Between power and principle: IUML’s dilemma in Kerala

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has entered a difficult phase in its political journey. The party that built its politics on issues concerning the community it represents is now confronting the realities of governance. Since the United Democratic Front (UDF) returned to power in Kerala in May, the IUML has found itself defending, or remaining silent on, decisions that sit uneasily with its stated principles.

Also Read | IUML walks a tightrope over Waqf row, tells Ministers to back UDF with caution

The latest example is the Waqf issue. The Kerala High Court has frozen the functioning of the Kerala State Waqf Board after finding that it was constituted in violation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The amended law requires every State waqf board to have two non-Muslim members and one Shia Muslim member. The board had neither.

The legal issue has quickly become a political one. The State government has informed the High Court that it will reconstitute the board in accordance with the amended law. However, this position directly clashes with the IUML’s stand. The party remains one of the petitioners before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the law. It continues to oppose the provision mandating two non-Muslim members on State waqf boards. This leaves the party in an awkward position. It is fighting the law in one court while being part of a government implementing it before another.

Also Read | INL alleges conspiracy behind proposed Waqf Board reconstitution

While coalition governments survive on collective responsibility rather than ideological purity, the waqf issue cannot be sidelined as a mere administrative matter. It concerns a question on which the IUML mobilised opinion, challenged the Centre, and projected itself as a defender of Muslim institutions. It must now own a government decision that accepts the framework it opposes.

The irony is that the legal setback also offers the party a political opportunity. The previous Left government had appointed the existing waqf board. A fresh board allows the IUML to shape its composition and bring in members of its choice. While the mandatory inclusion of two non-Muslim members goes against its policy, the party also gets a chance to replace a board it did not appoint.

Even then, the perception problem remains. Criticism from sections of the Muslim community, particularly both factions of the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, reflects the discomfort among the IUML’s support base.

A balancing act

The waqf controversy is not an isolated case. The UDF government’s decision to reduce tax on beverages with low alcohol content placed the IUML in a similarly difficult position. The party has consistently opposed liquor in all forms. Yet the Cabinet, of which the IUML is a key member, approved a measure critics viewed as encouraging alcohol consumption.

The party chose coalition discipline over confrontation. While its leaders reiterated their opposition to liquor, they also made it clear that Cabinet decisions would be respected. The message sounded politically safe but not politically convincing. If a party cannot influence policy while sharing power, questions naturally arise about its weight within the coalition.

The PM SHRI issue followed the same pattern. When the Left government had explored the scheme, the IUML had rejected it outright. Some leaders had even declared that PM SHRI would be thrown into the Arabian Sea if the UDF came to power. Today, the UDF government argues that Kerala cannot afford to lose the Central funding linked to the scheme; an IUML Minister now heads the committee examining its implementation.

Taken individually, each decision can be defended as a compromise of governance. Governments cannot function if every coalition partner insists on ideological consistency. But politics is not about isolated decisions. It is about patterns. Within months of returning to office, the IUML has been forced to reconcile three long-held positions with the compulsions of governance. This creates the impression that the transition from Opposition to government has also become a transition from conviction to convenience.

Coalition politics demand compromise. But the question is how much can a party compromise before its supporters begin to ask whether the line between accommodation and abandonment has become too thin. On the waqf issue, more than any other, the IUML finds itself answering that question.

abdul.naha@thehindu.co.in