|
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
September 07, 2023
November 25, 2022
India: After much controversy Jama masjid imam agrees to revoke ban on entry of women
https://www.outlookindia.com/national/jama-masjid-imam-agrees-to-revoke-ban-on-entry-of-women-following-controversy-report-news-239885
See related:
Jama Masjid bans entry of women who come without men
The announcement says that in order for women to gain access to Jama Masjid complex, they need to be accompanied by a male member.
SNS | November 24, 2022 4:06 pm
https://www.thestatesman.com/india/jama-masjid-bans-entry-of-women-who-come-without-men-1503133713.html
August 27, 2017
India: Up ahead, bigger battles loom over polygamy, personal laws | Swapan Dasgupta
(The Times of India, August 27, 2017)
Swapan Dasgupta in Right & Wrong | India | TOI
The Supreme Court’s majority verdict against the legality of triple talaq has largely been welcomed by both the government and the more articulate sections of public opinion. Even those in the Muslim community that have misgivings over judicial interference in faith-based community practices appear to have chosen the path of tactical retreat in the belief that there are bigger battles to be fought over polygamy and the principle of separate personal laws. Certainly, the different judgments have ignited a hitherto lazy debate over reforms of Muslim personal laws, and for a civil code that goes beyond faith and custom and is applicable to all Indians.
The significance of the abolition of triple talaq shouldn’t be underestimated. The Supreme Court has heralded the first major modification of Muslim personal laws in 80 years. Nearly 30 years ago, a similar attempt to grant maintenance to divorced Muslim women had faltered because the Rajiv Gandhi government, despite enjoying a brute parliamentary majority, lacked the moral backbone to stand up to sectarian pressure. The Shah Bano saga is, however, unlikely to be repeated now. On the contrary, the end of triple talaq may energise attempts to enlarge the scope of gender justice through either legislation or judicial pronouncements.
India’s socio-political landscape has changed dramatically since 1987-88. First, and very reassuringly, the outlawing of triple talaq has been endorsed by a significant section of Muslim women, particularly from the middle classes. Unlike the past when it was left to the likes of Arif Mohammad Khan to fight a lonely battle, the past decade has witnessed an increasing number of Muslim women willing to speak out against gender injustice. A section of India’s population that had remained invisible in the past are now partially visible. On its part, the women’s movement has shed earlier inhibitions about not speaking out on injustices in ‘minority’ communities.
Secondly, and arguably for the first time since Independence, India has a government at the Centre that is not even remotely susceptible to political blackmail by the clerical orthodoxy. It is significant that apart from Mamata Banerjee and Lalu Yadav, most of the other mainstream ‘secular’ leaders were compelled to welcome the Supreme Court judgment. This, despite their stated position that personal law reform must flow from within the concerned community and not be imposed from above.
A desire to prevent Prime Minister Narendra Modi — who spoke about the regressive consequences of persisting with triple talaq in his Independence Day address — from running away with the credit and acquiring the mantle of social reformer, was a clear factor. Equally, there was the realisation that ‘minorityism’ now carries diminishing political returns. Three decades ago, Rajiv Gandhi was intimidated by the threat of a Muslim revolt against the award of a paltry alimony to an abandoned woman. Modi has no such fears. In Assam and Uttar Pradesh, the BJP demonstrated it is possible to override the sectarian veto through countervailing mobilisation. Paradoxically, the much decried ‘polarising’ approach attributed to Modi and Amit Shah has become the guarantor of the irreversibility of the triple talaq judgment. India’s liberal politics may have its charms but it has invariably succumbed to pressure from the ghettoes.
The real reason why scrapping triple talaq has drawn relatively less flak is because it was an apex court judgment. Had the court directed the government to sanctify the judgment with parliamentary legislation — the minority view of Chief Justice Khehar — the whole business would have become extremely cluttered. The very same parties that welcomed the apex court judgment would have developed second thoughts and been subjected to sustained pressure from Muslim orthodoxy. No doubt the BJP would have loved a battle that would have exposed the existential dilemmas of the ‘secular’ parties — Mamata at least is being honest in her espousal of old-fashioned vote bank politics — but the clash could well have been bitter and ugly, and even have spilled over to the streets.
By being clear in its verdict the judiciary has averted this tension. At the same time it has further increased India’s dependence on judge-made laws, a phenomenon that, in effect, undermines the supremacy of Parliament. It will be interesting to see if Modi’s New India can reclaim the turf in a future battle over polygamy.
In the meantime, India can reflect over why it took seven decades to undo a glaring injustice to Muslim women. And why in the end it was so remarkably easy. As Roosevelt famously said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
Swapan Dasgupta in Right & Wrong | India | TOI
The Supreme Court’s majority verdict against the legality of triple talaq has largely been welcomed by both the government and the more articulate sections of public opinion. Even those in the Muslim community that have misgivings over judicial interference in faith-based community practices appear to have chosen the path of tactical retreat in the belief that there are bigger battles to be fought over polygamy and the principle of separate personal laws. Certainly, the different judgments have ignited a hitherto lazy debate over reforms of Muslim personal laws, and for a civil code that goes beyond faith and custom and is applicable to all Indians.
The significance of the abolition of triple talaq shouldn’t be underestimated. The Supreme Court has heralded the first major modification of Muslim personal laws in 80 years. Nearly 30 years ago, a similar attempt to grant maintenance to divorced Muslim women had faltered because the Rajiv Gandhi government, despite enjoying a brute parliamentary majority, lacked the moral backbone to stand up to sectarian pressure. The Shah Bano saga is, however, unlikely to be repeated now. On the contrary, the end of triple talaq may energise attempts to enlarge the scope of gender justice through either legislation or judicial pronouncements.
India’s socio-political landscape has changed dramatically since 1987-88. First, and very reassuringly, the outlawing of triple talaq has been endorsed by a significant section of Muslim women, particularly from the middle classes. Unlike the past when it was left to the likes of Arif Mohammad Khan to fight a lonely battle, the past decade has witnessed an increasing number of Muslim women willing to speak out against gender injustice. A section of India’s population that had remained invisible in the past are now partially visible. On its part, the women’s movement has shed earlier inhibitions about not speaking out on injustices in ‘minority’ communities.
Secondly, and arguably for the first time since Independence, India has a government at the Centre that is not even remotely susceptible to political blackmail by the clerical orthodoxy. It is significant that apart from Mamata Banerjee and Lalu Yadav, most of the other mainstream ‘secular’ leaders were compelled to welcome the Supreme Court judgment. This, despite their stated position that personal law reform must flow from within the concerned community and not be imposed from above.
A desire to prevent Prime Minister Narendra Modi — who spoke about the regressive consequences of persisting with triple talaq in his Independence Day address — from running away with the credit and acquiring the mantle of social reformer, was a clear factor. Equally, there was the realisation that ‘minorityism’ now carries diminishing political returns. Three decades ago, Rajiv Gandhi was intimidated by the threat of a Muslim revolt against the award of a paltry alimony to an abandoned woman. Modi has no such fears. In Assam and Uttar Pradesh, the BJP demonstrated it is possible to override the sectarian veto through countervailing mobilisation. Paradoxically, the much decried ‘polarising’ approach attributed to Modi and Amit Shah has become the guarantor of the irreversibility of the triple talaq judgment. India’s liberal politics may have its charms but it has invariably succumbed to pressure from the ghettoes.
The real reason why scrapping triple talaq has drawn relatively less flak is because it was an apex court judgment. Had the court directed the government to sanctify the judgment with parliamentary legislation — the minority view of Chief Justice Khehar — the whole business would have become extremely cluttered. The very same parties that welcomed the apex court judgment would have developed second thoughts and been subjected to sustained pressure from Muslim orthodoxy. No doubt the BJP would have loved a battle that would have exposed the existential dilemmas of the ‘secular’ parties — Mamata at least is being honest in her espousal of old-fashioned vote bank politics — but the clash could well have been bitter and ugly, and even have spilled over to the streets.
By being clear in its verdict the judiciary has averted this tension. At the same time it has further increased India’s dependence on judge-made laws, a phenomenon that, in effect, undermines the supremacy of Parliament. It will be interesting to see if Modi’s New India can reclaim the turf in a future battle over polygamy.
In the meantime, India can reflect over why it took seven decades to undo a glaring injustice to Muslim women. And why in the end it was so remarkably easy. As Roosevelt famously said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
March 02, 2017
India: Threatened for rewriting one of the narratives of the ‘Ramayana’, Volga details the rise of intolerance
scroll.in - 2 March 2017
‘Once, we accepted the right to question mythology. Now, we are intolerant': Telugu writer Volga
Threatened for rewriting one of the narratives of the ‘Ramayana’, Volga details the rise of intolerance against a feminist perspective in literature.
Malini Nair
February 24, 2017
India:: ABVP 2.0: Women at the forefront, and a focus on nationalism (Mallica Joshi)
The Indian Express
The protest broke out over a seminar organised by Ramjas, for which Umar Khalid was invited.
From a predominantly male bastion to inducting more and more women into their ranks, protesting ‘anti-national’ events to taking up student issues, they have become the dominating force of student politics at Delhi University in the last three years. This is Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarathi Parishad 2.0.
The student outfit has been at the forefront of almost every issue in the university. In 2015, they protested against a play on communal violence by SGTB Khalsa College as they found it “anti-national and anti-Hindu”. But the student body also took up the case of law students, who were not allowed to write exams because of low attendance. In the protests at Delhi University over the past two days, women — who for many years were mostly missing from protests and marches organised by ABVP in DU — have been at the forefront.
The sloganeering went beyond the standard Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai, with many chanting slogans such as “Afzal ke in yaaron ko, ek jhatka aur do’, ‘Desh ke gaddaron ko, joote maaro….’ and ‘Khoon bhi denge, jaan bhi denge’.
At the helm of the protests were DUSU vice-president Priyanka Chhawri, former president Satender Awana and Ramjas College students’ union president Yogith Rathi.
Chhawri (23), a first-year MA Buddhist Studies student, said, “In the past five years, the number of women who have come out in support of ABVP is very high. This is because of constant efforts by the party to connect with students, by reaching out to them in colleges and classrooms. We have also consciously projected ourselves not just as a party that stands for the rights of students but also as a nationalist force.”
Talking about the change in the way they protest, Chhawri said, “If we can pick up some good things that we see in others, it is a step in the right direction.”
The student outfit won all four positions in the DUSU elections in 2014 — after a gap of 14 years. They repeated this feat in 2015. In 2016, three of the four positions went to the party.
“ABVP has become the strongest student outfit in the country over the past two to three years and this is primarily because we have gained tremendous support of students. In DU, we have stood with students in every little problem they faced. Not that this wasn’t the case before. Our network, however, has grown stronger,” said Saket Bahuguna, national media convener, ABVP.
He was earlier the state secretary of the unit and has studied at DU as well as JNU. Rejecting allegations of violence, he added, “This is a bogey that the Left parties are raising because of our growing popularity. They are scared and can only resort to lies. We stand for the nation, not violence.”
Awana, who was the DUSU president last year, is a very active ABVP member. The 24-year-old is a first year law faculty student.
Rathi (21) is a Ramjas College student, enrolled in History (honours), one of the most prestigious courses in the university.
It was Rathi who first went to the college principal and teachers to protest against JNU student Umar Khalid’s participation in the seminar on Tuesday. “This is a movement that started because students at Ramjas had a problem with Khalid’s participation. We came into the picture only because of them,” said Rathi.
ABVP 2.0: Women at the forefront, and a focus on nationalism
The sloganeering
went beyond the standard Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai, with many
chanting slogans such as “Afzal ke in yaaron ko, ek jhatka aur do’,
‘Desh ke gaddaron ko, joote maaro....’ and ‘Khoon bhi denge, jaan bhi
denge’.
Written by Mallica Joshi
| New Delhi |
Updated: February 24, 2017 8:20 am
The protest broke out over a seminar organised by Ramjas, for which Umar Khalid was invited.From a predominantly male bastion to inducting more and more women into their ranks, protesting ‘anti-national’ events to taking up student issues, they have become the dominating force of student politics at Delhi University in the last three years. This is Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarathi Parishad 2.0.
The student outfit has been at the forefront of almost every issue in the university. In 2015, they protested against a play on communal violence by SGTB Khalsa College as they found it “anti-national and anti-Hindu”. But the student body also took up the case of law students, who were not allowed to write exams because of low attendance. In the protests at Delhi University over the past two days, women — who for many years were mostly missing from protests and marches organised by ABVP in DU — have been at the forefront.
The sloganeering went beyond the standard Vande Mataram and Bharat Mata ki Jai, with many chanting slogans such as “Afzal ke in yaaron ko, ek jhatka aur do’, ‘Desh ke gaddaron ko, joote maaro….’ and ‘Khoon bhi denge, jaan bhi denge’.
At the helm of the protests were DUSU vice-president Priyanka Chhawri, former president Satender Awana and Ramjas College students’ union president Yogith Rathi.
