in different parts of the State, thus offering, simultaneously,

opportunity for both religious education and modern education to the younger

generation. Arabic Colleges and Arabic Oriental High Schools in villages like

Areacode, Pulikkal, Edathanattukara, Thirurangadi, Edavanna and Feroke

became learning centers for Kerala Muslims in modern and religious education

[angelfire.com, 2010]. The KNM publishes a number of Journals such as Al Manar,

Vichinthanam, Shabab and Pudava. The publishing wing called Yuvatha Book

House, started in 1986, under the KNM publishes Islamic books on various aspects

[Azharali, 2008: 333].

Further, it effectively works for the cause of women education. For its

promotion, it encourages the establishment of institutions where Muslim girls can

attend keeping their religious identity. Thus, in a sense, the organ helps the

community to break the barriers created by the orthodox Ulema in the matter of

women education. Contemporaneously, the Muslim girls have no hesitation in

going for modern education including higher education and professional education

[Ahamedkutty, op. cit., 218]. Also, it inspires Muslim women to attain awareness

about their rights and duties and in order to mobilise them, an exclusive women’s

wing was established by it. At first the girls were organised behind the banner of

‘MSM Girls Wing’, subsequently, the Muslim Girls Movement (MGM), was set-

134

up, in 1987, so as to enable active participation in public issues and ensure

coordination among women and girl students. The MGM upholds dignity and

rights of women and responds to any kind of atrocities against womanhood. Its

identity could be differentiated from modern feminist organizations in terms of

both its objectives and issues undertaken by it [angelfire.com, 2010]. While the

Feminist Movement usually takes a progressive stand which is secular in nature on

women issues, the KNM and its auxiliary wings look at them through the

kaleidoscope of Islamic morality, tradition and ethics. It was this reason which

encouraged the organ to adopt a stand against the Supreme Court Judgment in

Shabanu Case.

This, however, need not mean that the outlook of KNM is always regressive

in nature on such issues. For instance, it supports and argues for the entry of

women in Mosque for prayer, campaigns against dowry and criticizes deviations in

morality and values. The working of the Board of Islamic Service and Missionary

Information (BISMI), a wing of KNM, is also worth noting here. It has been

established to fight the evil practices associated with marriage and family life. The

practice of dowry is a case in point as it has reached such a level that marriage

became almost impossible for poor girls, and in other cases married life proved

horrendous. BISMI has been actively campaigning in the society against this anti-

social and anti-Islamic practice along with issues like extravaganza including the

demand for gold and use of ornaments. It frequently organizes ideal Islamic

marriage congregations in which a number of couples enter into wedlock at

the same venue. Conducted strictly in accordance with Islamic principles and

practices, these marriages are noted for their modesty and low levels of expenses.

The Islahi movement in Kerala does not harbour any political ambition

though it has always taken a bold stand against communalism and extremism.

This, however, does not mean that its members do not have any political affinity.

In fact, there are members who are active in different political parties and also hold

diverse views on non-religious matters with the organization giving them a free

hand in such matters [junction kerala.com : 2010]. A.P.Abdul Khader Moulavi,

General Secretary of the organ, neatly summarises this: ‘The KNM has no affinity

135

or affiliation to any political party. Its activists might have their own views about

and relations with political parties. The organization has not issued any circular or

plea to vote for any party and never has a permanent relation with any one of

them, except exemplary co-operation in general matters upholding its basic

principles. It has never bargained or influenced any political party hoping to get

any official favour’ [Moulavi.A, 2010]. It is also interesting to note that during the

formative years the top office bearers of the Movement were allowed to take up

offices in political parties only after resigning their position in the Movement. A

typical example in this regard was that of N.V.Abdul Salam Moulavi who was

allowed to become active in the Muslim League only after resigning the

Presidentship of the Movement [Azharali, op. cit., 333].

This naturally means that there are, within the Mujahid Movement, leaders

belonging to various political hues and shades. For instance, its earlier leaders

Muhammed Abdurahman Sahib, E.Moidu Moulavi, K.M.Moulavi, Kattisseri

Muhammed Kutty Musliar and Seethi Sahib were well-known Congressmen.

K.C.Abubaker Moulavi, A.V.Abdurahman Haji, Mankada Abdul Aziz Moulavi

were at the helm of League Politics8 [Ahamedkutty, op. cit., 218]. However, in the

earlier days of the Muslim League, Islahi scholars have played significant role in

bringing the Muslims to the fold of that party. K.M.Seethi Sahib was an

unquestioned leader of All India Muslim League and at the same time that of

Kerala Islahi movement. So, majority of the Mujahid activists remain as

sympthisers or workers of the League [Azharali, op. cit., 340]. Some prominent

leaders in the Muslim League, today, like K.P.A.Majeed, K.M.Shaji, et. al. also

appear in Mujahid platforms as its spokesmen, in addition to a host of others.

