Communist Party of India (Marxist) State committee member K Anilkumar tasted the heat of a boomerang after referring to Muslim women’s hijab (headscarf). His party comrades jumped against him, followed by the party State secretary, and Anilkumar had no other alternative than to go back on his own words. While addressing an atheist conference in Thiruvananthapuram, he said that CPM always stands with women’s progressive ideas, and it was CPM that inspired some women to give up the hijab in (Muslim-dominated) Malappuram.
Immediately, K T Jaleel, LDF (ruling CPM-led Left Democratic Front) MLA and former Minister, opposed him through his Facebook post. The theme of his post is reported to be like this, of course, without mentioning Anilkumar’s name. He says one person’s mistake should not be construed as that of the party. The opinion (Anilkumar’s opinion) on hijab culture is personal. He (K T Jaleel) strongly condemns the method of interpreting an individual’s opinion as that of the party. He narrated his experience of visiting A M Arif’s house when the latter’s mother died: A M Arif performed the funeral rites of his mother, sticking to the religious system. K T Jaleel added that CPM has several believers. K T Jaleel maintained that giving up the hijab is not a symbol of progress. And CPM has not persuaded any Muslim girl to give up the hijab. Giving it up is not a sign of development.
In his Facebook post, K T Jaleel reportedly opined that political leaders and public servants should avoid responding to any group’s emotional issues. They should rely on their judgment and conscience. Personal opinion is acceptable, but it should not give the impression that it belongs to the party they stand for. Communal and political enemies are likely to exploit it.
CPM State Secretary M V Govindan opposed K Anilkumar, too. He said dressing is the right of the individual. The Constitution guarantees it. No one should intrude into it. There is no question of dictating terms in this regard. Secretary said that his party has clarified that there should not be any such reference. K Anilkumar’s statement is different from the party’s stand.
And, A M Arif, the lone CPM MP (LS) from Kerala, has reportedly shared K T Jaleel’s FB post. He told the media that K Anilkumar should have studied the issue well.
Naturally, several Muslim organisations came forward against K Anilkumar’s speech. Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, Indian Union Muslim League and its student wing, the Muslim Students Federation (MSF), have opposed K Anilkumar.
No surprise, Congress leader and LoP V D Satheeshan opposed K Anilkumar’s remarks. He sarcastically asked what is the difference between BJP and CPM.
Later on, K Anilkumar said in his FB post that his and the party’s stands are the same. In other words, he went back on his earlier stand.
The entire episode speaks out about who is calling the shots in CPM. No doubt, the Muslim leaders are in it. The Muslims in CPM strictly adheres to their tradition and religious rites. At the same time, they enjoy their ‘democratic right’ (they call it a Constitutional fundamental right) to ridicule and insult the Hindu faith. When assembly Speaker A M Shamseer recently called Bhagwan Ganpati a myth and Hinduism a faith sans scientific temper, the same M V Govindan and the entire CPM supported him. Congress did not dare to condemn the speaker in strong language, thanks to the minority vote bank they always bank on.
The speaker made the above remarks while addressing the programme of school children. Immediately, Mohammed Riaz, the State Minister and the Chief Minister’s son-in-law, supported him.
The same A M Arif, during the height of the Sabarimala agitation, had told that if the party secretary made a phone call, lakhs of young women would enter the Sabarimala temple (violating the norm that women between the ages of 10 and 50 are not permitted).
Another interesting aspect is to be noted in this regard: K Anilkumar is the State committee member of CPM, whereas A M Arif is reported to be a district committee member. And K T Jaleel is technically not even a holder of CPM party membership, according to party sources. He has been fighting elections as an independent candidate supported by CPM-led LDF. Interestingly, in this particular incident, a State Committee member is ‘corrected’ by workers of lower echelons.
In short, CPM has once again proved that they always stand for the Muslim tradition even though people from within the same society express their dislikes towards some obsolete customs. CPM’s negative attitude towards the Uniform Civil Code is a glaring example.
Comments