A woman subjected to sexual indignity by any of her husband's ascendants or descendants becomes haram or prohibited for him. This is the rule followed by Islam laws in India and this was a rule of worldly wisdom evolved by some religious jurists of Arabia over a 1,000 years ago.
This is nothing but creating de-facto refugees. While referring about refugees, I remember a fanatic from Gaza strip objected to the UN displaying a picture of a poor woman in a pitiable condition on their appeal to help. While I offer my sympathies to all those who live in pitiable conditions - some in their own country - as refugees, I wrote to him that I cannot but tell him that I believe his brethren Muslims still are those who create more refugees.
Take for example, Banda Aceh in World's largest Muslim country where thousands of muslims died. What did Saudi Arabia donate? Just the same amount as an individual Michael Schumacher donated? All the Muslims nations still demand a strong role by the UN, a body dominated by Christian countries and you have strong objection to using a picture of a lady in their appeal for help.
Swallowing a large amount of aid is no sin - but displaying a picture is. Which Muslim nation gives any dignity to women? I wrote to him plainly “You take a high degree of refuge in the fact that you are a refugee. There are different types of refugees. All refugees are not of the same type. You cannot absolve yourself by repeating that you are a refugee and whatever you do is legitimate.”
Interestingly his name was Sam. May be adopted name to hide identity. I asked him on who told him that religion is ultimate in this world? “Religion shows you light, but you are seeking a tunnel of light from it and naming it as your duty, right.”
Otherwise, this 28-year-old Muslim woman’s rape in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh by her own father in law could not have turned into be a battle between women’s rights activists and protectors of Shariat law. A decision by the local Muslim council that she should now live with her rapist than her married husband is proving to be the thorn in the flesh. This has also brought in a fresh debate on uniform civil code and rights of women in Muslim society. Imrana is not alone in this sub continent. Just across the border a same set of rules ordered the rape of a woman, Mukthar bai. Though she is fighting the case, women like Imrana may resign to her fate.
To conclude
The Deoband ulema and the Muslim Personal Law Board have made it quite apparent that, even in the 21st century, authorities that act under the imprimatur of religion do not understand one simple principle: that a woman is a person in her own right. She should be allowed to exercise her choices. Imrana was a victim of a heinous double crime. She was a victim of violence. And she was a victim because the trust of an intimate relationship was betrayed. But the authorities have compounded this unspeakable injury by adding the weight of their own coercive powers. They want to deny Imrana the basic right to choose whether she wants to live with her husband or not.
Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. Fairly recently, we had the case of Gudiya. Self-appointed custodians of religion took it upon themselves to determine whether she would have to live with her first husband, who had been assumed dead but eventually returned from Pakistan, or whether she should continue to live with her current husband. In numerous instances panchayats are denying women the right to determine the course of their own lives. Even secular courts have occasionally crossed the line by trying to second guess the “real” interests of a violated woman. Women are still not acknowledged as agents in their own rights. That religious authorities are using even the terrible situation that Imrana faced to assert their own writ, suggest a moral obscurantism that has no place in a civilised society.
It is legitimate to ask whether institutions and practices legitimised under the banner of any authority that deny women their basic rights should be tolerated. In times of crisis, religious leaders and public authorities should be a source of compassion rather a further source of coercion. But if any decrees made in the name of religion violate basic human dignity, they will only expose religion to further ridicule. The question is not simply whether a uniform civil code will achieve justice for women. We need to recognise a far deeper crisis: our inability as a society to allow women their choices. In the process, they are denied their dignity and humanity.
My understanding mood arises from CPM general secretary Prakash Karat’s strong reaction against the outrageous fatwa from the mullahs of Deoband in the Imrana rape case. ‘‘If the personal law of any community infringes upon the genuine rights of women, the law of the land should take centrestage and impart justice,’’ he said. Three cheers for you Mr Karat and a big fat kick in the butt to Mulayam Singh Yadav for supporting the fatwa that in effect punishes Imrana for daring to admit that she was raped by her father-in-law. On account of this admission, according to the wise men of the Dar-ul-uloom, she has become haraam for her husband and can no longer live with him, but the husband must continue to support his five children. This is the same seminary, please remember, whose interpretation of Islam inspired the Taliban, so their contempt for women should not surprise us. What should surprise and sicken us is the support the fatwa has got from the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
Correct me if I am wrong but did he not take an oath to uphold the Constitution of India? Is it not his responsibility to uphold the law of the land or has Uttar Pradesh officially become an Islamic republic? I was recently on a flight with Mulayam Singh’s right-hand man, Amar Singh, who complained about the English press always being ‘‘anti-Mulayam’’. Personally, I am amazed that he even dares to expect support for a man who is so ready to put political considerations above law, justice and simple decency.
Can we hope that Sonia Gandhi or the Prime Minister will have the courage to come forward and announce publicly that no religious seminary has the right to interfere in the law? They would be doing India a huge service if they went a step further and added that panchayats that believe they have the right to dispense justice will be instantly disbanded and fresh elections ordered.
Trust me when I tell you that this is all it will take for our semi-literate, socially backward sarpanches to stop dispensing barbarism in the name of justice. They routinely order women to be gang-raped, they routinely murder young lovers who have broken caste taboos, they routinely strip women naked and parade them through villages. And the only reason why they continue to do this is because they get away with it.
The police does not interfere just as it does not interfere in cases of sati and child marriage because most Chief Ministers take the view that these are social problems that will end when society improves. My view is that they will disappear tomorrow if the police is ordered to implement the laws of India. Whenever the police turns up in a village and takes preventive action, the panchayat always backs down. I have personally seen this happen not once but many times. The minute the police does its job or the Courts intervene and declare panchayat actions illegal, the peasants who sit in these village councils quietly let the matter drop.
Last year in Haryana’s Assanda village there was the case of Rampal and Sonia. The couple fell in love and got married and romantic love is something that Indian society disapproves of, it is not in our ‘‘culture’’, so Raathi caste leaders called a special gathering and pronounced that Rampal would have to declare his pregnant wife his sister because she was of the same caste. Sonia decided she was not going to accept any such decision — especially as she did not believe she was of the same sub-caste as her husband — and when she protested she was beaten up by one of the caste crusaders who had gathered at her doorstep. These upholders of Indian social standards then pulled her dupatta off to humiliate her and threw her out of the village.
Luckily, she came from a family that was modern enough to take the matter to Court. Luckily for her, Haryana is not far from Delhi and it was easy for TV networks to cover the story in detail so the Raathi caste panchayat quickly realised that it was time for discretion and not valour, and backed down. But, when I met Sonia, she was in Rohtak hospital in danger of losing her baby because of the actions of her barbarian caste leaders.
The fatwa of the mullahs of Deoband is barbaric. And, it has no place in India. Rajiv Gandhi may have misguidedly, inspired by the same political considerations as Mulayam, given Muslims the right to their own personal law but this does not apply in criminal cases. Islamic punishments have not been allowed. Rape is a crime under Indian law and rapists must be punished according to the law. If we had an elected Prime Minister (instead of an appointed one), and if he was a real leader he would have had the mullahs who pronounced this fatwa arrested and tried.
Alas, we do not have many real leaders around but can we at least hope that the mullahs are warned that obstruction of justice is a criminal offense and they would do well to withdraw their shameful fatwa.
No comments:
Post a Comment