Chhawri (23), a first-year MA Buddhist Studies student, said, “In the past five years, the number of women who have come out in support of ABVP is very high. This is because of constant efforts by the party to connect with students, by reaching out to them in colleges and classrooms. We have also consciously projected ourselves not just as a party that stands for the rights of students but also as a nationalist force.”
Talking about the change in the way they protest, Chhawri said, “If we can pick up some good things that we see in others, it is a step in the right direction.”
The student outfit won all four positions in the DUSU elections in 2014 — after a gap of 14 years. They repeated this feat in 2015. In 2016, three of the four positions went to the party.
“ABVP has become the strongest student outfit in the country over the past two to three years and this is primarily because we have gained tremendous support of students. In DU, we have stood with students in every little problem they faced. Not that this wasn’t the case before. Our network, however, has grown stronger,” said Saket Bahuguna, national media convener, ABVP.
He was earlier the state secretary of the unit and has studied at DU as well as JNU. Rejecting allegations of violence, he added, “This is a bogey that the Left parties are raising because of our growing popularity. They are scared and can only resort to lies. We stand for the nation, not violence.”
Awana, who was the DUSU president last year, is a very active ABVP member. The 24-year-old is a first year law faculty student.
Rathi (21) is a Ramjas College student, enrolled in History (honours), one of the most prestigious courses in the university.
It was Rathi who first went to the college principal and teachers to protest against JNU student Umar Khalid’s participation in the seminar on Tuesday. “This is a movement that started because students at Ramjas had a problem with Khalid’s participation. We came into the picture only because of them,” said Rathi.
February 13, 2017
India: Will anti-women quota stir in Nagaland affect BJP’s plan for a uniform civil code? (Ashwaq Masoodi)
Livemint.com - Feb 07 2017
Can women demand political representation if, under customary law, only men are entitled to run institutions of governance? That’s what the Naga women’s fight is all about
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/jGb6h5jVomZJwoXzW01PRM/Will-antiwomen-quota-stir-in-Nagaland-boost-BJPs-uniform-c.html
February 08, 2017
India - Nagaland: Choose women's rights over tribal custom - Editorials in Live Mint and the Indian Express
[Two editorials speak out regarding opposition to quota for women in Nagaland]
Editorial in Livemint.com, February 08 2017
The elections for urban local bodies in Nagaland—slated to be held on 1 February—have been postponed in the light of violent protests against the provision of 33% reservation for women. The local elections have been due for more than 16 years now. In September 2012, the Nagaland state assembly had passed a resolution opposing the quota for women. However, this resolution was revoked by the assembly in November 2016, clearing the way for the elections to be held. The assembly and the T.R. Zeliang government were responding to an interim order by the Supreme Court in a petition filed by the Naga Mothers’ Association (NMA).
The NMA argues that article 243(T) of the Constitution, which provides for 33% women’s reservation in municipal bodies, applies to Nagaland as well. The opposite view—spearheaded by Naga Hoho, the apex body of Naga tribes—contends that article 371(A) gives precedence to Nagaland’s customary traditions and laws over the laws passed by Parliament. Moreover, the male-dominated tribal bodies assert that Naga society offers equal opportunity to their females obviating the need for any kind of affirmative action.
In reality, no woman has ever been elected to the state assembly in over 53 years of Nagaland’s existence as a state. It has sent a sole woman representative—late Rano M. Shaiza in 1977—to Parliament. The village development boards in the state, on the other hand, do have 25% seats reserved for women. But most of the tribal bodies which act as the custodians of tribal culture and traditions are dominated by men. As a result, the property and inheritance rights are highly skewed against women. This is also a system developed over the years to keep property from being taken outside the community in the eventuality of a woman deciding to marry outside the tribe.
Given the way the arguments are stacked, the first issue at stake here is the writ of the Constitution and the Supreme Court against the power of local customs and traditions. The right of Naga Hoho to speak for local customs can indeed be challenged, but focusing on merely that aspect provides a convenient excuse for not taking the difficult issue head on. As far as gender rights go, Indian laws and community-specific orthodoxies have gone against each other a number of times. The perennial debate on uniform civil code and the recent controversies over the rights of women to enter certain religious places are the best examples.
These debates are just a bit more complex in a state like Nagaland due to its unique history, tribal status, a special relationship with the Union of India enshrined in the Constitution, and the fact of it being riven by India’s longest running insurgency. Even a progressive Indian law can quickly be reduced to a conspiracy by New Delhi to dilute Naga nationalism.
The contest is not confined to the issue of gender rights. It was, for instance in Tamil Nadu, animal rights pitted against local traditions in the recent Jallikattu controversy. One-size-fits-all policies designed in New Delhi without accounting for local and varied granularities have indeed been problematic. But equally, the argument for autonomy has also been misused by communities to perpetuate their own internal inequities. This has certainly been the case for gender rights. A uniform civil code guaranteeing a basic minimum on gender rights is imperative and should be non-negotiable.
The second issue here is one of reservations. Even if the goal of women’s empowerment is a worthy one, is the policy of reservations the right means to get to it? This matter was vociferously debated when the United Progressive Alliance government had introduced a constitutional amendment to institute 33% reservation for women in the legislatures. While some members of Parliament had raised excellent points both in support and opposition of that bill, a few had shown their worst behaviour, forcing the use of marshals to evict them from the house.
The under-representation of women in Indian legislatures is a fact: among 193 countries ranked by Inter-Parliamentary Union, India’s lower house stands at a poor 145 (behind neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal) in terms of women’s representation. But the means to address it can be many. One of the prominent alternatives suggested to reservations in legislatures was reservations in tickets distributed by political parties. But this is not foolproof either as political parties might distribute tickets to women from seats which they don’t expect to win.
Another objection to reservations is that women’s empowerment cannot take place by women winning elections against other women. But the outcomes in local body elections—which provide for women’s reservations—show that women are now steadily eating into the unreserved seats as well. Reservations for women are also less prone to creating entrenched political economies which tend to convert public goods into club goods for a handful.
A former French minister, Françoise Giroud, had once said that women will be men’s equals only if incompetent women could hold important jobs just like men did. Taking the cue, men in Nagaland should concede and the state government shouldn’t.
o o o
Indian Express - February 8, 2017
Editorial
Kohima: The Kohima Municipal Council office which was set ablaze by
Naga tribals during their violent protest, in Kohima on Friday. (PTI
Photo)
The Nagaland government’s decision to defer elections to urban local
bodies shows that it remains in thrall to the state’s powerful tribal
bodies. These influential male-dominated groups fomented unrest over the
state government’s decision to reserve 33 per cent of seats for women
in civic bodies, slated to go to the polls in the first week of
February. The Naga Hoho, the body that represents the state’s 16 tribal
groups, contends that the reservation violates the safeguards to the
tribal customary laws provided by the Constitution’s Article 371A. But
women’s rights groups in the state argue that since municipalities and
town councils are not customary institutions, women should be entitled
to the reservations in these urban local bodies mandated by the 74th
amendment to the Constitution. In the run-up to the elections, the state
government had affirmed its commitment to this constitutional
provision. But by backing off in the face of violence incited by tribal
groups, the Nagaland government has shown its lack of resolve to fulfill
its constitutional obligation to gender justice.
This volte-face could have been foretold. Nagaland delayed the adoption of the 74th amendment by 13 years because the state government did not want to upset the tribal groups. In 2011, women’s groups challenged the state government’s refusal to hold elections to urban local bodies in the Gauhati High Court. In its response, the Nagaland government said it had received representations that opposed the reservation of seats for women “on grounds that it was against Naga customs”. The court found the state government’s arguments “flimsy” and directed it to hold elections. The Nagaland government, however, managed a stay against the order in the Supreme Court. In April 2016, however, the apex court vacated the stay order.
That the state government has unresistingly pandered to the anxieties of the tribal groups says something about its inability to stand above the contradictions of Nagaland’s society. At 76.69 per cent, women’s literacy in Nagaland is far above the national average. Naga women work in fields, excel in business, and as academics and professionals. But customary laws prevent them from claiming rights to land or inheriting ancestral property. Since Rano Mese Shaiza was elected to the Lok Sabha in 1977, no Naga woman has made it to Parliament. The Nagaland state assembly has never had a woman member. It is unfortunate that another chance to resolve these contradictions has been lost.
Editorial in Livemint.com, February 08 2017
Communities can’t veto women’s reservation
A basic minimum on gender rights should be non-negotiable even in a state with special privileges like Nagaland
The elections for urban local bodies in Nagaland—slated to be held on 1 February—have been postponed in the light of violent protests against the provision of 33% reservation for women. The local elections have been due for more than 16 years now. In September 2012, the Nagaland state assembly had passed a resolution opposing the quota for women. However, this resolution was revoked by the assembly in November 2016, clearing the way for the elections to be held. The assembly and the T.R. Zeliang government were responding to an interim order by the Supreme Court in a petition filed by the Naga Mothers’ Association (NMA).
The NMA argues that article 243(T) of the Constitution, which provides for 33% women’s reservation in municipal bodies, applies to Nagaland as well. The opposite view—spearheaded by Naga Hoho, the apex body of Naga tribes—contends that article 371(A) gives precedence to Nagaland’s customary traditions and laws over the laws passed by Parliament. Moreover, the male-dominated tribal bodies assert that Naga society offers equal opportunity to their females obviating the need for any kind of affirmative action.
In reality, no woman has ever been elected to the state assembly in over 53 years of Nagaland’s existence as a state. It has sent a sole woman representative—late Rano M. Shaiza in 1977—to Parliament. The village development boards in the state, on the other hand, do have 25% seats reserved for women. But most of the tribal bodies which act as the custodians of tribal culture and traditions are dominated by men. As a result, the property and inheritance rights are highly skewed against women. This is also a system developed over the years to keep property from being taken outside the community in the eventuality of a woman deciding to marry outside the tribe.
Given the way the arguments are stacked, the first issue at stake here is the writ of the Constitution and the Supreme Court against the power of local customs and traditions. The right of Naga Hoho to speak for local customs can indeed be challenged, but focusing on merely that aspect provides a convenient excuse for not taking the difficult issue head on. As far as gender rights go, Indian laws and community-specific orthodoxies have gone against each other a number of times. The perennial debate on uniform civil code and the recent controversies over the rights of women to enter certain religious places are the best examples.
These debates are just a bit more complex in a state like Nagaland due to its unique history, tribal status, a special relationship with the Union of India enshrined in the Constitution, and the fact of it being riven by India’s longest running insurgency. Even a progressive Indian law can quickly be reduced to a conspiracy by New Delhi to dilute Naga nationalism.
The contest is not confined to the issue of gender rights. It was, for instance in Tamil Nadu, animal rights pitted against local traditions in the recent Jallikattu controversy. One-size-fits-all policies designed in New Delhi without accounting for local and varied granularities have indeed been problematic. But equally, the argument for autonomy has also been misused by communities to perpetuate their own internal inequities. This has certainly been the case for gender rights. A uniform civil code guaranteeing a basic minimum on gender rights is imperative and should be non-negotiable.
The second issue here is one of reservations. Even if the goal of women’s empowerment is a worthy one, is the policy of reservations the right means to get to it? This matter was vociferously debated when the United Progressive Alliance government had introduced a constitutional amendment to institute 33% reservation for women in the legislatures. While some members of Parliament had raised excellent points both in support and opposition of that bill, a few had shown their worst behaviour, forcing the use of marshals to evict them from the house.
The under-representation of women in Indian legislatures is a fact: among 193 countries ranked by Inter-Parliamentary Union, India’s lower house stands at a poor 145 (behind neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal) in terms of women’s representation. But the means to address it can be many. One of the prominent alternatives suggested to reservations in legislatures was reservations in tickets distributed by political parties. But this is not foolproof either as political parties might distribute tickets to women from seats which they don’t expect to win.
Another objection to reservations is that women’s empowerment cannot take place by women winning elections against other women. But the outcomes in local body elections—which provide for women’s reservations—show that women are now steadily eating into the unreserved seats as well. Reservations for women are also less prone to creating entrenched political economies which tend to convert public goods into club goods for a handful.
