KOZHIKODE: Major fault lines have emerged within the ruling UDF over the PM SHRI issue, with a senior leader of the key ally IUML flatly rejecting front convener Adoor Prakash’s claim that the alliance has approved the implementation of the controversial scheme in the state.
“The issue was not even discussed at the UDF meeting,” IUML stalwart and Industries Minister P K Kunhalikutty asserted, a day after Prakash said the state government would implement the scheme.
With an increasing number of Muslim organisations openly opposing the UDF—and the IUML in particular—over the PM SHRI issue, the ruling front has come under mounting pressure.
Compounding its troubles, the Union government, in a reply to Congress MP Jebi Mather in the Rajya Sabha, clarified that states are free to withdraw from the scheme.
Against this backdrop of growing pressure on both the UDF and the IUML to pull out of the scheme, Kunhalikutty came out with a firm stand on Friday. Speaking to reporters, he said any decision on the contentious scheme would be taken only after the cabinet sub-committee entrusted with examining the issue submits its report. “Once the report is submitted, the UDF and the government will take a call,” he said.
Kunhalikutty rejected outright claims that the UDF had decided to go ahead with the PM SHRI scheme, dismissing them as baseless. He said the UDF convener had merely responded to reporters’ questions “in his own style”.
“Under no circumstances will the UDF accept the Centre’s norms on the school curriculum or the selection of schools under the scheme,” he asserted.
He also trained his guns on the previous LDF government, pointing out that it had signed the MoU for the scheme, citing the need to secure central funds.
Muslim bodies urge UDF govt to withdraw from central scheme
“The MoU was signed by the LDF government. Whether the state can withdraw from the scheme can be decided only after the cabinet sub-committee submits its report,” he said.
Hours after the IUML hardened its stand, the UDF convener appeared to backtrack, saying no decision had been taken to continue with the PM SHRI scheme. Speaking to reporters in Pathanamthitta, Prakash insisted that Kunhalikutty’s remarks did not contradict his statements made a day earlier. He maintained that he had never said the UDF had decided to go ahead with the scheme and clarified that the issue was not discussed at Thursday’s UDF meeting.
Meanwhile, several Muslim organisations have urged the UDF government to withdraw from the PM SHRI scheme. Samastha AP leader Rahmathulla Saqafi Elamaram criticised the move to revive the project, calling it a “betrayal of Kerala”.
He said the previous LDF government had signed the MoU, but put the scheme on hold following strong opposition from the CPI, without accepting any central funds. Citing Union Minister of State for Education Jayant Chaudhary’s reply in the Rajya Sabha to Jebi Mather, he noted that Kerala had not received any funds under the scheme. “Reviving the project now would go down as a black chapter in the UDF’s history. The government should not dilute its stand merely to tide over the financial crisis,” he said.
The Welfare Party of India (WPI) also accused the UDF government of reneging on its election promise to withdraw from the scheme. “The UDF had promised to discontinue the scheme in Kerala. By deciding to go ahead with it, the government has betrayed the people. It is duty-bound to honour the commitment it made to the public,” WPI state treasurer Sajeed K said. Rather than continuing with the scheme, the state should move the judiciary to secure its rightful share of central funds, he added.
Sharafudheen Pilakkal, interim president of the MSF, told TNIE that the student wing has consistently opposed the implementation of the PM SHRI scheme in Kerala. “Initially, the government maintained that since the previous LDF government had already signed the MoU, it could not simply walk away from it.
The Muslim League, too, agreed to proceed on the condition that the Centre would have no say in the state’s curriculum or the selection of schools. We accepted that position then. But the situation has changed now, and we hope the cabinet sub-committee will examine the legal possibility of withdrawing from the agreement. The MSF will also place its stand before the panel,” he said.