On hindsight, it becomes clear that KNM has been playing a yeoman

service towards the cause of social change and modernity among the Muslims of

Kerala. It is true that it has to face stiff opposition in this regard from the orthodox

Sunni faction, in earlier days. These groups even allege that KNM is spreading

false beliefs and practices which, by and large, are un-Islamic. However, the

movement is not deterred by such false propaganda and it, in fact, counters them

by exposing the real intentions of the opponents viz., that of keeping the masses

136

captives of orthodox Ulama [Salafi, 2010]. Though the split9 of 2002 in the KNM

has dampened its activities temporarily, it has recouped from it very fast and,

today, it is the prime torch-bearer of the new socio-cultural and religious

awakening among the Muslims of Kerala.

2.1. 2. Jamat-e-Islami

Jamat-e-Islami, formed in 1941, in Lahore, by Maulana Sayyid Abulala

Mau’dudi (1903-1979) is another organization which caters itself to the social

redemption of the Muslim community. It has adopted the Qur’an as a basic

document to justify the formation of the organization and its programmes. It has its

own means for religiously reforming the community as well as to fulfill its political

objectives. A number of Muslims, including both madrassa-trained Ulamas as well as

others, who had received a modicum of modern education, were attracted to the

Jam’at in its early years [Sikand, 2009]. Ideologically, the organization does not

separate the state from religion, ie., the temporal from the spiritual. Instead, it

expresses its in-built political nature by defining religion itself as the state.

Religiously, the Jama’at sticks to the traditional Islamic path uncompromisingly

[Panicker, op.cit., 125-26]. The ideological stand and the socio-religious outlook of

this organization will become clear if one analyses the positions taken by its

founder Maulana Maududi on important issues of relevance to the Muslims of this

part of the world. For instance, he argued that the Muslims need not rigidly follow

any of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence10 though he looked forward to the

eventual establishment of the supremacy of Shariat laws (iqamat-i-din) in the

country [Khalidi, 1996: 5]. This, he believed, was essential for the enjoyment of

real freedom [Hameed, 2004: 502]. In addition, he presented the idea of Islamic

modernization instead of colonial modernization [Mandalamkunnu, 2007: 135].

He, therefore, saw the Jama’at as spearheading the struggle for the establishment of

an Islamic state, strictly ruled in accordance with the Shari’ah.

In Kerala, the official formation of Jamat-e-Islami (JIK) was in 1948 at

Valancherry. It was formed at the initiative of V.P.Muhammed Ali Moulavi11 who

was a disciple of Mau’dudi [Hameed, op. cit., 502]. It is another thing that even

137

prior to the official formation of Jamat-e-Islami, Maudidi’s ideology began to spread

among the religious scholars of Kerala largely through his articles carried by

‘Tharjumanul Qur’an’ published from Hyderabad, and the monthly ‘Al Murshid’,

edited by K.M.Moulavi, which had wide circulation in the state since 1935.

It is a well-organized cadre organization with a wide range of publications,

educational institutions, and trained activists and has been much more effective in

Kerala than in the North. It has been concentrating its attention on educational

and literary activities and has been playing a significant role in bringing about

social and religious awareness among the Muslims [Ahamedkutty, 1997: 17]. The

Jama‘at has its own role in the socio-religious renaissance of Kerala and, like the

Mujahid Movement, also allows women to pray in the Mosque.

The organization has numerous agencies and institutions to chart out and

implement its established objectives and programmes. While the Majilisath-ah-

lameen Islami12 manages 40 high schools owned by the Jama’at, the Islamic

Publishing House (IPH) takes care of a wide range of publications including

Prabhodhanam Weekly, Bodhanam Monthly, Malarvadi (for children), in addition to

the Madhyamam Daily and Weekly. Interestingly, Madhyamam Newspaper is now

the third most widely read newspaper in Kerala [Sikand, svabhinava.org].

The Jamat-e-Islami also has a large number of feeder organizations to

manage its religious and social services. For instance, it has a girls’ wing, known as

Girls Islamic Organization (GIO) which organizes women and campaigns on a

wide range of issues affecting them; an Islamic Students’ Organization (ISO) called

the Students Islamic Organization (SIO),13 formed in 1982 [Cheriyamundam,

2004: 514]; and a Youth wing, the Solidarity Youth Movement formed on 13th

May 2003. The Solidarity Youth Movement carries out many humanitarian and

social service activities and is involved in many struggles and agitations on issues

affecting public interests including the agitation against the Coca-Cola factory at

Plachimada (Palakkad district), the proposed Express Highway, the Build-

Operate-Transfer (BOT) system of road development, the use of Endosulfan and

Chengara agitation of the Tribals for land, to mention a few [wapedia.mobi, 2010].