A former French minister, Françoise Giroud, had once said that women will be men’s equals only if incompetent women could hold important jobs just like men did. Taking the cue, men in Nagaland should concede and the state government shouldn’t.
o o o
Indian Express - February 8, 2017
Editorial
An opportunity lost
In face-off between tribal custom and gender justice, Nagaland government abdicates its responsibility
February 8, 2017 12:04 am
Kohima: The Kohima Municipal Council office which was set ablaze by
Naga tribals during their violent protest, in Kohima on Friday. (PTI
Photo)
The Nagaland government’s decision to defer elections to urban local
bodies shows that it remains in thrall to the state’s powerful tribal
bodies. These influential male-dominated groups fomented unrest over the
state government’s decision to reserve 33 per cent of seats for women
in civic bodies, slated to go to the polls in the first week of
February. The Naga Hoho, the body that represents the state’s 16 tribal
groups, contends that the reservation violates the safeguards to the
tribal customary laws provided by the Constitution’s Article 371A. But
women’s rights groups in the state argue that since municipalities and
town councils are not customary institutions, women should be entitled
to the reservations in these urban local bodies mandated by the 74th
amendment to the Constitution. In the run-up to the elections, the state
government had affirmed its commitment to this constitutional
provision. But by backing off in the face of violence incited by tribal
groups, the Nagaland government has shown its lack of resolve to fulfill
its constitutional obligation to gender justice.This volte-face could have been foretold. Nagaland delayed the adoption of the 74th amendment by 13 years because the state government did not want to upset the tribal groups. In 2011, women’s groups challenged the state government’s refusal to hold elections to urban local bodies in the Gauhati High Court. In its response, the Nagaland government said it had received representations that opposed the reservation of seats for women “on grounds that it was against Naga customs”. The court found the state government’s arguments “flimsy” and directed it to hold elections. The Nagaland government, however, managed a stay against the order in the Supreme Court. In April 2016, however, the apex court vacated the stay order.
That the state government has unresistingly pandered to the anxieties of the tribal groups says something about its inability to stand above the contradictions of Nagaland’s society. At 76.69 per cent, women’s literacy in Nagaland is far above the national average. Naga women work in fields, excel in business, and as academics and professionals. But customary laws prevent them from claiming rights to land or inheriting ancestral property. Since Rano Mese Shaiza was elected to the Lok Sabha in 1977, no Naga woman has made it to Parliament. The Nagaland state assembly has never had a woman member. It is unfortunate that another chance to resolve these contradictions has been lost.
November 07, 2016
India: Muslim women opposing triple talaq, polygamy face attack, but are fighting back
Indian Express
Tahera Apa faces the heat for demanding Muslim personal law be reformed.
In the ten years I’ve known her, she’s never been like this. Between
her “Assalam-o-Alaikum, bhai” and what follows, there’s barely a
moment’s gap. “Main do teen din se bahut pareshan hoon. Aap ko phone
karne wali thee,” (I’ve been very disturbed over the last few days. I
was planning to call you), says Tahera Apa.
What’s causing her pain is what’s causing pain to many Muslim women these days; the “Islam in danger” cry raised by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Just about every Muslim religious body and Muslim leaders across the political spectrum — left parties excluded — have joined the chorus. Be ready to sacrifice your life to save the Shariah, Muslims are being enjoined inside mosques and in Muslim mohallas across the country. Anyone opposing the countrywide signature campaign launched by the Board to resist any “interference” in Muslim personal law is projected as an “enemy of Islam”.
In the belief that they’re defending “Allah’s law”, Muslim men and women are signing up. “They’re even collecting signatures from young children,” report Muslim women activists. Some Muslims who know their Islam better are refusing to sign, publicly asserting that triple talaq, halala marriage and polygamy must be banned. Tahera Apa is one of them.
No maulvi has it in him to cow down Tahera Apa. So they conceive a devious scheme. They’ve been working on her son, brainwashing him into believing his mother is anti-Islam. In consequence, son, mother and the rest of the family have spent several sleepless nights. “Kal ko aapki Islam mukhalif mahila mandal masjid tudwane ki bhee baat karegi. Aap chodo yeh kaam.” (“Tomorrow your anti-Islam mahila mandal will even talk of demolishing mosques. You leave this work)”, the anguished son has been arguing with his mother. There is no way Tahera Apa will give up her activism. But a threat her son hurls torments her, “If you don’t leave the mahila mandal, I’ll immolate myself with my children.” What if, in some dark moment, he acted on his threat?
What comes to the rescue is a little pocket book, a compilation of verses from the Quran on gender relations. Reading them gives the son an idea of Islam that is very different from what the ulema have been telling Muslims. It cools him down, for now at least.
Tahera Apa is not the only Muslim woman facing the heat for demanding that the “inhuman, unjust, anti-women and un-Islamic” Muslim personal law in India be reformed, as it’s been in over 20 Muslim-majority countries. Burqa-clad Zeenat Apa, from another basti in Mumbai, seethes as she narrates what Abu Asim Azmi, the Samajwadi Party MLA, reportedly said at a public meeting, “Agar chaar shadiyaan nahi karenge to kya hamari bewa auraton ko kothe pe bithayenge?” (If we’re prohibited from marrying four women, should we send our widows to brothels?). Azmi later “clarified” that he was only talking of women from his family, not Muslim women in general.
A few days later, Muslim women from Zeenat Apa’s basti who were running a counter-signature campaign supporting reforms were jostled and abused by a group of men. “Since then, even women who want triple talaq, halala and polygamy to go have been bullied into signing in the Board’s support,” she says.
But at a gathering of 25 Muslim women from across Mumbai, the mood is upbeat. “Deen aur dastoor dono hamaare haq mein hai. Hum ladenge, hum peechay nahin hatenge.” (Both the Quran and the Constitution are on our side. We will fight, we will not withdraw), they asserted with confidence. Of course, Tahera Apa was there.
Battles in the basti
Muslim women opposing triple talaq, polygamy face attack, but are fighting back.
Written by Javed Anand
|
Published:November 7, 2016 1:12 am
Tahera Apa faces the heat for demanding Muslim personal law be reformed.
In the ten years I’ve known her, she’s never been like this. Between
her “Assalam-o-Alaikum, bhai” and what follows, there’s barely a
moment’s gap. “Main do teen din se bahut pareshan hoon. Aap ko phone
karne wali thee,” (I’ve been very disturbed over the last few days. I
was planning to call you), says Tahera Apa.What’s causing her pain is what’s causing pain to many Muslim women these days; the “Islam in danger” cry raised by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). Just about every Muslim religious body and Muslim leaders across the political spectrum — left parties excluded — have joined the chorus. Be ready to sacrifice your life to save the Shariah, Muslims are being enjoined inside mosques and in Muslim mohallas across the country. Anyone opposing the countrywide signature campaign launched by the Board to resist any “interference” in Muslim personal law is projected as an “enemy of Islam”.
In the belief that they’re defending “Allah’s law”, Muslim men and women are signing up. “They’re even collecting signatures from young children,” report Muslim women activists. Some Muslims who know their Islam better are refusing to sign, publicly asserting that triple talaq, halala marriage and polygamy must be banned. Tahera Apa is one of them.
No maulvi has it in him to cow down Tahera Apa. So they conceive a devious scheme. They’ve been working on her son, brainwashing him into believing his mother is anti-Islam. In consequence, son, mother and the rest of the family have spent several sleepless nights. “Kal ko aapki Islam mukhalif mahila mandal masjid tudwane ki bhee baat karegi. Aap chodo yeh kaam.” (“Tomorrow your anti-Islam mahila mandal will even talk of demolishing mosques. You leave this work)”, the anguished son has been arguing with his mother. There is no way Tahera Apa will give up her activism. But a threat her son hurls torments her, “If you don’t leave the mahila mandal, I’ll immolate myself with my children.” What if, in some dark moment, he acted on his threat?
What comes to the rescue is a little pocket book, a compilation of verses from the Quran on gender relations. Reading them gives the son an idea of Islam that is very different from what the ulema have been telling Muslims. It cools him down, for now at least.
Tahera Apa is not the only Muslim woman facing the heat for demanding that the “inhuman, unjust, anti-women and un-Islamic” Muslim personal law in India be reformed, as it’s been in over 20 Muslim-majority countries. Burqa-clad Zeenat Apa, from another basti in Mumbai, seethes as she narrates what Abu Asim Azmi, the Samajwadi Party MLA, reportedly said at a public meeting, “Agar chaar shadiyaan nahi karenge to kya hamari bewa auraton ko kothe pe bithayenge?” (If we’re prohibited from marrying four women, should we send our widows to brothels?). Azmi later “clarified” that he was only talking of women from his family, not Muslim women in general.
A few days later, Muslim women from Zeenat Apa’s basti who were running a counter-signature campaign supporting reforms were jostled and abused by a group of men. “Since then, even women who want triple talaq, halala and polygamy to go have been bullied into signing in the Board’s support,” she says.
But at a gathering of 25 Muslim women from across Mumbai, the mood is upbeat. “Deen aur dastoor dono hamaare haq mein hai. Hum ladenge, hum peechay nahin hatenge.” (Both the Quran and the Constitution are on our side. We will fight, we will not withdraw), they asserted with confidence. Of course, Tahera Apa was there.
The writer is general secretary, Muslims for Secular Democracy, and co-editor, ‘Communalism Combat’
October 08, 2016
India: Retrograde Gender Politics on the Bench
The Wire
Hindu Divorce Case: Retrograde Gender Politics on the Bench
By Ratna Kapur on 08/10/2016
The judgment exemplifies the need for judges to be trained not only in how to treat women as equal citizens of India – rather than as someone’s wife, daughter or sister – but also in India’s heterogeneous cultural histories.
File photo of the Supreme Court. Credit: Shome Basu
File photo of the Supreme Court. Credit: Shome Basu
While Polish women are demonstrating successfully to secure a woman’s right to choose and pushing back against a draconian law to outlaw abortion, and Saudi women are hashtagging “I am my own guardian,” the Indian Supreme Court has just handed down a decision that reinforces male privileges and the subordinates the role of women in the family.
The decision that a Hindu son has the right to divorce a Hindu woman who does not subscribe to the position that a Hindu son should support his parents, is not only alarming, it wreaks of nothing less than a narrow, repressive mentality that reinscribes Indian/Hindu women as second class citizens.
The case involved allegations of cruelty by a husband, who claimed that since shortly after their marriage in 1992, his wife would constantly accuse him of infidelity and also insisted that the couple live independently and apart from his parents. Furthermore, the wife threatened to commit suicide, and according to the court records, made a failed attempt to do so in 1995. The trial court granted the husband a decree of divorce in 2001, but the decision was overturned by the Karnataka high court. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the wife’s lawyer failed to appear, and the appeal was thus decided entirely on the basis of the arguments presented by the husband’s advocate. While it would have been entirely possible for the Supreme Court to uphold the trial court’s decision without pontificating on the moral and cultural duties of a Hindu son and Hindu women, for some inexplicable reason, Justice A.R. Dave took it upon himself to deliver precisely such a sermon.
Justice Dave held that the behaviour of the wife was “terrible and horrifying” and that no husband should have to tolerate it. More significantly, he held that it was neither a common practice nor desirable “for a Hindu son in India to get separated from [his] parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife” and that every son owes a “moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain [his] parents.” The justification for this holding was based not only on providing economic support for them, but also because apparently people in India do not “subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage.” A son maintaining his parents was normal in “Hindu society” and that the wife’s expectation to be supported from [his] income, upheld as a reasonable one by the high court, was unjustified and violated the Hindu son’s “pious obligations.” The idea that the Hindu wife is integral to the husband’s family was part of “normal practice” and it was unreasonable for her to insist of living separately from the family.
The judge’s views fit within a mindset that continues to regard Hindu (and non-Hindu) women as not only less than human, an appendage to men, but also allocates their rights according to the performance of their familial roles as good wives, mothers, daughters and sisters. Furthermore, it renders Hinduism as a restrictive, discriminatory and regressive tradition, where Hindu women’s roles are only ever understood as serving the husband/Hindu son, and ensuring that her behaviour does not upset his “tranquility and peace of mind.”
Glaring man, despairing woman. Credit: Quinn Dombrowski/Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0
Glaring man, despairing woman. Credit: Quinn Dombrowski/Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0
At the precise moment when women’s rights are in jeopardy in India, with the anti-diluvian view that marital rape should continue to be exempted from the rape law, when women are given less rights within marriage than outside of marriage, and when gender equality continues to be set up in opposition to and subverted in the interests of a narrow and myopic interpretation of faith, the Supreme Court’s views are a cause of both continuing alarm and outrage. Justice Dave’s reading of faith and the obligations of the Hindu son are presented as natural and self-evident – a part of common sense that no reasonable person can imagine as different. The argument here is not that the decree for divorce should not have been upheld, especially given that the couple had not lived together for more than two decades; the argument is that to justify the holding in terms of women’s traditional familial roles undermines the court’s central role as bestowing and upholding rights, rather than as an exponent of conservative sexual and familial morality or serving as a platform for a judge’s subjective views of what constitutes legitimate “Hindu” beliefs and practices.
The bench has exposed its gender and deeply myopic religious biases, exemplifying the need for the training and education of judges not only in how to treat women as equal citizens of India – rather than as someone’s wife, daughter or sister – but also in India’s heterogeneous cultural histories.
The struggle for gender equality in the public and private domain in India remains elusive. The elimination of social and legal marginalisation of women especially within the family – where the pursuit of egalitarianism, not the break-up of the family which feminists are often accused of facilitating, is central – is an integral feature of the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian constitution. Scholars and activists have insisted that India can only achieve its proper place in the global arena when it treats all its women as full citizens, rather than as lesser beings as in the case unequal wages or marital rape, or as sub-humans, as in the case of sex-workers or lesbian women.
