Kerala: How Anilkumar’s hijab speech put CPM in a spot before LS polls

A speech by Kerala CPI(M) state committee member K Anilkumar on Muslim women who give up headscarves has sparked an emotive response from community groups, raising concerns about potential repercussions for the party and its efforts to maintain trust with the minority community.

It was a session on the uniform civil code organised by the atheist group, Essence Global, which is allegedly Islamophobic in nature and going soft on the right wing. Anilkumar delivered a speech aimed at debunking the allegations directed at his party by the leaders of the atheist organization who had set the tone for the session.

In his address, Anilkumar challenged the grand assertions put forth by the atheists, particularly their notion that religious individuals inherently had a “software problem”. He said: “CPI(M) does not consider a society progressive simply based on its non-religious character, if it is still plagued by extreme poverty and hunger. Similarly, we don’t regard a society as progressive just because it is non-religious if it is also illiterate.

“Thanks to the efforts of the communist party through the education bill and the land reforms bill of 1957, we have achieved equal wages, ensuring minimal hunger in our society. This is a proven fact. If Muslim women are not starving today, credit should be attributed to the Marxist party rather than Essence [Global],” he said.

Muslim women

The Marxist leader went on to question the claims laid by the atheist leaders of the influence they made on Muslim women of Malappuram.

“Consider the progress of Muslim women in our region. Take, for instance, Malappuram district. Has any religious organization been instrumental in their educational advancement? Look at the young girls from Malappuram district — a district established by a Marxist government,” he said.

“The girls who confidently choose not to wear a headscarf when someone dictates it to them are a result of the education provided to them by the communist governments. The impact of the communist movement in promoting freedom of thought is significant.”

From this point onwards, Anilkumar proceeded to strongly criticize what he deemed as a sinister move by the RSS to enforce a civil code that doesn’t even exist. He emphasized that the upcoming 2024 election should not solely be about sending Prime Minister Narendra Modi back to Gujarat but rather rescuing the entire country from the grip of communal division.

Needless to say, the damage had been done, as the latter part of his spirited speech did not sit well with Muslim organisations across Kerala, and even with some Muslim comrades in his own party.

Muslim backlash

Former minister and CPI(M) MLA KT Jaleel was the first to shrug off Anilkumar’s remarks on Muslim women, even before his political adversaries. Jaleel stated that the Left does not advocate for interfering with anyone’s religious beliefs and emphasized that the actions of one individual should not be construed as representative of the entire party’s position.

The CPI(M)’s lone member of the Lok Sabha from the state, AM Arif, too followed suit sharing the Facebook post put out by Jaleel.

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) did not miss the chance to push the communists to the dock. “The CPI(M) has strived all these years to make Muslim girls give up hijab,” and Kumar’s statement was an admission of that, said IUML general secretary PMA Salam.

Almost all the Muslim outfits in the state, barring a section of Sunni leaders who generally back the CPI(M) and the Left Democratic Front, joined the bandwagon, condemning the speech made by Anilkumar, even though he said nothing against or derogatory about the community.

The Jamaat-e-Islami, Mujahid factions and the prominent Sunni faction known as ‘Samastha’ (Samastha Kerala Jamiyathul Ulema) who usually align with the UDF came out against Anilkumar’s speech.

After facing criticism, CPI(M) state secretary and politburo member MV Govindan clarified that the party didn’t align with the viewpoint of its state committee member.

“Wearing what one chooses is a fundamental democratic right. No one should violate that right. Anil Kumar should have refrained from making such a contentious statement,” he commented.

After that, Anilkumar himself backtracked, stating that what the party secretary said was the party’s view point on the issue and as a communist party member he will abide by it.

Defensive CPI(M)

The reaction to Anilkumar’s speech was incredibly emotional and sensitive, particularly from Muslim organizations and Individuals who view the matter through an identity politics lens.

“In the early centuries, when British soldiers invaded our homes, our grandmothers bravely stood against them, firmly asserting, ‘Hands off our hijab’. Today, we echo the same sentiment to these leftists who display Islamophobia, better for them if they respect our choice of hijab,” Fatima Tahlia, a women league leader, said in a TV debate.

The Opposition, led by the Congress in the state, sees this as a chance to win back the minority voters who had leaned towards the Left bloc for the past decade, except during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. On every possible chance they try to equate the CPI(M)-led government and its actions with the Modi regime in the Centre.

“The CPI(M) has politically become a mirror image of the Sangh Parivar. There is no difference between the BJP who banned hijab and the CPI(M) here. Anilkumar’s words are proof for that,” said VD Satheesan, the leader of the Opposition.

This political scenario compelled the ruling party to swiftly disavow its leader who had adopted a seemingly secular stance in response to accusations of appeasement politics towards minorities from an atheist leader.

Appeasement politics?

“Neither the CPI(M) nor the Congress seems willing to openly condemn regressive practices disguised under religious pretexts. In the past, it was primarily the Congress that did this, but now the communists are also following suit. It appears that everyone prioritizes vote banks over ideology,” said Harish Vasudevan, an activist and a lawyer.

“Embracing a progressive outlook, aligned with our constitution, involves allowing women from any community to shed religious symbols. It is important to distinguish between religion and clergy. The prevalent misogyny in various religions is evident in our modern era. I am unsure why believers are fervently covering up the wrongdoings of the clergy,” he said.

A considerable portion of the CPI(M) leadership has expressed dissatisfaction with the unfolding events on the brink of the general elections. Given that the party’s setbacks in the 2019 election was attributed to minority consolidation, most of the party’s leaders aim to foster a positive relationship with the Muslim community.

“What Anilkumar said might be theoretically correct. But the choice of words and venue have a lot to do with it. He should not have accepted the invitation of that right-wing atheist conference in the first place,” said a state level CPI(M) leader. “It was clear that they would deliberately provoke, and once he responded, it provided an opportunity for the entire opposition to interpret it according to their own narrative. The knee jerk responses from Jaleel and Arif also did not good for the party.”

Election fears

Over the last two decades, the CPI(M) had been investing significant effort to garner support from the Muslim minority in the state, achieving moderate success. Apart from the substantial setback in 2019, they consistently maintained the trust of Muslims in Kerala. However, the situation shifted in 2019 when Rahul Gandhi contested from Wayanad, and minorities hoped for a UPA victory at the Centre. 

Despite this, the CPI(M) managed to reverse the situation in the 2020 local body and the 2021 Assembly elections. It is evident that the CPI(M) has been making inroads within the majority Sunni faction of the Muslim community. This is precisely why many in the Left fear that the recent developments could severely damage the party if immediate damage control measures are not taken.