138

Though the organization is inherently non-political in nature, at times it

used to harbor political ambitions and mainstream political parties also used to

court it, particularly during elections. For example, it fielded its own candidates in

certain Muslim pockets in the civic elections of 2010, of course without much luck.

On the flip side, it was seen offering support basically to the Left Democratic Front

candidates and in rare cases also to the candidates fielded by the United

Democratic Front. Occasionally this has even created dissensions within the

organization. While the involvement of the organization in politics could be

viewed against its larger intentions to modernize the community, adoption of

Qur’an as the fundamental doctrine and defining ‘religion (Din) itself as state’ has

tempted others to suspect the organization on the charge of perpetuation of

religious fundamentalism. According to the protagonists of the organization,

however, this is a gross misunderstanding and misinterpretation of its ideals and

objectives. This section points out its tolerance of religio-cultural plurality to justify

their argument [Rahman, 2011].

2.1.3. Sunni Factions

The Sunnis, who claim to be the real Ahle-Sunnah-wal-Jama’at, have been

popularly known as Samastha since the ideological split among the Muslim

religious scholars in Kerala during the first quarter of the 20th century [Samad,

1998; Ahmedkutty, 1997; Engineer, 1995, 2006; Irivetti, 2002; Kurup and Ismail,

2008]. Since Samastha is a body of renowned and venerated religious scholars, it

has got commendable hold over the Muslim community and even made religious

pronouncements particularly targeting the Mujahids (Wahabis) [Kurup and Ismail,

2008: 283]. As the majority of Muslims of Kerala follow the religious practices

based on the Shafi and Hanafi Schools, the Sunnis have a broad base here.

The Samastha Kerala Jamiathul Ulama (SKJU), in course of time, established

numerous auxiliary units under its aegis. For instance, the 19th conference held in

March 1951 at Badagara formed the Samastha Kerala Islamic Educational Board or

Samastha Kerala Islam Matha Vidhyabhyasa Board (SKIMVB), as the first auxiliary

organization; the 20th conference held in April, 1954 witnessed the formation of a

139

youth wing known as Sunni Yuvajan Sangham (SYS); the Samastha Kerala Sunni

Mahallu Federation (SKSMF) was formed in 1976 (April 26); and in 1989 (February,

19) the Samastha Kerala Sunni Students Federation (SKSSF)14 was formed.

Meanwhile in 1989, the organization witnessed a serious split, more on personal

grounds rather than because of any ideological differences, when a faction led by

A.P.Abubakker Musliar broke away from the parent organization and formed a

separate body. Since then, the parent organization has been called E.K. Sunni -

named after E.K. Aboobacker Musliar, the former leader of the Samastha Kerala

Jamiyyathul Ulama – and the break-away section Kandapuram Sunni named after

Kanthapuram A.P.Aboobacker Musliar, who is now the General Secretary of the

All-India Jamiyyathul Ulama [wiki/E._K._Sunni, and wiki/A._P._Sunni : 2010].

Ordinary people are often confused as both factions prefix the word Samastha along

with their organizations and feeder movements. It is also interesting to note that

there are no serious differences between the two of them on issues confronting the

community. For instance, in the matter of religious orthodoxy, both groups do not

hold any basic difference and both believe that praying at the shrine is both

permissible and helpful since, according to them, the saints do possess special

powers and grace [Banu, 2006: 325]. In organizing campaigns against reformists

like the Mujahids and the Jamat-e-Islami, the Kandapuram faction is very advanced

than the other. Towards the appearance of women in public and their entry in

Masjids for prayer, the two groups firmly go by the traditional attitude.

Both groups also have many prestigious institutions and establishments.

The upcoming Darsana TV belongs to Sunni EK Faction, the first faction to

introduce a television channel. Satyadhara and Sunni Afkar magazines are the

mouthpieces of their youth and students' wings, respectively. The Group also own

many centres of higher learning of Islamic theology in Kerala. These include

Jamiah Nooriyyah Arabic College at Pattikkad and Darul Huda Islamic Academy at

Chemmad, both in Malappuram district, besides the Co-ordination of Islamic

Colleges (CIC, consisting more than 25 Islamic Colleges) and Markazul-Sakafat-al

Sunniah (Sunni Cultural Centre) at Karanthur near Kozhikode15 [wikipedia.org/

A.P.Sunni : 2010].

140

When the community in Kerala began to feel the need and necessity for

modernization, the Sunnis came to its support. As a result, they began to

administer steps to bring social change among the Muslims through modern

education and socio-cultural activities. Now, the establishments managed by the

Sunni factions are well equipped with sufficient facilities for promoting modern

education and social development of the community. Even when strongly arguing

for limited role of women in public life, Sunni Factions do not restrict women in

getting secular education. As the Sunnis get strong support from the community,

their initiatives for social change have become more significant.