Negating diversity
Justice Dave’s unsolicited views in this case continue to favour a hegemonic understanding of Hinduism as well as the assumption that the dominant family form that exists within India is and should remain heteronormative, Hindu, joint, and based on male privilege. By validating this family form, he negates the diverse and heterogeneous ways in which people live their lives in India and also undermines the pluralistic features not only of Hinduism, but of all faiths, where Indian society cannot and should not be equated exclusively with “Hindu society.”
This case is a drag anchor on women’s rights and represents a shameful display of the gender and religious biases of the judges. The decision suggests that the court was more interested in sending a political message that a specific family form must be rescued from potential disintegration as well as addressing the anxieties over what this would mean for men. In the process, it has eradicated the hard fought for space for the recognition of multiplicity and different family forms as well as the struggle for the recognition of gender equality within these diverse forms. The importance of family does not rest in Justice Dave’s singular conception, but in the different perceptions and experience of family by different caste, class, religious and sexual sub-groups. It becomes a bastion of strength when such groups are under siege from a majoritarian politics that is intent on eradicating difference and diversity. The court’s reductive and narrow holding just made the work of gender equality and the recognition of difference all the harder.
Ratna Kapur is the author of ‘Gender Equality in Indian Constitutional Law’
Hindu Divorce Case: Retrograde Gender Politics on the Bench
By Ratna Kapur on 08/10/2016
The judgment exemplifies the need for judges to be trained not only in how to treat women as equal citizens of India – rather than as someone’s wife, daughter or sister – but also in India’s heterogeneous cultural histories.
File photo of the Supreme Court. Credit: Shome Basu
File photo of the Supreme Court. Credit: Shome Basu
While Polish women are demonstrating successfully to secure a woman’s right to choose and pushing back against a draconian law to outlaw abortion, and Saudi women are hashtagging “I am my own guardian,” the Indian Supreme Court has just handed down a decision that reinforces male privileges and the subordinates the role of women in the family.
The decision that a Hindu son has the right to divorce a Hindu woman who does not subscribe to the position that a Hindu son should support his parents, is not only alarming, it wreaks of nothing less than a narrow, repressive mentality that reinscribes Indian/Hindu women as second class citizens.
The case involved allegations of cruelty by a husband, who claimed that since shortly after their marriage in 1992, his wife would constantly accuse him of infidelity and also insisted that the couple live independently and apart from his parents. Furthermore, the wife threatened to commit suicide, and according to the court records, made a failed attempt to do so in 1995. The trial court granted the husband a decree of divorce in 2001, but the decision was overturned by the Karnataka high court. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the wife’s lawyer failed to appear, and the appeal was thus decided entirely on the basis of the arguments presented by the husband’s advocate. While it would have been entirely possible for the Supreme Court to uphold the trial court’s decision without pontificating on the moral and cultural duties of a Hindu son and Hindu women, for some inexplicable reason, Justice A.R. Dave took it upon himself to deliver precisely such a sermon.
Justice Dave held that the behaviour of the wife was “terrible and horrifying” and that no husband should have to tolerate it. More significantly, he held that it was neither a common practice nor desirable “for a Hindu son in India to get separated from [his] parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife” and that every son owes a “moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain [his] parents.” The justification for this holding was based not only on providing economic support for them, but also because apparently people in India do not “subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage.” A son maintaining his parents was normal in “Hindu society” and that the wife’s expectation to be supported from [his] income, upheld as a reasonable one by the high court, was unjustified and violated the Hindu son’s “pious obligations.” The idea that the Hindu wife is integral to the husband’s family was part of “normal practice” and it was unreasonable for her to insist of living separately from the family.
The judge’s views fit within a mindset that continues to regard Hindu (and non-Hindu) women as not only less than human, an appendage to men, but also allocates their rights according to the performance of their familial roles as good wives, mothers, daughters and sisters. Furthermore, it renders Hinduism as a restrictive, discriminatory and regressive tradition, where Hindu women’s roles are only ever understood as serving the husband/Hindu son, and ensuring that her behaviour does not upset his “tranquility and peace of mind.”
Glaring man, despairing woman. Credit: Quinn Dombrowski/Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0
Glaring man, despairing woman. Credit: Quinn Dombrowski/Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0
At the precise moment when women’s rights are in jeopardy in India, with the anti-diluvian view that marital rape should continue to be exempted from the rape law, when women are given less rights within marriage than outside of marriage, and when gender equality continues to be set up in opposition to and subverted in the interests of a narrow and myopic interpretation of faith, the Supreme Court’s views are a cause of both continuing alarm and outrage. Justice Dave’s reading of faith and the obligations of the Hindu son are presented as natural and self-evident – a part of common sense that no reasonable person can imagine as different. The argument here is not that the decree for divorce should not have been upheld, especially given that the couple had not lived together for more than two decades; the argument is that to justify the holding in terms of women’s traditional familial roles undermines the court’s central role as bestowing and upholding rights, rather than as an exponent of conservative sexual and familial morality or serving as a platform for a judge’s subjective views of what constitutes legitimate “Hindu” beliefs and practices.
The bench has exposed its gender and deeply myopic religious biases, exemplifying the need for the training and education of judges not only in how to treat women as equal citizens of India – rather than as someone’s wife, daughter or sister – but also in India’s heterogeneous cultural histories.
The struggle for gender equality in the public and private domain in India remains elusive. The elimination of social and legal marginalisation of women especially within the family – where the pursuit of egalitarianism, not the break-up of the family which feminists are often accused of facilitating, is central – is an integral feature of the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian constitution. Scholars and activists have insisted that India can only achieve its proper place in the global arena when it treats all its women as full citizens, rather than as lesser beings as in the case unequal wages or marital rape, or as sub-humans, as in the case of sex-workers or lesbian women.
Negating diversity
Justice Dave’s unsolicited views in this case continue to favour a hegemonic understanding of Hinduism as well as the assumption that the dominant family form that exists within India is and should remain heteronormative, Hindu, joint, and based on male privilege. By validating this family form, he negates the diverse and heterogeneous ways in which people live their lives in India and also undermines the pluralistic features not only of Hinduism, but of all faiths, where Indian society cannot and should not be equated exclusively with “Hindu society.”
This case is a drag anchor on women’s rights and represents a shameful display of the gender and religious biases of the judges. The decision suggests that the court was more interested in sending a political message that a specific family form must be rescued from potential disintegration as well as addressing the anxieties over what this would mean for men. In the process, it has eradicated the hard fought for space for the recognition of multiplicity and different family forms as well as the struggle for the recognition of gender equality within these diverse forms. The importance of family does not rest in Justice Dave’s singular conception, but in the different perceptions and experience of family by different caste, class, religious and sexual sub-groups. It becomes a bastion of strength when such groups are under siege from a majoritarian politics that is intent on eradicating difference and diversity. The court’s reductive and narrow holding just made the work of gender equality and the recognition of difference all the harder.
Ratna Kapur is the author of ‘Gender Equality in Indian Constitutional Law’
June 13, 2016
India: Laws that accord secondary status to women need to be reformed says Ram Puniyani
[Well meaning activists have been saying exactly this for for over 30 years but to no avail. Reform from with-in is the only song they play. Talking of a common law that applies to all citizens is such a big taboo among the secularists and feminists, the less said the better . . . - editor Communalism Watch ]
The Indian Express
Nothing personal about it
Laws that accord secondary status to women need to be reformed.
Written by Ram Puniyani | Published: June 13, 2016 2:49 am
The personal law question needs to be understood in the context of patriarchy. All reform movements that challenge patriarchy call for our support. (Express Photo: Javed Raja)
Many social practices that reflect social inequalities hide behind the cover of religion. Personal laws under British administrators were drawn from diverse sources. It reflected the gender prejudices of its times since the interpreters of “religion” have been mostly men. The process of reforming regressive practices also began during the British rule. Reformers ended practices like Sati and child marriage. Conservative sections in the society opposed these reforms and insisted that these be preserved in the name of “defence” of religion.
Many campaigns for social reform are continuing among both Hindu and Muslim communities. Some of the campaigns to let women enter temples where they were not allowed — like Shani Shingnapur — have been effective. Similarly, Muslim women are demanding entry to Haji Ali Dargah, where they are not allowed since the past five years. It is against this background that the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) launched a campaign against triple talaq. A survey done by BMMA shows that around 92 per cent Muslim women are opposed to this abominable practice.
The BMMA has already collected the signatures of 50,000 Muslim women to oppose the triple talaq and also to oppose talaq halala. In triple talaq, a man can pronounce talaq three times and throw the wife out of the house. In talaq halala, if the husband decides to take her back, she has to get married to someone else, consummate the marriage, and then divorce the new husband before she can return to the earlier husband. Many maulanas offer this service of being “temporary husbands”.
As per the BMMA, both these practices are un-Islamic. It points out that such practices are not mentioned in the Quran. A memorandum submitted to National Commission for Women mentions that, “The instant method of divorce has no mention in the Quran. In fact, the Quranic method requires a 90-day process of dialogue, reconciliation and mediation before divorce takes place.” Many Islamic scholars endorse the BMMA’s stand. However, the Muslim personal law board and Jamaat-e-Isalmi do not agree with the BMMA. The Jamaat is planning a campaign to oppose the efforts of Muslim women for reforming personal laws. There are many progressive groups, prominent activists and writers from the community, who have declared solidarity with the agitating women. However, these people are being dubbed by conservatives as supporters of Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a pet theme of the BJP and the RSS.
The fact is triple talaq is banned in over 21 Muslim majority countries including Pakistan. The rights of religious minorities for culture, right to life and affirmative action need to be supported. At the same time, the process of reform within the community must also be upheld and supported on moral, social and legal grounds.
The demand for personal law reforms by Muslim women and the BJP-RSS call for UCC are not comparable. The RSS is inherently patriarchal and its pro-UCC stance is merely to intimidate the religious minorities. The same RSS had opposed the Hindu Code Bill (HCB) drafted by Babasaheb Ambedkar. The RSS was against the reforms proposed in the HCB. The opposition from conservatives in the Hindu community, including many elements in the Congress, forced the Nehru government to dilute Ambedkar’s draft of the HCB.
RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar was a strong opponent of UCC. Later, in the wake of Shah Bano judgment, when dominant Muslim groups opposed the court ruling in the name of Muslim personal law, the RSS began to demand UCC. In any case, UCC was initially a demand of the women’s movement.
The basic point which emerged from the making of the HCB was that most personal laws reflect the hierarchical notions of society and thereby accord secondary status to women. So what we need are gender just personal laws. The gender just code in turn has to be the same for all the communities and, hence, it will be uniform. Gender justice has to be the basis of uniformity; blind uniformity may turn out to be most unjust for women.
Can non-Muslims opine on the issue of Muslim personal laws? This writer wants the rights of minorities to be respected across nations. This includes the rights of women, who are a minority in power structures. Movements like the BMMA seeks to reform personal laws by exploring the space available within the Quran. Needless to say, there are multiple interpretations of the Quran. The BMMA, which strives to privillege the humane and just aspects of the teachings of a religion, needs to be supported.
The personal law question needs to be understood in the context of patriarchy. All reform movements that challenge patriarchy call for our support. Gender equality has to be prioritised over conservative interpretations of religious scholars. We do need to say a big no to triple talaq and polygamy.
The writer is chairman, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai
The Indian Express
Nothing personal about it
Laws that accord secondary status to women need to be reformed.
Written by Ram Puniyani | Published: June 13, 2016 2:49 am
The personal law question needs to be understood in the context of patriarchy. All reform movements that challenge patriarchy call for our support. (Express Photo: Javed Raja)
Many social practices that reflect social inequalities hide behind the cover of religion. Personal laws under British administrators were drawn from diverse sources. It reflected the gender prejudices of its times since the interpreters of “religion” have been mostly men. The process of reforming regressive practices also began during the British rule. Reformers ended practices like Sati and child marriage. Conservative sections in the society opposed these reforms and insisted that these be preserved in the name of “defence” of religion.
Many campaigns for social reform are continuing among both Hindu and Muslim communities. Some of the campaigns to let women enter temples where they were not allowed — like Shani Shingnapur — have been effective. Similarly, Muslim women are demanding entry to Haji Ali Dargah, where they are not allowed since the past five years. It is against this background that the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) launched a campaign against triple talaq. A survey done by BMMA shows that around 92 per cent Muslim women are opposed to this abominable practice.
The BMMA has already collected the signatures of 50,000 Muslim women to oppose the triple talaq and also to oppose talaq halala. In triple talaq, a man can pronounce talaq three times and throw the wife out of the house. In talaq halala, if the husband decides to take her back, she has to get married to someone else, consummate the marriage, and then divorce the new husband before she can return to the earlier husband. Many maulanas offer this service of being “temporary husbands”.
