The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala has moved quickly to distance itself from the derogatory remarks made by its state general secretary PMA Salam against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The controversy erupted after Salam’s comments at a political rally drew sharp criticism from across the political spectrum, forcing the IUML leadership to issue clarifications and reiterate the party’s commitment to maintaining civility in political debates. The incident has not only sparked a war of words between the IUML and the ruling CPI(M) but also raised concerns about the declining tone of political discourse in the state.
Salam’s remarks spark outrage and political backlash
At a rally held in Vazhakkad on Saturday, PMA Salam attacked the Kerala chief minister over the state government’s decision to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for implementing the PM-Shri scheme. While making his point, Salam compared Vijayan to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee—both of whom have refused to implement the scheme in their respective states. In an apparent attempt to portray Vijayan as less decisive than his counterparts, Salam made a remark implying that the Kerala CM “does not fit into the category of either a man or a woman.”
The statement immediately triggered outrage, with the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) condemning it as sexist, derogatory, and unbecoming of a political leader. LDF leaders demanded that the IUML clarify its stand and state whether Salam’s comments reflected the party’s official position. Several CPI(M) members took to social media, calling the remarks a new low in Kerala’s political culture and urging opposition parties to ensure that their criticism remains within ethical limits.
The IUML leadership, sensing the growing political tension, was quick to issue a clarification. IUML state president Syed Sadikali Shihab Thangal disowned Salam’s comments and reminded party members of the need for dignity in political engagement. Speaking to reporters, Thangal emphasised that while criticism of policies and governance is acceptable in a democracy, personal insults and derogatory statements have no place in political dialogue. “There can be criticism at a political level,” Thangal said. “But it must never descend into personal insult or demeaning one another. That’s not good.”
IUML’s decision to publicly dissociate itself from Salam’s remarks underscored its effort to contain the damage and reaffirm the party’s image as a responsible opposition voice in Kerala’s political landscape.
Party leaders seek to restore image amid controversy
IUML national general secretary PK Kunhalikutty also issued a statement supporting Thangal’s position, reiterating that the party had always valued respectful communication even in the heat of political debates. “Leaders of the IUML have always spoken with respect about others,” Kunhalikutty said. “At times, there could be a slip of the tongue. The party will fix it. Thangal has rectified him (Salam).” His words signaled that the party was treating the issue as an internal matter, preferring correction over disciplinary action for now.
However, the controversy has continued to resonate beyond the IUML’s internal circles. State general education minister and senior CPI(M) leader V Sivankutty strongly criticised Salam’s remarks, saying they reflected poorly on his character and upbringing. “He should not have spoken like that about our chief minister. He has displayed his culture,” Sivankutty said. His statement further intensified the political debate, turning the issue into a symbolic battle over the tone and quality of Kerala’s political discourse.
Despite being at the center of the controversy, PMA Salam has so far neither apologised nor withdrawn his remarks. Attempts by local media to reach him for clarification or comment have been unsuccessful, as he remains unavailable to the press. His silence has drawn further criticism from rival political leaders and even some IUML supporters, who believe a public apology could have helped defuse tensions.
The controversy comes at a time when the IUML is trying to strengthen its political base in Kerala amid increasing competition from both the Left and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF). The party, historically known for its disciplined leadership and emphasis on respectful debate, has faced similar moments of strain in the past when leaders’ offhand comments created embarrassment for the organisation.
Political analysts note that IUML’s quick response this time indicates an awareness of the risks such controversies pose to its public image. Kerala’s electorate, known for its political awareness and sensitivity to gender and social issues, has often punished leaders who resort to personal or sexist remarks. The IUML’s leadership, therefore, appears determined to steer the conversation back toward policy and governance rather than personalities.
The PM-Shri scheme itself, which triggered Salam’s outburst, has been a politically sensitive issue in Kerala. The initiative, launched by the central government to modernise schools, has met resistance from several opposition-ruled states, including Kerala, over concerns of central interference in state education systems. While Chief Minister Vijayan has faced criticism from some quarters for signing the MoU, Salam’s comments have shifted the debate from policy to propriety, overshadowing the IUML’s intended critique of the government’s decision.
Observers point out that Salam’s remarks may have inadvertently undermined his own argument against the CM’s policies. What could have been a reasoned political discussion on the federal nature of education policy turned into a controversy over language and decorum. The IUML, which has prided itself on being a party of moderation and civility, has been forced into damage control mode at a time when it is also preparing for upcoming local body elections.
Within the IUML, insiders suggest that senior leaders are likely to have an internal discussion about the need for stricter communication protocols during public rallies. Party president Thangal’s public statement, though measured, hints at a possible warning or informal reprimand to prevent similar incidents in the future. For the IUML, preserving its image as a balanced and culturally grounded party remains crucial, particularly as it seeks to expand its appeal beyond traditional support bases.
Meanwhile, the CPI(M) and the ruling Left have used the controversy to highlight what they describe as the opposition’s moral decline. By framing the issue as an example of “cultural bankruptcy” within opposition ranks, the LDF has attempted to turn the episode into a broader political narrative about respect, gender sensitivity, and civility in governance. Ministers and senior CPI(M) functionaries have repeatedly pointed out that Kerala’s political traditions have historically upheld high standards of debate and mutual respect, and any deviation must be called out regardless of party lines.
Political commentators believe that the IUML’s swift condemnation of Salam’s remarks was a strategic move to prevent the controversy from becoming a prolonged embarrassment. “The IUML knows that Kerala’s voters are sensitive to such language,” said one political observer. “They understand that even a small remark can alienate a section of the electorate, especially women and young voters who expect higher standards of dialogue from mainstream parties.”
In recent years, Kerala’s political landscape has seen several controversies triggered by offensive or sexist remarks from politicians across the spectrum. However, the IUML’s prompt distancing from Salam’s comments sets it apart as a party attempting to maintain decorum even while engaging in fierce political rivalry. The episode has reignited conversations within Kerala’s political circles about the need to draw a clear line between legitimate criticism and personal attacks.
Even as the political storm shows signs of subsiding, the incident has left a mark on Kerala’s public discourse. It has reminded political parties that voters increasingly expect their leaders to demonstrate not only policy competence but also decency and restraint in their language. For the IUML, the controversy may serve as a lesson in communication discipline at a time when every public remark can instantly turn into a political flashpoint in the age of social media.
The episode also underscores a larger national trend in Indian politics, where sharp rhetoric often overshadows substantive debate. In an era of 24-hour news cycles and viral videos, politicians frequently face the temptation to make provocative statements that attract attention but carry long-term reputational costs. The IUML’s intervention in this case can be read as a deliberate effort to reassert its identity as a party of moderation, seeking to uphold the values of respectful engagement that once defined Kerala’s political culture.
In the coming weeks, it remains to be seen whether PMA Salam faces any disciplinary action within the IUML or whether the party considers Thangal’s public correction sufficient. For now, the IUML’s leadership appears focused on ensuring that the controversy does not derail its broader political agenda or strain its alliance with the UDF. What began as a local controversy in Vazhakkad has thus evolved into a larger reflection on the ethics of political communication and the importance of maintaining dignity in public life—a conversation that resonates far beyond Kerala’s borders.