2.2.1. Socio-Educational Agencies: Muslim Educational Society

The Muslim Educational Society (M.E.S) is a non-political social service

organization, established in 1964, at Kozhikode. The real force behind it was a

group of socially committed persons led by Dr.P.K.Abdul Ghafoor who continued

as its President until his death. C.P.Kunjahammed, K.M.Bahauddin,

Dr.Mrs.Kamarunnisa Khalid, Dr.K.Muhammed Kutty, Dr.M.M.Abdulla,

K.C.Hassankutty, Adv.A.V.Muhammed, P.A.Khader Meeran, S.K.Khader,

T.Abdul Azeez, V.Abdul Rahman, K.V.Kunjahammed Koya, P.K.Ali,

Dr.T.P.Muhammed, K.C.Ahammed, and M.A.Shukkur were the other founding

members [meskerala.com, 2010]. It was supported by a large number of

professionals and businessmen. As the society had no political links, people from

all walks of life and background joined its fold and very soon it became a major

platform for all sections of Muslims to take up social welfare activities and to start

educational institutions. It is the leading educational agency among the Muslims in

India. The cardinal principle of the organization is its belief that the development

of the individual leads to the development of community which finally helps the

nation building process. Towards achieving its ends, the organization still keeps a

distance from party politics and the sectarian religious philosophy though it does

not ban members from taking part in politics or religious organizations. It also

gives great emphasis to religious education in its institutions. Women's education is

another main theme of the organization. It emphasizes democratic values that are

inherent to Islam and believes in the principle of collective responsibility in running

141

the organization. The MES adheres to the concept of social justice and is in the

forefront of the fight to achieve this [meskerala.com, 2010].

Organizationally, it functions under the Societies Act and membership is

opened to any persons who have attained the age of 21 years and who subscribe to

its aims and objectives and agree to abide by the provisions of the rules and

regulations of the society. Presently, its membership is estimated to be 10,386

including about 100 women [Ramanadhan, 2010]. In a short span of time, its units

have spread to all Districts, Taluks and Panchayats in Kerala, other parts of India

and even abroad. The main objective of the MES is educational, social and

cultural up-lift of the Indian Muslims. According to the Rules and Regulations of

the MES (Amended in 2011), ‘it shall strive to promote higher and technical

education and improve the standard and quality of education among the people in

general and minorities and backward classes in particular by granting scholarships,

loans, grants and other forms of aid to poor and deserving students and

institutions’ [MES, 2012]. A secular organization with a firm belief in the Indian

polity, it views that reservation is essential for the advancement of the

downtrodden and backward classes.

The MES, in principle and practice, focuses on establishing and maintaining

educational institutions with a view to uplift the community, supposedly the most

backward in education. As most of these institutions are located in Muslim

concentrated areas and since such institutions ensure prescribed reservation to the

community members, the endeavour has resulted in a remarkable transformation

of the educational status of Muslims of Kerala. At the inception of the MES, the

Muslims had only three colleges and very few schools. Compared to this, today it

alone is running more than 150 educational institutions in India and abroad

including a Medical College, Engineering Colleges, Nursing Colleges, Dental

Colleges, Arts and Science Colleges, aided Higher Secondary Schools, CBSE

Schools, Job-oriented institutions, Orphanages, School for mentally handicapped

and Old Age Homes. Table 4.11 shows the Educational reach of the organ.

142

It is stated that at least 10 lakh Muslims in Kerala have been directly or

indirectly benefited by the educational activities of the MES [MES, 2012]. The

organ also plays vital role to enhance the educational status of Muslim women. At

the time of emergence of the MES, presence of women in the field of education

Table 4.11

Major Educational Institutions Run by MES in Kerala

Category Total Institutions located in

Malabar

Primary Schools 23 06 (26%)

Aided Higher Secondary Schools 06 04 (75%)

Un-Aided Higher Secondary Schools 02 01 (50%)

Un-Aided High Schools 04 02(50%)

CBSC and ICSE Schools 37 27 (73%)

Special Schools for Mentally Retards 02 Nil

ITC and Computer Centres 07 04 (57%)

Teachers Training Centre (TTC) 01 01

Aided Arts and Science Colleges 07 04 (57%)

Un-Aided Arts and Science Colleges 07 03 (43%)

Women’s Colleges 09 08 (89%)

Professional Colleges 08 06 (75%)

Training Colleges 02 01 (50%)

Total 115 67 (58.26%)

Note : Figures given in brackets indicate percentage distribution.