As per the BMMA, both these practices are un-Islamic. It points out that such practices are not mentioned in the Quran. A memorandum submitted to National Commission for Women mentions that, “The instant method of divorce has no mention in the Quran. In fact, the Quranic method requires a 90-day process of dialogue, reconciliation and mediation before divorce takes place.” Many Islamic scholars endorse the BMMA’s stand. However, the Muslim personal law board and Jamaat-e-Isalmi do not agree with the BMMA. The Jamaat is planning a campaign to oppose the efforts of Muslim women for reforming personal laws. There are many progressive groups, prominent activists and writers from the community, who have declared solidarity with the agitating women. However, these people are being dubbed by conservatives as supporters of Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a pet theme of the BJP and the RSS.
The fact is triple talaq is banned in over 21 Muslim majority countries including Pakistan. The rights of religious minorities for culture, right to life and affirmative action need to be supported. At the same time, the process of reform within the community must also be upheld and supported on moral, social and legal grounds.
The demand for personal law reforms by Muslim women and the BJP-RSS call for UCC are not comparable. The RSS is inherently patriarchal and its pro-UCC stance is merely to intimidate the religious minorities. The same RSS had opposed the Hindu Code Bill (HCB) drafted by Babasaheb Ambedkar. The RSS was against the reforms proposed in the HCB. The opposition from conservatives in the Hindu community, including many elements in the Congress, forced the Nehru government to dilute Ambedkar’s draft of the HCB.
RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar was a strong opponent of UCC. Later, in the wake of Shah Bano judgment, when dominant Muslim groups opposed the court ruling in the name of Muslim personal law, the RSS began to demand UCC. In any case, UCC was initially a demand of the women’s movement.
The basic point which emerged from the making of the HCB was that most personal laws reflect the hierarchical notions of society and thereby accord secondary status to women. So what we need are gender just personal laws. The gender just code in turn has to be the same for all the communities and, hence, it will be uniform. Gender justice has to be the basis of uniformity; blind uniformity may turn out to be most unjust for women.
Can non-Muslims opine on the issue of Muslim personal laws? This writer wants the rights of minorities to be respected across nations. This includes the rights of women, who are a minority in power structures. Movements like the BMMA seeks to reform personal laws by exploring the space available within the Quran. Needless to say, there are multiple interpretations of the Quran. The BMMA, which strives to privillege the humane and just aspects of the teachings of a religion, needs to be supported.
The personal law question needs to be understood in the context of patriarchy. All reform movements that challenge patriarchy call for our support. Gender equality has to be prioritised over conservative interpretations of religious scholars. We do need to say a big no to triple talaq and polygamy.
The writer is chairman, Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai
June 08, 2016
Press release: Concerned Muslim men support demand for abolition of triple talaq, nikaah-halala as practiced in India
Muslim Men for Gender Justice
June 8, 2016 PRESS STATEMENT: In support of the demand for abolition of triple talaq and nikaah-halala as practiced in India
We, the undersigned, believe that gender equality and justice are human rights issues which must be as much a matter of concern for men as for women. If anything, it is more so men’s obligation to cry a halt to patriarchy, particularly when it is sought to be perpetuated in the name of God.
We therefore fully support the campaign launched by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) and other Muslim organisations and individuals for the abolition, and declaration as illegal, of triple talaq (instant divorce) and nikaah- halala as being practiced in India. We salute BMMA for its initiative in collecting 50,000 signatures from across the country in support of their demand, as also the Muslim women victims of instant divorce who are seeking justice from the Supreme Court of India.
While the triple talaq method of instant divorce is today banned in more than 21 Muslim majority countries, including Pakistan, it continues to be justified by the ulema in India as legally valid, even though theologically repugnant.
We categorically reject the false claim of the ulema that what goes in the name of Muslim Personal Law in India is a “God-given” law. As BMMA has rightly pointed out, there is no mention of the inhuman, unjust and anti-women instant talaq practice in the Quran. In fact, the Quran clearly stipulates an obligatory three- month period during which attempts must be made at reconciliation and mediation before severing of the marital bond.
June 8, 2016 PRESS STATEMENT: In support of the demand for abolition of triple talaq and nikaah-halala as practiced in India
We, the undersigned, believe that gender equality and justice are human rights issues which must be as much a matter of concern for men as for women. If anything, it is more so men’s obligation to cry a halt to patriarchy, particularly when it is sought to be perpetuated in the name of God.
We therefore fully support the campaign launched by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) and other Muslim organisations and individuals for the abolition, and declaration as illegal, of triple talaq (instant divorce) and nikaah- halala as being practiced in India. We salute BMMA for its initiative in collecting 50,000 signatures from across the country in support of their demand, as also the Muslim women victims of instant divorce who are seeking justice from the Supreme Court of India.
While the triple talaq method of instant divorce is today banned in more than 21 Muslim majority countries, including Pakistan, it continues to be justified by the ulema in India as legally valid, even though theologically repugnant.
We categorically reject the false claim of the ulema that what goes in the name of Muslim Personal Law in India is a “God-given” law. As BMMA has rightly pointed out, there is no mention of the inhuman, unjust and anti-women instant talaq practice in the Quran. In fact, the Quran clearly stipulates an obligatory three- month period during which attempts must be made at reconciliation and mediation before severing of the marital bond.
Equally, triple talaq violates the Constitutional principles of gender parity and
non-discrimination. Thus this obnoxious instant divorce practice is both un-
Quranic and un-Constitutional.
The ulema who proudly proclaim that Islam is the first religion to have given rights to women are duty bound to ensure justice to women. We bemoan the fact that instead of doing so they continue to justify the Muslim male’s privilege of unilateral and instant divorce, often on a mere whim or fit of anger.
As for nikaah-halala, the way this Quranic position is misconstrued and misused in India is a shameful practice which is extremely degrading for women. Even if a husband utters the dread words ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’ in a fit of anger but regrets the same immediately thereafter, according to the ulema there is only one way for the couple to resume their relationship. Another man must marry the divorced woman, consummate the marriage and then divorce her so that she may remarry her former husband.
BMMA has even documented some cases where qazis not only justify and legitimise nikaah-halala, but even offer their own “services” as temporary husbands. What could be more disgraceful than this?
The least we expect from the ulema who have proved themselves unwilling and incapable of ending the shameful, anti-women practices of instant divorce and nikaah-halala is to stop perpetuating patriarchy in the name of religion.
The word ulema is supposed to mean a body of Muslim scholars who are recognised as having specialist knowledge of Islamic sacred law and theology. We demand that the ulema in India live up to that definition. They must stop making a mockery of their honorific and demonising Islam in the process.
Signatories in alphabetical order:
1. A.Amiruddin,RetiredProfessor,MadrasMedicalCollege,Chennai 2. A.Fatimi,Professor,AllahabadUniversity
3. A.Jawad,Advocate,Chennai
The ulema who proudly proclaim that Islam is the first religion to have given rights to women are duty bound to ensure justice to women. We bemoan the fact that instead of doing so they continue to justify the Muslim male’s privilege of unilateral and instant divorce, often on a mere whim or fit of anger.
As for nikaah-halala, the way this Quranic position is misconstrued and misused in India is a shameful practice which is extremely degrading for women. Even if a husband utters the dread words ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’ in a fit of anger but regrets the same immediately thereafter, according to the ulema there is only one way for the couple to resume their relationship. Another man must marry the divorced woman, consummate the marriage and then divorce her so that she may remarry her former husband.
BMMA has even documented some cases where qazis not only justify and legitimise nikaah-halala, but even offer their own “services” as temporary husbands. What could be more disgraceful than this?
The least we expect from the ulema who have proved themselves unwilling and incapable of ending the shameful, anti-women practices of instant divorce and nikaah-halala is to stop perpetuating patriarchy in the name of religion.
The word ulema is supposed to mean a body of Muslim scholars who are recognised as having specialist knowledge of Islamic sacred law and theology. We demand that the ulema in India live up to that definition. They must stop making a mockery of their honorific and demonising Islam in the process.
Signatories in alphabetical order:
1. A.Amiruddin,RetiredProfessor,MadrasMedicalCollege,Chennai 2. A.Fatimi,Professor,AllahabadUniversity
3. A.Jawad,Advocate,Chennai
-
A.Contractor,ProfessorandDean,CollegeofEngineering,Dhofar
University, Salalah, Oman
-
AamilShaikh,Businessman,Mumbai
-
AbbasShamaelRizvi,Cinematographer,Photographer,Filmmaker
-
AbdeMannanYusuf
-
AbdulAzeem,Socialactivist,Delhi
-
Abdulbhai,SocialActivist,Madurai
11. Abdul Rauf Khan, Retd director, Rajasthan Education Board, Ajmer 12. Abdul Rauf Shaikh, Retired government officer, Mumbai.
13. Abdul Qader Mukadam, Social activist, Commentator, Mumbai 14. Abdul Qadri, Media Professional, Mumbai
15. Abdul Rais Khan , Retired station superintendent, Railways, Aligarh 16. Abu Bakht, Advocate, Allahabad
17. Adil Rauf Khan Software Engineer, TCS, Sydney and AMU alumnus 18. Afaque Azad, Sound Engineer
19. Ajmal Hasan, IT executive, Bengaluru
20. Akbar Joseph, Assistant professor, AMU, Aligarh
21. Akbar Monye, Refrigeration business, Mumbai
22. Akbar Shaikh, Social activist, Sholapur
23. Ali Javed (Dr), Professor, Delhi University
24. Akram Khan, Industrialist, Pune
25. AkramSalmani,Hairstylist,Mumbai
26. Ali, Hardware engineer, Mumbai
27. AliAsghar,Socialactivist,Hyderabad
28. Ali Lokhandwala, Builder, Mumbai
29. Amirullah (Dr), Assistant professor AMU, Aligarh
30. Amir Athar, Allahabad
31. Amir Rizvi: Communication designer, Mumbai
32. Amir Sheikh, Social Activist, Pune
33. Anis Shaikh, Automobile engineer, UAE
34. AnjumRajabali,Screenwriter,Mumbai
35. Anvar Rajan, Social activist, Pune
36. Anwar Hussain: Corporate executive, Mumbai
37. Anwar Shaikh, Retired police officer, Pune
38. Anwar Sheikh, Professor, Pune
39. Arif Parvaz,
40. Arif-ul-Islam, Professor, Dept. of Stats. & O.R., AMU, Aligarh 41. Asad Khan, Allahabad
42. Asad ur Rahman Kidwai, Delhi
43. AseemHasnain,Professor,USA
44. Asif Rauf Khan Engineer, Wipro, Noida
45. AsimSiddiqui,Professor,AMU,Aligarh
46. AshrafSyed(Dr),Ayurvedic,Pune
47. Aslam(Dr),Professor,AllahabadUniversity.
48. Aslam Khan, Political activist, Delhi
49. AslamKhan,Socialworker,Mumbai
50. AsrarBoqari,Student,Bengaluru
51. Asshar Farhan, Computer analyst, Hyderabad
52. Ayaz Memon, Senior journalist, Mumbai
29. Amirullah (Dr), Assistant professor AMU, Aligarh
30. Amir Athar, Allahabad
31. Amir Rizvi: Communication designer, Mumbai
32. Amir Sheikh, Social Activist, Pune
33. Anis Shaikh, Automobile engineer, UAE
34. AnjumRajabali,Screenwriter,Mumbai
35. Anvar Rajan, Social activist, Pune
36. Anwar Hussain: Corporate executive, Mumbai
37. Anwar Shaikh, Retired police officer, Pune
38. Anwar Sheikh, Professor, Pune
39. Arif Parvaz,
40. Arif-ul-Islam, Professor, Dept. of Stats. & O.R., AMU, Aligarh 41. Asad Khan, Allahabad
42. Asad ur Rahman Kidwai, Delhi
43. AseemHasnain,Professor,USA
44. Asif Rauf Khan Engineer, Wipro, Noida
45. AsimSiddiqui,Professor,AMU,Aligarh
46. AshrafSyed(Dr),Ayurvedic,Pune
47. Aslam(Dr),Professor,AllahabadUniversity.
48. Aslam Khan, Political activist, Delhi
49. AslamKhan,Socialworker,Mumbai
50. AsrarBoqari,Student,Bengaluru
51. Asshar Farhan, Computer analyst, Hyderabad
52. Ayaz Memon, Senior journalist, Mumbai
53. Azhar Kazi, MBA professional, Mumbai
54. Azhar Khan, Social activist, Jalgaon
55. BashirMujawar,Journalist,Pune
56. Basheer Sheikh, Retired govt. servant, Pune
57. Burhaan Basheer, Research scholar, AMU, Aligarh 58. Danish Siddiqui, Research Scholar, AMU, Aligarh 59. Dilawar, Electrical engineer, UAE
60. Dilawar Sheikh, Advocate, Wai, Satara
61. F. M. Shajinde, Publisher, Latur
62. Faiz Ahmad, Education consultant, Chennai
63. Faiz Ahmad, Service, Ghaziabad, UP
64. Faizan Khan, Industrialist, Pune
65. Faraz Ahmad, Freelance journalist, Delhi
66. Farhan Rahman, Research scholar, Ranchi
67. Farouk Mapkar, Social activist, Mumbai
68. Feroze Abbas Khan: Theatre director, Mumbai
69. Feroze Mithiborwala, Social activist, Mumbai
70. Firoz Ashraf, Social activist, journalist, Mumbai
71. Gauhar Raza, Scientist, poet, social activist, film maker, Delhi 72. Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki, Physician
