Congress leader and former Wayanad MP Rahul Gandhi faced flak from the nationalists for calling the Indian Union Muslim League a ‘secular party’ during an interaction with journalists in Washington. When journalists asked Rahul Gandhi about his party’s alliance with the ‘Indian Union of Muslim League’, a Muslim communal party in Kerala, he replied, “Muslim League is a completely secular party, there is nothing non-secular about them…” Defending the Muslim League further in a foreign country, Rahul questioned the credibility of the journalist who posed the question and said that he seemed to be unaware of the party!
Rahul Gandhi’s whitewashing of the Muslim League stands in stark contrast with the so-called Nehruvian secularism as Nehru was a staunch critic of both the All India Muslim League and its prodigy Indian Union Muslim League, which came in existence after the Independence.
In the post-Independent political scenario, Nehru termed the Muslim League (IUML) a dead horse in 1958. If the dead horse is very much alive and kicking even after six decades, the IUML must be thankful to both the Congress and CPM, who still keep harping on Nehruvianism and Nehruvian secular ideals. The Muslim League continues to be the second biggest ally in the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) for more than four decades.
Nehru’s justification for agreeing to the Partition was also on the ground that the Muslim League would have created troubles in Bharat after the Independence. In his last interview in 1964, when an American journalist Arnold Michaelis asked Nehru about the role of Mahatma Gandhi, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and himself in the freedom movement, Nehru said categorically that Jinnah was not involved in the freedom struggle. “In fact, he (Jinnah) opposed it. The Muslim League was started by 1911 and it was started really by the British, encouraged by them so as to create factions. And ultimately that came to Partition.”
“It is better to have Partition than this constant trouble. You see, the leaders of the Muslim League were big landlords who did not like land reform. We were very anxious to have land reforms, which we did have afterwards. That is the reason we agreed for Partition,” Nehru said. He added that the Muslim League would have continued to create troubles and opposed other reforms the new government would have taken and hence decided to go ahead with the Partition.
During his Kerala visit in 1958, slamming the IUML in a speech at Alappuzha, Nehru called it a party of riots, representing all evils present in the world. He also blamed the party for the tragic events during the Partition. “I don’t know what else the Muslim League represents other than the sad and tragic incidents during the Partition. Except for Kerala, the Muslim League flags are not seen anywhere in India. The Muslim League is nothing but a party of riots and a bunch of evil emotions,” said Nehru.
In the present context wherein criticising political Islam and the IUML being misconstrued as Islamophobia, it is pertinent to note that it was Nehru, not Narendra Modi or Yogi Adityanath, who wondered, for the first time, seeing the flags of the Indian Union Muslim League in Kerala. Nehru commented that the IUML flags are seen only in Kerala and are no longer present anywhere else in the country! In retaliation for criticising the IUML and calling it a ‘dead horse’, the Kerala leaders of the Muslim League, Rahul Gandhi’s favourite ‘secular’ alliance partner, called Nehru a Hindu fanatic in 1958! So Narendra Modi was not the first Indian Prime Minister whom the IUML called a ‘Hindutvavadi’. Further, former Chief Minister of Kerala and the IUML leader C H Muhammad Koya warned Nehru that the IUML is not a dead horse but a sleeping lion!
Is the IUML anything more than a Muslim communal party? The answer is no. The IUML, which calls itself a ‘minority party’, has not fielded a non-Muslim minority candidate from any constituency or a Hindu candidate from a general seat since its inception. The role of the IUML in conspiracy and executions of communal riots in Kerala, like the Marad Hindu massacres, is very much evident.
The Marad massacres were two incidences of religious violence that occurred in 2002 and 2003 at Marad Beach in Kerala, India. The 2002 incident led to the death of three Hindus. In this riot, 62 active members of the Indian Union Muslim League were arrested and convicted. In the 2003 Marad massacre, eight Hindus were killed by Islamists. A judicial commission that investigated the incident concluded leaders of the IUML were directly involved in both the conspiracy and the massacre.
Now the defenders of the Muslim League are claiming that it is a secular party founded in independent India and it has nothing to do with the All India Muslim League, which existed before the Partition and its leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah. In fact, the Muslim League is nothing more than a franchise of the Jinnah-led Muslim League, which caused Partition. The Muslim League’s India chapter was formed as per the decision of Muhammad Jinnah at the Karachi conference of the Muslim League in December, 1948. When Jinnah called for his party members from India to form a party at the conference, no Muslim League leaders from North India came forward to take responsibility because of the strong anti-Muslim League sentiments prevalent in the region after the Partition. In addition, all the prominent leaders of AIML from Northern Bharat have already migrated to Pakistan. It was Jinnah who designated Muhammad Ismail, an Islamist from Tamil Nadu, to start IUML in India. Following Jinnah’s diktat, Ismail called a party meeting in Madras. But the leaders from the northern states, including the Muslim League bastion Uttar Pradesh, chose to stay away from the meeting. He invited 147 Muslim League leaders, but only 30 people attended the Madras conference. Of the total of 30 leaders, most came from Madras (including Malabar, which presently forms Northern Kerala), Mysore, and a few from Bombay.
Obviously, South Indian leadership of the All India Muslim League formed the new IUML and the assets of the AIML continued to be with the IUML. For example, Chandrika Newspaper, the mouthpiece of the IUML in Kerala, was started in 1932 by All India Muslim League leaders as the party’s newspaper. Even after the Partition and dissolution of the AIML, it continued to be the mouthpiece of IUML!
Why did Rahul cut a sorry figure in the press conference or whenever he faced questions related to the secular credentials of the IUML? It is because Rahul is well aware of his political predicament. Wayanad, the constituency from where Rahul was elected to the parliament in 2019, comprises three Assembly constituencies from Malappuram district such as Ernad, Nilambur and Wandoor and other constituencies with considerable Muslim League influence. Apart from being a Muslim League stronghold, these regions have another historical significance in connection with the Malabar Hindu genocide of 1921. These regions are considered to be the most affected area in the genocide of 1921. The Muslim League’s rank and file in these regions are the ‘proud descendants’ of the perpetrators of the Hindu massacre, and they still worship Variyamkunnath Kunjahammad Haji, the Islamist leader who executed the mass murders of Hindus as their political icon. After losing his dynastic constituencies in Uttar Pradesh, in order to ensure a seat in the parliament, he has not left with no choice but to concede to Islamic fundamentalism.