Source : Muslim Educational Society (2012), ‘List of Major Institutions Run by MES’,

Office Details, Kozhikode, pp. 1-5.

was hardly one per cent, but it has risen to a significant level now [Ibid]. Out of a

total of 23 Arts and Science Colleges, nine are Women’s Colleges exclusively for

imparting even postgraduate education to the fair sex. The Society has also

introduced numerous social welfare programmes notable among which are

charitable activities, work for the welfare of women and children, maintaining old

age homes and boarding houses for physically and mentally handicapped,

143

providing interest free loans, grants and subsidies to small businessmen and

hereditary craftsmen, and scholarships and awards for academic brilliance. Besides

this, it has established an Information Guidance and Employment Bureau to help

find jobs for the unemployed [MES, 2011: 6-7].

2.2.2. Muslim Service Society

In order to mould a society with Islamic awareness, modern outlook and

economic stability, the Muslim Service Society (MSS) was formed in 1980 (on 27th

May) at Kozhikkode. It was organized by P.M.Muhammed Koya, M. Abdulrahman,

K.U.Koya Hassan Haji and C.P.Hashim. Since its inception, many eminent

personalities from different walks of life have been associating with the activities of

the organization. It is a platform for all those who are interested in social work,

irrespective of class and age group. The organization is conceived as a selfless and

service-minded social organization functioning with a wide and organized

network. It keeps itself above all divisive tendencies, whether based on political or

religious grounds. Presently, it has about 6,422 members throughout Kerala

[Kareem, 2010]. The organization has a Ladies Wing and a Youth Wing too and it

focuses on the uplift of the community in general and the poor in particular. The

multifarious activities of it extend to awareness programmes against social evils,

establishment of educational institutions, religious preaching and charitable

activities. Currently the MSS administers 26 institutions in Kerala and two in

Tamil Nadu. Among them are seven Medical related centres, five Schools, two

Colleges, one Career Institute and remaining are Hostels and Shopping

Complexes’ [MSS, 2008: 40].

2.2.3. Jama’at Federation

Almost all religious organizations in Kerala concentrate their attention in

the northern part of the State and the Dakshina Kerala Jamiath-ul-Ulama, a forum of

religious scholars formed in 1955, was the only exception. Since the formation, it

has been working uninterruptedly in Kerala society with malice towards none. The

vacuum of a religious mass-organization in the South was filled, when the Dakshina

(Southern) Kerala Jama’at Federation, popularly known as Jama’at Federation, was

144

formed in 1981. The present Kerala Jama’at Federation is the new incarnation of it.

Thenceforth, the Federation has been considered as the apex body of Mahal

Jama’ats in southern districts. There are about 3,000 such units in Southern Kerala.

Structurally, it is a consortium of religious scholars and leaders of the community.

The Imam (religious scholar who administers religious affairs) and the president

and secretary of the local Jama’ats are communication link between the Jama’at

Federation and Mahal Jama’ats. They can easily and effectively, without much

expense and time, communicate the messages of the organization to the members

of the community at the ‘Friday gathering’. The organization co-operates with

other Muslim organizations in general on issues affecting the community. It has no

affiliation with any religious organizations or groups. But it follows the Sunni

traditions without expressing solidarity to the Sunni groups named after either E.K

or A.P factions. Also it has no special concern for or against any political party. It

keeps friendly relationship with all political parties, but without ignoring the

interest of the community [Muhammed, 2010].

All the aforesaid organizations have contributed much to the progress of the

Muslim community of Kerala. Among the political organizations, the Non-

Leaguers, at different times, have succeeded in bringing the lapses of the League to

the attention of the public. It is true that their attempts to address the issues faced

by the community did not succeed in most of the cases. Nevertheless, such

organizations could generate a feeling that the Muslim League is not sufficient

enough to protect the interest of the community. Also the efforts of these

formations in democratising the ‘public sphere’ within the Muslim community

through vigorous debates and discussions on issues of contemporary relevance

need to be appreciated. In order to understand the significance of their

contributions in this regard one has to look at the nature of that ‘public’ sphere in

earlier times. Needless to say, it had been a sphere which was highly religious in

nature with religious leaders calling the shots. It was dipped in conservatism,

traditionalism and orthodoxy. Even discussions and debates were conspicuous by

their absence. In such a social milieu, these political organizations, definitely

inclusive of the Indian Union Muslim League, brought to the fore issues about

145

state craft, governance, secularism, public employment, reservation, education,

social change, constitutional rights and democracy. In a population which felt

isolated, rudderless and fearful of the dominant Hindu community following the

partition of the country, these political formations spoke in a language which has

been reassuring to the ordinary men and women and they also mobilized the

people to the mainstream politics of the State. The general socio-political ambience

of the State has also been conducive to this as the social renaissance movements in

the early twentieth century and the Communist Movement that followed it helped

in democratizing the Kerala Society, unlike many other states in India [Azeez,

op.cit.; Dale, op.cit.; Gopakumar, 1986; Kurup and Ismail, op.cit.; Menon,

1979,1997, 2007; Moulavi, 2002; Nair, 1978; Nair and Menon, 2007;

Namboodirippad, 1984; Nossiter, 1982; Thomas, 1985; and Vilanilam, et.al,

2012].