73. H. M. Mustafa, Social Activist, Calicut
74. Hamid Ali, Business, Rampur, UP
75. Hamza Safina Taufiq, MBA, Saudi Arabia
76. Hasan Kamaal: Senior journalist, poet, lyricist, Mumbai
77. Hasan Pasha Ibrahim, Writer, journalist, Bengaluru.
54. Azhar Khan, Social activist, Jalgaon
55. BashirMujawar,Journalist,Pune
56. Basheer Sheikh, Retired govt. servant, Pune
57. Burhaan Basheer, Research scholar, AMU, Aligarh 58. Danish Siddiqui, Research Scholar, AMU, Aligarh 59. Dilawar, Electrical engineer, UAE
60. Dilawar Sheikh, Advocate, Wai, Satara
61. F. M. Shajinde, Publisher, Latur
62. Faiz Ahmad, Education consultant, Chennai
63. Faiz Ahmad, Service, Ghaziabad, UP
64. Faizan Khan, Industrialist, Pune
65. Faraz Ahmad, Freelance journalist, Delhi
66. Farhan Rahman, Research scholar, Ranchi
67. Farouk Mapkar, Social activist, Mumbai
68. Feroze Abbas Khan: Theatre director, Mumbai
69. Feroze Mithiborwala, Social activist, Mumbai
70. Firoz Ashraf, Social activist, journalist, Mumbai
71. Gauhar Raza, Scientist, poet, social activist, film maker, Delhi 72. Ghulam Mohiyuddin Faruki, Physician
73. H. M. Mustafa, Social Activist, Calicut
74. Hamid Ali, Business, Rampur, UP
75. Hamza Safina Taufiq, MBA, Saudi Arabia
76. Hasan Kamaal: Senior journalist, poet, lyricist, Mumbai
77. Hasan Pasha Ibrahim, Writer, journalist, Bengaluru.
78. Hilal Ahmed (Dr), Asst. professor, CSDS, Delhi
79. Hummam, Research Scholar, AMU, Aligarh
80. Hunaid Wajihi, CA student, Pune
81. Husain Ahmed, Businessman, Pune
82. Husain Kanchwala, Engineer, Pune
83. Huzaifa Dilawar, Interior designer, Pune
84. Imran Khan, Assistant general manager, Delhi
85. Imran Sheikh, Computer specialist, Pune
86. Imtiyaz Shaikh, Contractor, Mumbai
87. I.N. Baig, Journalist, Nipani, Karnataka
88. Iqbal Niazi, Playwright, Mumbai
89. Irfan Ahmad, Service, Engineer, Vadodara, Gujrat
90. Irfan Engineer, Social activist, Mumbai
91. Irfan Khan, Web master, Mumbai
92. Irshad Ahmad, Lucknow
93. J. Thajudeen, Entrepreneur, Karaikal, Pondicherry
94. Jafar Mukri, Businessman, Mumbai
95. Jamal Kidwai, Social activist, Delhi
96. JavedAnand:Socialactivist,journalist,Mumbai
97. Javed Siddiqi: (Screen/dialogue writer, playwright), Mumbai 98. K.Moulasha,ProgramManager,PraxisInstitute,Chennai 99. K. Mohammed Abdul Kader, Assistant professor, Chennai
81. Husain Ahmed, Businessman, Pune
82. Husain Kanchwala, Engineer, Pune
83. Huzaifa Dilawar, Interior designer, Pune
84. Imran Khan, Assistant general manager, Delhi
85. Imran Sheikh, Computer specialist, Pune
86. Imtiyaz Shaikh, Contractor, Mumbai
87. I.N. Baig, Journalist, Nipani, Karnataka
88. Iqbal Niazi, Playwright, Mumbai
89. Irfan Ahmad, Service, Engineer, Vadodara, Gujrat
90. Irfan Engineer, Social activist, Mumbai
91. Irfan Khan, Web master, Mumbai
92. Irshad Ahmad, Lucknow
93. J. Thajudeen, Entrepreneur, Karaikal, Pondicherry
94. Jafar Mukri, Businessman, Mumbai
95. Jamal Kidwai, Social activist, Delhi
96. JavedAnand:Socialactivist,journalist,Mumbai
97. Javed Siddiqi: (Screen/dialogue writer, playwright), Mumbai 98. K.Moulasha,ProgramManager,PraxisInstitute,Chennai 99. K. Mohammed Abdul Kader, Assistant professor, Chennai
-
K. Seyadh Gani – Hotel Manager, Karaikal, Pondicherry
-
K. Sheikh Ismail - Entrepreneur, Karaikal, Pondicherry
-
Kader Qazi: Creative director, Television, Mumbai
-
Kareem Ansari, Social activist, Hyderabad
-
Kareem Sait, Businessman, Chennai
-
Kashif Hasan, Writer, Kolkatta
-
Kasim Sait, Businessman, Chennai
-
Khalil Deshmukh, Social Activist, Jalgaon
-
Khanbhai, Garage owner, Mumbai
-
Komoruzzaman Ahmed, Retired engineer, Social Worker. Guwahati
-
Latif Shaikh, TV actor, Mumbai
-
Liyakat Kazi, Driver, Mumbai
-
M. Mohammed Sabeer, Salesman, Karaikal, Pondicherry
-
Mazhar Kamran, Documentary films, cinematographer, Mumbai
-
Manzar Usmani, Patna
-
Majid Moulvi, Businessman, Pune
-
Mehboob Sheikh, Social Activist, Pune
-
Mehdi Bakht, School principal, Varanasi
-
Minaj Sayyad, Social activist and businessman, Satara
-
Mir Jeelan Hussain, Student, Bengaluru
-
Mohammad Khalique, Entrepreneur, (Delhi)
-
Mohammed Ghouse Laik, Social Activist, Nipani, Karnataka
-
Mohammad Imran, Social Activist, USA
-
Mohammad Rauf, Social Activist, Lucknow
-
Mohd. Sabit Hasan (Dr), Opthalmologist, Champaran, Bihar
-
Mohd. Amir, Service, Ghaziabad
-
Mohd. Asif, Service, Ghaziabad, UP
-
Mohd. Umar, Businessman, Ghaziabad, UP
-
Moinullah Khan, Businessman, Chennai
-
Mufid Sheikh, Businessman, Pune
-
Muhib ul haq (Dr), Associate professor AMU, Aligarh
-
Munir Mulla, Social activist, Sangli
-
Munir Syed, Social Activist, Panvel
-
Munir Tamboli, Reformist, Baramati
-
Mushir Ahmed, Engineer, Allahabad
-
Mustafa Kayamkhani, Businessman, Coimbatore
-
N.M. Qureshi, Electrical engineer, Indore
-
N. P. Ashley, Assistant professor, St. Stephen's College, Delhi
-
Nadeem, Driver, Aligarh
-
Nadeem Hasnain (Dr), Editor, Islam and Muslim Societies, Lucknow.
-
Nasiruddin Haider Khan, Journalist, Lucknow
-
Nisar Ansari, Accounts head, Mumbai
-
Nisar Solanki, Churu, Rajasthan
-
Noorul Islam, Allahabad
-
P. A. Kader, Social activist, Mangalore
-
Parvez, Librarian, AMU, Aligarh
-
Rafiq Mulani, Social activist
-
Rahman Abbas: Fiction writer, Mumbai
-
Rais Ahmed, Businessman, Allahabad
-
Rais Ahmad, Service, Ghaziabad (UP)
-
Raisuddin, Service, Ghaziabad, UP
-
Rashid Ali, Social Activist, Hyderabad
|
Mujtaba Lokhandwala, Author, trainer, activist
|
, Pune
|
-
Rashid Nehal (Dr) , Director, Kishanganj Centre, AMU
-
Rashid Sheikh, Banking, Pune
-
Raza Hasnain, former IAS, country head, Cargill India
-
Resul Pookutty, Oscar Award Winner, Sound design
-
Rizwan Khan, Teacher, Lucknow
-
S. Amir Bashir, Allahabad
-
S.Q. Masood, Social activist, Hyderabad
-
S.F.A. Naqvi, Advocate, Allahabad
-
Saadat Ullah Qureshi, Engineer, Rajasthan Electricity Board
-
Sabir Ali, Service, Ghaziabad, UP
-
Sabir Khan, Jaipur
-
Sadat Ali Khan Zai, Professor, Bangalore University
-
Sadiqu-ur-Rahman Kidwai, Retired professor, Delhi
-
Sadruddin Sheikh, Trustee, Shadvel Dargah, Pune
-
Saeed Mirza: Film-maker, Mumbai
-
Sahil, Jaipur
-
Saif Kidwai, Journalist, Delhi
-
Saleem Khandba, Advocate, social activist, Bhiwandi
-
Saleem Kidwai, Lucknow
-
Saleem Parvez, Service, Delhi
-
Salim Pinjari, Journalist, Pune
-
Salim Sheikh, Turner & die maker, Pune
-
Salim Sheikh, Advocate, Paltan, Satara
-
Sallaudin Moosa, Operation head, BPO, Mumbai
-
Salman Shaikh, TV actor, Mumbai
-
Sameer Dilawar Shaikh, Social activist
-
Samir Ahmed, Jaipur
-
Samta Nadeem, Lighting designer, Mumbai
-
Shabi Hashmi
-
Shadab Arab, Research Scholar, Mumbai
-
Shadab Rashid (Editor, Urdu magazine, Naya Warq) , Mumbai
-
Shafaat Khan, Marathi playwright, Mumbai
-
Shaikh Mohammed Hussain, Social activist, Mumbai
-
Shahbaz Khan, Social worker, Mumbai
-
Shahnawaz Alam, Teacher, Allahabad
-
Shaibaaz Mulla, Business, Mumbai
-
Shakil Ahmed, Advocate, social activist, Mumbai
-
Shamim Abbas, Urdu poet, Mumbai
-
Shamsul Islam, Academic, social activist, Delhi
-
Sharuk Khan, Businessman, Jaipur
-
Sohail Akbar, Ass. Professor, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi
-
Sohail Ishaq, Office assistant, AMU, Aligarh
-
Sufian Syed, Marketing, Abu Dhabi
-
Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam, Delhi
-
Syed A R Zaidi, Retired professor,
-
Syed Ata Hasnain (Lieutenant general, retired)
-
Syed Mehboob Shah Qadri, Reformist, Pune
-
Syed Riyaz Rahim, Urdu poet, Mumbai
-
Taizoon Khorakiwala, Businessman, Mumbai
-
Talat Jaani, Film & TV director, Mumbai
-
Tanveer Ajsi, Arts professional, Bangalore
-
Tanvir Aeijaz, Associate professor, University of Delhi
-
Tanvir Sheikh, Engineering student, Pune
-
Tarique Iqbal, CEO, Mumba Books India, Mumbai
-
Usman Ali, Business, Rampur, UP
-
Umar Aman, Student, Delhi
-
Usman Dhamaskar, Businessman, Mumbai
-
Usman Mehandi, Student, Purkazi,
-
Waseem A Mullah, Blogger/writer, Jharkhand
-
Wasim Qureshi, Information technology, Jaipur
-
Yousuf Saeed, Filmmaker/writer, New Delhi
-
Yusuf Parmar (Haji), Social activist, Mumbai
-
Zaan Khan, TV actor, Mumbai
-
Zabiullaha, Service (retd.), Ghaziabad, UP
-
Zafar Bakht, PIPFPD, Allahabad
-
Zafer Ali Khan Zai, Physician, Mysuru
-
Zafer Mohiuddin, Playwright, Karnataka
-
Zia-ul-Haq, Social activist, Allahabad
-
Zaheer Ahmed Sayeed (Dr.), Neurologist, Chennai
-
Zaheer Mirzaa, Creative director, Advertising
-
Zahid Ali, TV actor, Mumbai
-
Zahir Sheikh, Advocate Paltan, Satara
-
Zakir Attar, Advocate, Pune
-
Zakir Maniar, Advocate, Pune
-
Zubair Shaikh, Student, Mumbai
May 14, 2016
India: An Open Letter to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Divorce Laws
The Wire
Dear Members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB),
Two days ago I was sitting with the vice principal of the all girls’ school I attended as a child in Kolkata. She told me how she was aghast at the request of one of the prospective students’ mother to not disclose her educational qualification in front of her husband, when they come for a formal interview for admission. She had a masters in psychology from Aligarh Muslim University. “He thinks I have only studied up to class 10. If he finds out, he will divorce me,” she said.
While the aftershocks of the opposition to the Shah Bano case continue to haunt Muslim women in the form of the Muslim Women’s bill, as an Indian Muslim woman and a student of Islamic feminism and Human Rights Law I am amazed that little has changed since 1985 as far as the involvement of an organisation of your repute in matters concerning rights of Muslim women in India is concerned. Fully aware of the fear of many, including me, of mistaking the demand of codification with that of a demand of unification, I believed that educated members of the board would stand for and with Shayara Bano and her gender and demand that ‘Triple Talaq’ needed to be banned, made unlawful!
Muslim women are expected to live and abide by religious norms and their conformity to religious values is viewed as a basis of judging the identity of their community as a whole, as discussed by Zoya Hassan in her book, Forging Identities: Gender, Communities and the State in India. More often than not, they are discriminated against by patriarchal codes of religious laws and expected not to rise against the status quo in the name of protecting community identity. This community identity has emerged as a formidable force and what is evident today is a tension between two fronts: the male dominated Muslim leadership’s desire to ensure that rights remain in the domain of a ‘collective communal existence’ and not a ‘function of democratic citizenship’ on one hand, and the demand for rights and justice for women on the other. Thus, in the wake of the rising political right and communal tensions and lynchings, the uncodified Muslim Personal Law in India – which deals with issues such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, succession, adoption and custody of children – has become a vital symbol of minority identity, the defense of which – right from the overturning of the Shah Bano judgement – has resulted in the subordination of Muslim women in India to the perceived interests of the Muslim community. The tussle between enactment of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the political right, governing heterogeneous communities as one, on one hand, and the insistence on maintenance of status quo, fearing the loss of their religious identity, by male leaders of the religious minorities on the other, has left Muslim women as the worst affected.
Shayara Bano, like her predecessor, Shah Bano has approached the apex court demanding the protection of a right which is not only constitutionally guaranteed to her, but for those opposing her, including the AIMPLB, it is imperative to know that her demand is not Unislamic at all. The board which claims to be the protector of Muslim Personal law (MPL) in India, and which is now going to be party to the case and contest her claim, should have done enough earlier to ensure that women like Shayara did not have to face what they are facing in the first place. Your claim that Muslims are content with the Shariah as it is practiced in India today has no basis, with no data to prove this claim. On the contrary, the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan’s (BMMA) study, under the leadership of its founders Zakia Soman and Dr Noorjehan Safia Niaz, covering 4,500 women across ten Indian states is proof enough that Indian Muslim women are demanding a codification of the largely uncodified body of Muslim laws in India. With over 80% respondents saying there needs to be a reform in the current MPL, over 75% also believed that the age of marriage for girls should not be on attainment of puberty but should be eighteen years and above, contrary to what you have been supporting. Over 80% of those surveyed were of the opinion that adoption should be made legal under MPL. Organisations like BMMA are also oblivious to the fact that their demand for reforms may be wrongly misappropriated by the political right, the ruling BJP, and thus is very vocal in clarifying that codification in no way is a demand for UCC. For instance, while the study shows that out of all the women surveyed, 92.1% were in favour of a total ban on the ‘Triple Talaq/oral divorce’, the solution suggested was in the form of ‘Talaq-e-Ahsan’ to be the alternative, with majority of those surveyed wanting arbitration to be mandatory before divorce.
If the divorce to Shayara Bano is declared illegal, will it be a defeat for the community? Or is the worry more about Muslim men not being able to unilaterally divorce their wives as and when they wish to?
BMMA, in its draft Muslim Family Act calls for a complete ban on ‘Triple Talaq’ (Oral repudiation of marriage by merely pronouncement of the term ‘Talaq’ or divorce thrice by the husband) and calls for only the ‘Talaq-e-Ahsan’ method of divorce. I have had the chance to compile case studies of women from across the country who have been divorced unilaterally by their husbands, sometimes even on the phone and thus am aware of ground realities of this evil myself. BMMA seeks a complete ban on ‘Triple Talaq’ and provide relief to specially women belonging to poor economic backgrounds.
You at the AIMPLB on the other hand, refuse to take a firm stand on the issue. Thus, while you recommend the ‘Talaq-e-Ahsan’ method described above, in your model ‘Nikahnama’, the husband is ‘instructed’ to merely ‘avoid’ using the ‘Triple Talaq’ method of divorce. The board insists that the ‘Triple Talaq’ method is not a legal evil but merely a social one and hence does not call for a complete ban.
Maintenance of status quo in the name of not interfering in the ‘divine’, even though the Shariah as practiced in India is man-made law, has been the stand taken by the AIMPLB whenever confronted by issues which directly affect Indian Muslim women. Women organisations like BMMA among others have been extremely vocal in their stand on Muslim women rights and when one compares their work with all male led organisations like yourself in furthering the rights of Muslim women, there is little doubt as to who should lead the movement for reform in the Muslim community.
Please stand with the aggrieved, not against them.
Sincerely,
Mariya Salim
An Indian Muslim Woman standing firmly in solidarity with Shayara and her cause.
An Open Letter to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Divorce Laws
Muslim brides wait for the start of their mass marriage ceremony in Mumbai May 11, 2014. Credit: Reuters/Danish Siddiqui/Files
Two days ago I was sitting with the vice principal of the all girls’ school I attended as a child in Kolkata. She told me how she was aghast at the request of one of the prospective students’ mother to not disclose her educational qualification in front of her husband, when they come for a formal interview for admission. She had a masters in psychology from Aligarh Muslim University. “He thinks I have only studied up to class 10. If he finds out, he will divorce me,” she said.
While the aftershocks of the opposition to the Shah Bano case continue to haunt Muslim women in the form of the Muslim Women’s bill, as an Indian Muslim woman and a student of Islamic feminism and Human Rights Law I am amazed that little has changed since 1985 as far as the involvement of an organisation of your repute in matters concerning rights of Muslim women in India is concerned. Fully aware of the fear of many, including me, of mistaking the demand of codification with that of a demand of unification, I believed that educated members of the board would stand for and with Shayara Bano and her gender and demand that ‘Triple Talaq’ needed to be banned, made unlawful!
Muslim women are expected to live and abide by religious norms and their conformity to religious values is viewed as a basis of judging the identity of their community as a whole, as discussed by Zoya Hassan in her book, Forging Identities: Gender, Communities and the State in India. More often than not, they are discriminated against by patriarchal codes of religious laws and expected not to rise against the status quo in the name of protecting community identity. This community identity has emerged as a formidable force and what is evident today is a tension between two fronts: the male dominated Muslim leadership’s desire to ensure that rights remain in the domain of a ‘collective communal existence’ and not a ‘function of democratic citizenship’ on one hand, and the demand for rights and justice for women on the other. Thus, in the wake of the rising political right and communal tensions and lynchings, the uncodified Muslim Personal Law in India – which deals with issues such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, succession, adoption and custody of children – has become a vital symbol of minority identity, the defense of which – right from the overturning of the Shah Bano judgement – has resulted in the subordination of Muslim women in India to the perceived interests of the Muslim community. The tussle between enactment of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the political right, governing heterogeneous communities as one, on one hand, and the insistence on maintenance of status quo, fearing the loss of their religious identity, by male leaders of the religious minorities on the other, has left Muslim women as the worst affected.
Shayara Bano, like her predecessor, Shah Bano has approached the apex court demanding the protection of a right which is not only constitutionally guaranteed to her, but for those opposing her, including the AIMPLB, it is imperative to know that her demand is not Unislamic at all. The board which claims to be the protector of Muslim Personal law (MPL) in India, and which is now going to be party to the case and contest her claim, should have done enough earlier to ensure that women like Shayara did not have to face what they are facing in the first place. Your claim that Muslims are content with the Shariah as it is practiced in India today has no basis, with no data to prove this claim. On the contrary, the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan’s (BMMA) study, under the leadership of its founders Zakia Soman and Dr Noorjehan Safia Niaz, covering 4,500 women across ten Indian states is proof enough that Indian Muslim women are demanding a codification of the largely uncodified body of Muslim laws in India. With over 80% respondents saying there needs to be a reform in the current MPL, over 75% also believed that the age of marriage for girls should not be on attainment of puberty but should be eighteen years and above, contrary to what you have been supporting. Over 80% of those surveyed were of the opinion that adoption should be made legal under MPL. Organisations like BMMA are also oblivious to the fact that their demand for reforms may be wrongly misappropriated by the political right, the ruling BJP, and thus is very vocal in clarifying that codification in no way is a demand for UCC. For instance, while the study shows that out of all the women surveyed, 92.1% were in favour of a total ban on the ‘Triple Talaq/oral divorce’, the solution suggested was in the form of ‘Talaq-e-Ahsan’ to be the alternative, with majority of those surveyed wanting arbitration to be mandatory before divorce.
If the divorce to Shayara Bano is declared illegal, will it be a defeat for the community? Or is the worry more about Muslim men not being able to unilaterally divorce their wives as and when they wish to?
BMMA, in its draft Muslim Family Act calls for a complete ban on ‘Triple Talaq’ (Oral repudiation of marriage by merely pronouncement of the term ‘Talaq’ or divorce thrice by the husband) and calls for only the ‘Talaq-e-Ahsan’ method of divorce. I have had the chance to compile case studies of women from across the country who have been divorced unilaterally by their husbands, sometimes even on the phone and thus am aware of ground realities of this evil myself. BMMA seeks a complete ban on ‘Triple Talaq’ and provide relief to specially women belonging to poor economic backgrounds.
You at the AIMPLB on the other hand, refuse to take a firm stand on the issue. Thus, while you recommend the ‘Talaq-e-Ahsan’ method described above, in your model ‘Nikahnama’, the husband is ‘instructed’ to merely ‘avoid’ using the ‘Triple Talaq’ method of divorce. The board insists that the ‘Triple Talaq’ method is not a legal evil but merely a social one and hence does not call for a complete ban.
Maintenance of status quo in the name of not interfering in the ‘divine’, even though the Shariah as practiced in India is man-made law, has been the stand taken by the AIMPLB whenever confronted by issues which directly affect Indian Muslim women. Women organisations like BMMA among others have been extremely vocal in their stand on Muslim women rights and when one compares their work with all male led organisations like yourself in furthering the rights of Muslim women, there is little doubt as to who should lead the movement for reform in the Muslim community.
Please stand with the aggrieved, not against them.
Sincerely,
Mariya Salim
An Indian Muslim Woman standing firmly in solidarity with Shayara and her cause.
May 13, 2016
India: Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan – Fighting for Islamic Shariah, Not Women’s Liberty (Tufail Ahmad)
New Age Islam - 12 May 2016
Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan – Fighting for Islamic Shariah, Not Women’s Liberty
By Tufail Ahmad for New Age Islam
12 May 2016
Established in January 2007, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan (BMMA, or Movement of the Indian Muslim Women) describes itself as “an autonomous, secular, rights-based mass organization led by Muslim women which fights for the citizenship rights of the Muslims in India.”[i] In recent years, the BMMA has raised many issues related with Muslim women’s sufferings but a careful reading of its positions on various issues indicates that it is unwilling to transcend the limits of Islamic Shariah. Although it calls itself a “secular” organization, there is nothing in its positions to indicate that it is secular, with secularism being a movement of ideas away from religions and towards rationality which empowers individuals with the ability to make critical judgements to live their daily life meaningfully.
The phrase “Islamic Reformation” – or reform, for short – is derived from a scholarly attempt by German theologian Martin Luther (1483–1546) to question some of the Church practices within the framework of Christianity through his “95 Theses” — which became known as Reformation.[ii] Civilization has come a long way since the time of Martin Luther, with democracy now giving us new values for our times with regard to gender equality, individual rights, secularism and values regarding political coexistence. Therefore, the cause of Islamic Reformation in our era has to be subject to human condition, with the premise being that the human condition must change if it becomes an obstacle to democratic values such as gender equality, irrespective of religious beliefs.
In this context, many of the positions adopted by BMMA contradict the Muslim women’s rights to liberty and equality. For example, the BMMA upholds mehr (the money required by Islam to be paid to woman by man) as the prerequisite for a groom to marry.[iii] The BMMA insists the woman should get “at least the groom’s annual income as her mehr at the time of marriage.”[iv] Such a demand for mehr is against gender equality for modern age and amounts to demanding money for legal sex in marriage. It is also not feasible practically to implement such a provision of mehr where the bride’s family ends up giving dowry in violation of law. The BMMA does understand that mehr is against gender equality but it is stipulating the demand for mehr in order to uphold Islamic Shariah. For our times, gender equality means that both man and woman must work.
A woman can be truly empowered only if she earns money. So, let’s assume that a Muslim woman works as a house maid. She must look for a husband who is of equal status and in work, thereby obviating the need for mehr. Otherwise, mehr is basically a template for a Muslim woman to go looking for a rich husband with whom she wants to enter a life of servitude for a higher amount of mehr. Even if she gets a very high amount of mehr, her servitude does not end and her individual liberty does not begin without income. Therefore, there is a need to abolish mehr as a prerequisite for the liberation of Muslim women and their independent empowerment. The BMMA is urged to support abolition of mehr for a genuine progress of Muslim women’s liberation to begin.