Thus while the Political organizations have tried their level best to make

politics inclusive through political bargaining and various other strategies, non-

political organizations have done their best in different ways for religious and

educational uplift of the community. The latter’s efforts to serve the community

have been focused more on making people aware of the need for modern

education, abandoning outmoded religious and social practices and administering

institutions to achieve these objectives. All these together have gone a long way in

transforming the attitude of the community towards their existential realities.

Whether it is education or participation in modern occupation, or making best use

of opportunities for geographical mobility (migration to West Asian countries and

even to the countries of the West, including United States of America, for example)

or participation in mainstream social and political issues there was and is a

meaningful change in the outlook of the Kerala Muslims compared to their

counterparts elsewhere in the country and even in many of the Islamic nations.

This change, in a sense, is also inter-generational, ie., there is a perceptible shift in

attitude on all these issues between the older and younger generations. All theses

have helped in creating a great flux in the community which has positive

consequences for the modernization and even democratization of the community.

146

3. Notes

1. Shabanu was a 62-year-old Muslim woman and mother of five children from

Indore, Madhya Pradesh. She was divorced by her husband in 1978 and was

subsequently denied alimony. According to Muslim Personal Law, Shari’at, a

legally separated woman has no claim to get alimony. However, Section 125 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to everyone regardless of caste, creed, or

religion. On this ground, she approached the Court for securing maintenance from

her husband, arguing that she had no means to support herself and her children.

The Supreme Court invoked the above Section and ruled that Shabano be given

maintenance money, similar to alimony, [1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCC (2) 556].

2. The Babri Masjid was a mosque in Ayodhya, a city in the Faizabad district of

Uttar Pradesh. The city of Ayodhya is regarded by Hindus to be the birthplace of

the God Rama and is regarded as one of India's most sacred and religious sites.

The mosque was built by Babur, the first Mughal emperor of India, in 1528, and

was named after him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque]. According to

the Hindu account, it was built after destroying a pre-existing temple of Rama at

the site. At the same time, the Muslims claim that there is no historical record

indicating any destruction, or even the existence of a Hindu Temple at the site

when the Masjid was erected [http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Babri_Mosque].

[Carnegy, 1870; Narain, 1993: 8-9; Van der Veer, en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/

Demolition_of_Babri_Masjid].

3. The LDF government had given INL the Chairmanship of Forest Industrial

Corporation and Direct Board Membership in Oushadhi.

4. In 1980s and 1990s, whenever the most sensitive issues like Shariat controversy and

demotion of the Babri Masjid had taken place, a section of Muslims felt threatened

by the fundamentalist forces belonging to the Hindu community. The Muslim

League could not take a bold stand on such issues satisfying this section, especially

the youth. It was this background that led to the formation of the National

Democratic Front [Elamarum, 2011].

5. Pan-Islamism is a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one

Islamic state, or an international organization with Islamic principles. It is often

like a Caliphate because it aims for a strong and uncorrupted united state of the

world under the Muslims, similar to the period of Muhammed, the Prophet and

the early Caliphate. In this sense, it is Muslim universalism. Historically, Pan-

Islamic movement can be divided into three periods. The first period stretches from

the death of the Prophet to the 18th century. The second, from the 18th century to

1924, when the Turkish National Assembly dismissed Khalifa Abdul Majid and

abolished the Khilafat. The third, period belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries in

which nationalism took the place of Pan-Islamism. In modern times, it was

championed by Jamal al-Din al Afghani (1839-1897) who sought unity among

Muslims to resist colonial occupation of Muslim lands. Instead of constitutional

government, he simply envisioned ‘the overthrow of individual rulers who were lax

147

or subservient to foreigners, and their replacement by strong and patriotic

men.’[For an informed debate read, Keddie, 1972: 225-26; Landau, 1990: 14;

wiki/Pan-Islamism; Aslam, 2012 ].

6. Anas, a teacher in the Ilahiya Arts and Science College in Muvattupuzha, was

alleged to have involved in the criminal case pertaining to the chopping off of the

hand of Prof. Joseph, a Teacher in the Newman’s College, Thodupuzha. The

incident took place in connection with the preparation of a question paper for

internal examination in that college. It was alleged that the question, prepared by

Prof. Joseph, contained some defamatory description about Prophet Muhammed

and this brought a strong protest from among a section of the Muslims. Following

this, a gang of Muslim youth reportedly associated with NDF, attacked him and

his right hand was chopped off.

7. Thouhid means ‘the Oneness of God’ and it is the very base of Islam. The Sunni

sects traditionally observe practices like offerings to the graves of saints, visiting

such places for blessings, invoking their intercession, etc. But Mujahid and Jamat-e-

Islami believe and propagate that such practices are against the spirit of Thouhid.

8. A.V.Abdurahman Haji and Mankada Abdul Aziz Moulavi were one time

Presidents of the Movement.

9. In 2002, there took place a vertical split in the organization with one group, calling

themselves, as the ‘KNM A.P.Faction’ led by T.P.Abdulla Koya Madani and

A.P.Abdul Khader Moulavi and the other group known as KNM (Madavoor

Faction) led by Umer Sullami and Dr.Hussain Madavoor (then leader of ISM,

youth wing of the KNM). Both political as well as philosophical grounds were

pointed out as important reasons for the split [wiki/Kerala_

Nadvathul_Mujahideen : 25.07.2010]. The "AP faction", now has T.P.Abdulla

Koya Madani as President and A.P.Abdul Qader Moulavi as General Secretary

and the "Madavoor faction" is led by Dr. E.K.Ahammad Kutty (President) and

C.P.Ummar Sullami (General Secretary).

10. Traditionally, after the death of the Prophet, Muslims in different parts of the

world largely follow any one among the prominent jurisprudences of Imams Abu

Hanif (Hanfi), Shafi, Hambal and Malik.

11. He was the first ‘amir’ and on his death (in October, 1959), K.C.Abdulla Moulavi

took over the chair.

12. It is the Board that supervises the educational activities of Jamat-e-Islami.

13. The organization was earlier known as the Ideal Students’ League (ISL), formed in

1970. However, it was banned in 1975. Also, at the national level, the Students

Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) formed in Aligarh was supposed as the student

wing of the Jamat-e-Islami, though it was labeled as an independent organization.

14. Though the name ‘Samastha Kerala Sunni Students Federation’ bears the term

‘Students Federation’, actually it does not represent any students union or

148

community, in a general sense. However, the organization itself believes in the

concept that its members remain as students in religious matters in perpetuity.

15. The Markaz is the only institution from Kerala having affiliation and academic

relations with Al Azhar University of Cairo in Egypt.

4. References

Ahamedkutty,E.K (1995), ‘The Mujahid Movement and its Role in the Islamic Revival in Kerala’, in Asghar Ali Engineer (ed.), Kerala Muslims : A Historical Perspective, Ajanta

Publications, Delhi.

,, (1997), Islamum Keralithile Saamuhya Parivarthana Prasthanangalum (M),

K.N.M.Publishing Wing, Kozhikode.

,, (2008), ‘Puthiya Lokhavum Punaralochanayum’ (M), Souvenir, Mujahid State

Conference, Wyanad.

allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/oct92/2.htm, accessed on 05th November, 2012.

angelfire.com/sk/shoukath/salafimovement.html, accessed on 20th April, 2010.

Aslam, Shereen (1992), Pan-Islamism and Iqbal, www.allamaiqbal.com/oct92/2. htm: on 05th November, 2012.

Azeez, Dr. M. Abdul (1992), Rise of Muslims in Kerala Politics, CBH Publications,

Thiruvanathapuram.

Azharali, A (2008), ‘Mujahid Prasthanathil Sambhavichathu (M), Souvenir, Mujahid State Conference, Wynad.

Banu, C.P. Shareena (2006), ‘Influence of Gulf Migration on Identity Assertion Patterns: Denominational Contestation and the Emerging Public Sphere among Muslims of Kerala’, in Hasnain Nadeem (ed.), Islam and Muslim Communities in South Asia, Serial

Publications, New Delhi.

Bari, Parvez (2009), ‘SDPI gives clarion call to fight for freedom fro hunger & fear’. www.ummid.com/news/October/ accessed on 19th September, 2009.

Basheer, E.T.Muhammed (2011), Member of Lok Sabha, personal interview, 20th September.

Carnegy, P (1870), A Historical Sketch of Tehsil Fyzabad, Lucknow. ceokerala.gov.in, accessed on 18th May, 2011.

Elamarum, Nazaruddin (2011), President of SDPI, Kerala, personal interview, 5th August, Thiruvananthapuram.

Election Commission, ‘Statistical Reports of Kerala Legislative Assembly Elections, 1977-2006’,

ceokerala.gov.in, accessed on 18th May, 2011.

Ghosh, S.K (1987), Muslim Politics in India, Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.

Gopakumar, Dr.G (1986), Regional Political Parties and State Politics, Deep and Deep

Publishers, New Delhi.

Government of Kerala, Assembly Election –Turnout, 2011, Election Department,

ceokerala.gov.in

149

Hameed, Cheriyamundam Abdul (2004), Islam: Prasthanangalum Darsanangalum (M),

Yuvatha Book House, Kozhikode.

indianmuslims.info/articles/yoginder_sikand/articles/news_forms_of_is, accessed on 23rd November, 2010.