The BMMA wants to ensure that only the groom must earn in order to marry. Such a proposition is against gender equality. The requirement must be that a woman must also work and show proof that she works in order to marry. For example, the BMMA notes: “the residence proof of man and his source of income… [must be] ascertained before he enters into a marriage contract.”[v] The organization is silent as to why the same requirement is not a must for a Muslim woman. Either the BMMA leadership is hostage to Islamic Shariah or views Muslim women as a subjugated class of individuals who must depend on the husband’s salary for their freedom. Such intellectual bankruptcy of the BMMA cannot be even the first towards women’s liberty, not in present century.
The BMMA attempts to uphold Islamic Shariah in women’s life. Therefore, it opposes a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the goal of the Indian Constitution requiring the Indian state to draft a bill of rights that guarantees equal rights for all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation. The BMMA states: “There can be no imposition of a UCC as this would be a clear violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which gives the right to all citizens including minority citizens to have personal laws based on tenets of their respective religions.”[vi] If the BMMA is so concerned for rights for our era, it should better demand the abolition of Article 25, under which, just to be sure, the right to religion is the weakest of all fundamental rights as per two sub-clauses. For BMMA, the goal is simply the codification of Islamic Shariah, and therefore it does not see religion as obstacle to individual freedom. It states: “Like the Christian and Parsi minorities, Muslims too have a right to a codified law that regulates all aspects of marriage and family.”[vii]
The BMMA notes that it has prepared a draft of the Muslim personal law “based on the Quranic injunctions and Constitutional values [that] calls for abolition of oral unilateral divorce, polygamy, practise of halala [divorced woman marrying another man in order to re-marry her former husband] and muta [temporary] marriage.”[viii] Some of the steps suggested here by BMMA are positive, but the BMMA, being a Shariah-compliant organization, fails to grasp that women’s liberty cannot be subject to Islam, or other religions. A simple democratic tenet of modern life is that, irrespective of what the Quran says, a Muslim husband and wife must be required to go to court to marry and divorce, thereby ending all roles for Islamic clerics. A better advocacy for BMMA should be to request all Muslim women to opt for the Special Marriages Act, 1954 – as a form of UCC.
Over the years, it has become a humiliating experience for Muslim husbands in the Shariah-compliant India republic to divorce because they are prevented by the Indian justice system to approach courts for divorce. The BMMA does not advocate ending the role of Islamic clerics. It merely wants male clerics to be replaced by women clerics. Currently, the BMMA is engaged in creating a parallel legal system in India. For example, it is training women qazis (Islamic judges) who will adjudicate on Muslim matters. It states: “The initiative began in Jaipur with a group of 30 Muslim women who have embarked on the journey to become qazis.”[ix] It says: “Women qazis will ensure that the mehr amount is received by the bride at the time of nikah [marriage] and that both the parties are entering into the marriage alliance out of their free will and not by force or fraud.”[x] A serious question for BMMA is: how is it that Indian courts cannot ensure the same?
It is astounding that the BMMA leaders describe their movement as “feminist” saying that their initiative is “part of the larger feminist movement in the Islamic world initiated by women activists and scholars who have taken upon themselves the task of presenting to the world a humane, just and peaceful face of Islam.”[xi] To my understanding, it is not the purpose of feminism to serve Islam, peaceful or otherwise. Religions are counter-freedom movements and their excessive role in the life of individuals must be curbed. There were times feminists were burning bras in open streets to claim their place and liberty in public space. The Muslim women’s freedom movement must begin from burqa. The rest will start falling in place.
At the best, the BMMA stands for Islamic Shariah, not the liberty of women. It is unfortunate, very unfortunate, that judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court of India, instead of referring to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, cite the Quran on gender equality. The BMMA leaders take pride in the role of religion, stating: “Isn’t it wonderful that the judgments given out by our high courts and Supreme Court give reference of the Quran?”[xii] Also, for Muslim women’s liberty, please teach your daughter mathematics, economics and physics from grade one through 12, and stop believing that you, whether a Muslim or Hindu woman, can be free by depending on the husband’s income. For a short-term measure, all Muslim women and Muslim men must marry under the Special Marriages Act, thereby ending all dramas involving Islam from their life. This one-point reform will eliminate a large number of Muslim problems from the Indian society.
Tufail Ahmad is Director of South Asia Studies Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington DC. He is the author of “Jihadist Threat To India – The Case For Islamic Reformation By An Indian Muslim.”
Endnotes
[i] https://bmmaindia.com/about/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses, accessed May 12, 2016.
[iii] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[iv] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[v] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[vi] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[vii] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[viii] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[ix] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[x] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[xi] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[xii] http://thewire.in/2016/05/11/seeking-change-muslim-men-must-support-muslim-womens-fight-for-reform-35222/, accessed May 12, 2016.
URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/tufail-ahmad-for-new-age-islam/bharatiya-muslim-mahila-aandolan-–-fighting-for-islamic-shariah,-not-women’s-liberty/d/107277
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism
- See more at: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/tufail-ahmad-for-new-age-islam/bharatiya-muslim-mahila-aandolan-%E2%80%93-fighting-for-islamic-shariah,-not-women%E2%80%99s-liberty/d/107277
Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan – Fighting for Islamic Shariah, Not Women’s Liberty
By Tufail Ahmad for New Age Islam
12 May 2016
Established in January 2007, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Aandolan (BMMA, or Movement of the Indian Muslim Women) describes itself as “an autonomous, secular, rights-based mass organization led by Muslim women which fights for the citizenship rights of the Muslims in India.”[i] In recent years, the BMMA has raised many issues related with Muslim women’s sufferings but a careful reading of its positions on various issues indicates that it is unwilling to transcend the limits of Islamic Shariah. Although it calls itself a “secular” organization, there is nothing in its positions to indicate that it is secular, with secularism being a movement of ideas away from religions and towards rationality which empowers individuals with the ability to make critical judgements to live their daily life meaningfully.
The phrase “Islamic Reformation” – or reform, for short – is derived from a scholarly attempt by German theologian Martin Luther (1483–1546) to question some of the Church practices within the framework of Christianity through his “95 Theses” — which became known as Reformation.[ii] Civilization has come a long way since the time of Martin Luther, with democracy now giving us new values for our times with regard to gender equality, individual rights, secularism and values regarding political coexistence. Therefore, the cause of Islamic Reformation in our era has to be subject to human condition, with the premise being that the human condition must change if it becomes an obstacle to democratic values such as gender equality, irrespective of religious beliefs.
In this context, many of the positions adopted by BMMA contradict the Muslim women’s rights to liberty and equality. For example, the BMMA upholds mehr (the money required by Islam to be paid to woman by man) as the prerequisite for a groom to marry.[iii] The BMMA insists the woman should get “at least the groom’s annual income as her mehr at the time of marriage.”[iv] Such a demand for mehr is against gender equality for modern age and amounts to demanding money for legal sex in marriage. It is also not feasible practically to implement such a provision of mehr where the bride’s family ends up giving dowry in violation of law. The BMMA does understand that mehr is against gender equality but it is stipulating the demand for mehr in order to uphold Islamic Shariah. For our times, gender equality means that both man and woman must work.
A woman can be truly empowered only if she earns money. So, let’s assume that a Muslim woman works as a house maid. She must look for a husband who is of equal status and in work, thereby obviating the need for mehr. Otherwise, mehr is basically a template for a Muslim woman to go looking for a rich husband with whom she wants to enter a life of servitude for a higher amount of mehr. Even if she gets a very high amount of mehr, her servitude does not end and her individual liberty does not begin without income. Therefore, there is a need to abolish mehr as a prerequisite for the liberation of Muslim women and their independent empowerment. The BMMA is urged to support abolition of mehr for a genuine progress of Muslim women’s liberation to begin.
The BMMA wants to ensure that only the groom must earn in order to marry. Such a proposition is against gender equality. The requirement must be that a woman must also work and show proof that she works in order to marry. For example, the BMMA notes: “the residence proof of man and his source of income… [must be] ascertained before he enters into a marriage contract.”[v] The organization is silent as to why the same requirement is not a must for a Muslim woman. Either the BMMA leadership is hostage to Islamic Shariah or views Muslim women as a subjugated class of individuals who must depend on the husband’s salary for their freedom. Such intellectual bankruptcy of the BMMA cannot be even the first towards women’s liberty, not in present century.
The BMMA attempts to uphold Islamic Shariah in women’s life. Therefore, it opposes a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the goal of the Indian Constitution requiring the Indian state to draft a bill of rights that guarantees equal rights for all citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation. The BMMA states: “There can be no imposition of a UCC as this would be a clear violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which gives the right to all citizens including minority citizens to have personal laws based on tenets of their respective religions.”[vi] If the BMMA is so concerned for rights for our era, it should better demand the abolition of Article 25, under which, just to be sure, the right to religion is the weakest of all fundamental rights as per two sub-clauses. For BMMA, the goal is simply the codification of Islamic Shariah, and therefore it does not see religion as obstacle to individual freedom. It states: “Like the Christian and Parsi minorities, Muslims too have a right to a codified law that regulates all aspects of marriage and family.”[vii]
The BMMA notes that it has prepared a draft of the Muslim personal law “based on the Quranic injunctions and Constitutional values [that] calls for abolition of oral unilateral divorce, polygamy, practise of halala [divorced woman marrying another man in order to re-marry her former husband] and muta [temporary] marriage.”[viii] Some of the steps suggested here by BMMA are positive, but the BMMA, being a Shariah-compliant organization, fails to grasp that women’s liberty cannot be subject to Islam, or other religions. A simple democratic tenet of modern life is that, irrespective of what the Quran says, a Muslim husband and wife must be required to go to court to marry and divorce, thereby ending all roles for Islamic clerics. A better advocacy for BMMA should be to request all Muslim women to opt for the Special Marriages Act, 1954 – as a form of UCC.
Over the years, it has become a humiliating experience for Muslim husbands in the Shariah-compliant India republic to divorce because they are prevented by the Indian justice system to approach courts for divorce. The BMMA does not advocate ending the role of Islamic clerics. It merely wants male clerics to be replaced by women clerics. Currently, the BMMA is engaged in creating a parallel legal system in India. For example, it is training women qazis (Islamic judges) who will adjudicate on Muslim matters. It states: “The initiative began in Jaipur with a group of 30 Muslim women who have embarked on the journey to become qazis.”[ix] It says: “Women qazis will ensure that the mehr amount is received by the bride at the time of nikah [marriage] and that both the parties are entering into the marriage alliance out of their free will and not by force or fraud.”[x] A serious question for BMMA is: how is it that Indian courts cannot ensure the same?
It is astounding that the BMMA leaders describe their movement as “feminist” saying that their initiative is “part of the larger feminist movement in the Islamic world initiated by women activists and scholars who have taken upon themselves the task of presenting to the world a humane, just and peaceful face of Islam.”[xi] To my understanding, it is not the purpose of feminism to serve Islam, peaceful or otherwise. Religions are counter-freedom movements and their excessive role in the life of individuals must be curbed. There were times feminists were burning bras in open streets to claim their place and liberty in public space. The Muslim women’s freedom movement must begin from burqa. The rest will start falling in place.
At the best, the BMMA stands for Islamic Shariah, not the liberty of women. It is unfortunate, very unfortunate, that judges in the high courts and the Supreme Court of India, instead of referring to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, cite the Quran on gender equality. The BMMA leaders take pride in the role of religion, stating: “Isn’t it wonderful that the judgments given out by our high courts and Supreme Court give reference of the Quran?”[xii] Also, for Muslim women’s liberty, please teach your daughter mathematics, economics and physics from grade one through 12, and stop believing that you, whether a Muslim or Hindu woman, can be free by depending on the husband’s income. For a short-term measure, all Muslim women and Muslim men must marry under the Special Marriages Act, thereby ending all dramas involving Islam from their life. This one-point reform will eliminate a large number of Muslim problems from the Indian society.
Tufail Ahmad is Director of South Asia Studies Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute, Washington DC. He is the author of “Jihadist Threat To India – The Case For Islamic Reformation By An Indian Muslim.”
Endnotes
[i] https://bmmaindia.com/about/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-five_Theses, accessed May 12, 2016.
[iii] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[iv] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[v] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[vi] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[vii] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[viii] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/01/03/uniform-civil-code-but-what-about-gender-justice/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[ix] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[x] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[xi] https://bmmaindia.com/2016/02/10/women-qazi-training-institute-darul-uloom-niswaan/, accessed May 12, 2016.
[xii] http://thewire.in/2016/05/11/seeking-change-muslim-men-must-support-muslim-womens-fight-for-reform-35222/, accessed May 12, 2016.
URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/tufail-ahmad-for-new-age-islam/bharatiya-muslim-mahila-aandolan-–-fighting-for-islamic-shariah,-not-women’s-liberty/d/107277
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism
- See more at: http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women-and-feminism/tufail-ahmad-for-new-age-islam/bharatiya-muslim-mahila-aandolan-%E2%80%93-fighting-for-islamic-shariah,-not-women%E2%80%99s-liberty/d/107277
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