,, /muslim-organizations-of-kerala, accessed on 15th February, 2009.

junction kerala.com, accessed on 25th July, 2010.

Kareem,T.K.Abdul (2010), General Secretary of MSS, personal interview, on 12th March, at the Headquarters, Kozhikode.

Keddie, Nikki R (1972), Sayyid Jamal ad-Din “al-Afghani”: A Political Biography: University

of California Press, Berkeley.

Khalidi, Omar (1996), Indian Muslims Since Independence, Vikas Publishing House, New

Delhi.

Khan, Maulana Wahiduddin (1994), Indian Muslims : The Need For A Positive Outlook (Translated by Dr.Farida Khanam), Al-Risala Books , New Delhi.

Kurup Dr.K.K.N and Prof.E. Ismail (2008), Emergence of Islam in Kerala in Twentieth

Century, Standard Publishers (India), New Delhi.

Landau, Jacob M (1990), The Politics of Pan-Islam: Ideology and Organization, Clarendon

Press, New York. Madhyamom Daily, 5th October, 2000.

Madhyamom Daily, 7th May, 2010.

Malayala Manorama Daily, 23rd January, 2011.

Mandalamkunnu, Sainudeen (2007), Kerala Muslim Navodhanam, Charithram, Varthamanaum, Vimarsanaum (M), Kaizen Books, Thrissur.

meskerala.com/mes-objectives.htm, accessed on 20th November, 2010.

MES (2011), Rules and Regulation of Muslim Educational Society, Kozhikode.

,, (2012), List of Major Institutions Run by MES, Kozhikode.

,, (2012), Office Details, MES, Kozhikode.

,, (2012), Programme of Work : 4(a), MES, Kozhikode.

Moulavi, A.P. Abdul Khader (2010), General Secretary, KNM, personal interview, 11th March, Kozhikode.

MSS (2010), Office Details, Muslim Service Society, Kozhikode.

Muhammed, Adv.K.P (2010), General Secretary of Jam’at Federation, personal interview,

24th September, Kollam.

Muhammed, P.A.Syed (ed.) (1960), Kerala Muslim Directory.

Nair K.N.and Vineetha Menon (ed.) (2007), Social Change in Kerala: Insight from Macro Level

Studies, Danish Books, Delhi.

Narain, Harsh (1993), The Ayodhya Temple-Mosque Dispute: Focus on Muslim Sources,

Penman Publications, New Delhi.

Panicker, Sukumara. P (1976), The Muslim League in Kerala (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis),

University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

150

Popular Front of India (2011), ‘Saktheekaranathinte Samarapathayil’ (M), Popular Front of India, New Delhi.

Prakash P.K (2010), ‘CPM Vibhagiyathayun Muslimgalum’ (M), Madhyamom Daily,

Thiruvananthapuram, 05th January.

Radhakrishnan, R (2004), Muslims and Changing Political Trends in Kerala (Unpublished Ph’D Thesis), University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.

Rahman, Mujeeb (2011), General Secretary, Jamat-e-Islami Kerala Circle, personal

interview 24th July, Kozhikode.

Ramanadhan (2010), Administrative Officer, MES Headquarters, Kozhikode, on 12th March, at MES Headquarters, Kozhikode.

rediff.com/news/1998/jun/13muslim.htm, accessed on 12.12.2010.

Salafi, Prof. Abdul Rahman (2010), Secretary of KNM and a scholar in KJU, personal interview, 04th July, Kollam.

samasthabahrain.com/institutions.html, accessed on 07.06.2010.

SDPI (2012), SDPI Bharanaghadana (Constitution), SDPI Kerala State Committee,

Thiruvanathapuram.

Sikand,Yoginder (2009), www.indianmuslims.info- svabhinava.org/ meccabenares/ Yoginder Sikand/SiddiqHassanKeralaJamaat.php: accessed on 20th December, 2009.

The New Indian Express Daily, 7th May, 1996 & 22nd October, 2009.

Times of India Daily , 8th November,2009.

twocirlces.net/2010oct28/ sdpi_marks_presence_winning_10_wards, accessed on 17th December, 2010.

ummid.com/news/October/19.10.2009/sdpi_gives_clarion_call_to_fight_hunger.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-04, accessed on 17th December, 2010.

wapedia.mobi/en/Solidarity_Youth_Movement,_Kerala, accessed on 23rd November, 2010.

Wikipedia.org/wiki/ accessed on various dates.

Yoginder Sikand, Kerala Jamaat. www.svabhinava.org/ meccabenares/ Yoginder Sikand/SiddiqHassanKeralaJamaat.php, accessed on 20th December, 2009.

Yoginder Sikand (2010), ‘New forms of Islamic educational provision in India’, Indian

Muslim News and Information, http://www.indianmuslims.info/articles, accessed on

23rd November, 2010.