A Stormy Relationship: Manto and the Progressives

February 13, 2016

Extracted from ‘The Progressive’, Introduction to Saadat Hasan Manto, The Armchair Revolutionary and Other Sketches, translated by Khalid Hasan, Prologue by Nandita Das, LeftWord, pp. 231, Rs 325.

The first major rift between the leadership of the Progressive Writers’ Association (PWA) and Manto took place after the publication of Manto’s 1942 story Bu, which was famously charged with obscenity by the colonial government along with Ismat Chughtai’s Lihaaf (The Quilt). In the joint trial that followed, a defiant Manto and Chughtai refused to apologize, but were eventually acquitted. Despite the fact that Bu was published in Adab-e Lateef, a progressive magazine edited by Ahmad NadeemQasmi (who was also one of the co-accused in the trial), the story seems to have irked some among the leadership of the PWA, especially Sajjad Zaheer, who thought that “the portrayal of the sexual perversions of a satisfied member of the middle class, no matter how much reality it is based on, is a waste of the writer’s and the reader’s time.” Consequently Zaheer, along with Dr. Abdul Aleem, drafted a resolution against obscenity, which was presented at the PWA conference held in Hyderabad in 1945. The resolution was also meant to warn other writers against the trend of anti-progressive anarchist-conservatism emerging within European literature, which Zaheer felt was unduly influencing the writers of the PWA.

For an organization that had its roots in Angaare(Embers) — a collection of short stories that itself faced the charges of obscenity — this was a strange development. Fortunately for the PWA, the resolution, which the leadership had expected to be passed without fuss, was scuttled in a dramatic fashion by Maulana Hasrat Mohani, a PWA stalwart as well as elder. The Maulana pointed out that the obvious problem with the resolution lay in the fact that obscenity was impossible to define, and that the vast majority of Urdu and Farsi poetry could easily be considered obscene by some. He proposed instead that the resolution include language endorsing sophisticated eroticism (lateefhavasnaaki). The intervention had the desired effect, and the resolution was withdrawn in its entirety.

While this is pointed to as evidence of the PWA’s inability to deal with issues of gender and sexuality, the story of this resolution highlights the crucial point that far from being a monolithic organization, the PWA often represented a heterogeneity of opinions on key issues. Rather than seeing the issue in a way that pits Manto and Ismatagainst the PWA, one can read it as reflecting the growing pains of a young but dynamic movement. What the Hyderabad conference also highlighted were differences between the positions of certain doctrinaire figures in the PWA’s leadership (such as SajjadZaheer and SardarJafri) and those of others such as MaulanaHasratMohani.

It is also worth noting that relations between Manto and the Progressives did not sour in the aftermath of this debate within the PWA. In fact, when Manto left Bombay for Lahore after the Partition, he handed the manuscript of a collection of his short stories, Chughad, to Kutub Publishers, and wrote to Sardar Jafri requesting that he write a foreword for it, adding that “whatever you write will be acceptable to me.” In response, Jafri wrote: “I will be very happy to write the foreword, though your book needs none, and certainly not one by me. You know that our literary outlooks differ considerably, but despite this I respect you a lot and harbor great hopes for your work.” Manto wrote back saying that, in that case, it was best to let the book come out without any foreword. However, by the time his letter reached Bombay, the book had already been published along with what proved to be an ill-conceived foreword by Jafri.

On the one hand, Jafri’s foreword reflected his evident respect for Manto’s work: “Manto’s craft is a jewel that sparkles on the tip of his pen. He paints vivid pictures of those characters whose humanity has been snatched from them by the capitalist rule, who have been turned into savages by a society that is founded on the principle of loot. Manto looks into the depths of their souls and sees the human heart beating within.” However, Jafri in a strange turn of affairs also seems to have decided that this foreword was an appropriate place to advance a critique of Manto. According to Jafri, the problem with Manto was that although he clearly loved humanity, was keenly aware of the wretchedness of society, and had shown the ability to launch a strident critique against the capitalist system, his fixation with protagonists who were either broken by the system or perverted by it (or both) rather than those who had taken the path of struggle and resistance in order to recover their lost humanity kept him from being a true progressive.

This was however not a categorical indictment of Manto. Jafri felt that despite these “shortcomings,” Manto’s current point of view was not too far removed from a revolutionary one. Manto had occupied this position as a young writer, and a return to it was eminently possible. Jafri concluded with the following declaration: “Today, the masses are on the road to revolution. Their enemy is right in front of their eyes. The demon of capitalism is on its way out. This caravan of people, its entire army calls out to SaadatHasanManto: Bring the sharpness of your pen, the loftiness of your thinking, and the intensity of your emotions. You are ours, and there is no place for you in the entire world, except among our ranks.”

Jafri’s critique — the idea that Manto’s stories had become too focused on the pathological aspects of society without any redeeming characters or story-lines to alleviate their overall pessimism — was neither odd nor unexpected, coming from a leading member of a movement organized around the principle of “life-affirming art.” It was also not the first time that Manto had faced such charges. The problem was with the choice of platform. The foreword to Manto’s book, moreover one whichJafri had been invited to write by the author, was hardly the place to articulate it. Manto rightfully felt blind-sided as well as slighted by Jafri. The timing and context of the critique was also unfortunate, coming as it did at a time when Manto was already struggling with feelings of loss, alienation and despair. It is hardly surprising, then, that he should have reacted strongly to it. Manto later excised the foreword from the 1950 edition of Chughad(published in Pakistan), and in its place wrote a scornful critique of what he saw as the confused and hurtful actions of the “so-called Progressives.” This essay is usually anthologized under a phrase Manto used to describe Jafri’s act: Taraqqi Pasand Socha Nahin Karte (Progressives do not Think).

Despite all this, Manto remained close to several key members of the PWA in Lahore in the period following independence. The only consistent job he had as a writer in this early period in Pakistan was for Imroze, a leftist Urdu daily edited by Faiz Ahmed Faiz. He was a frequent visitor at the office of Savera, another key progressive publication. His closest friends at the time, such as Ahmad NadeemQasmi and Ahmad Rahi, were significant Progressives. The first short stories that Manto wrote after his initial period of introspection following the move to Lahore were published in PWA journals: Khol Do (Open It) in Naqush, which was edited by Ahmed NadeemQasmi, and ThandaGosht in Javed, edited by Arif Abdul Mateen and published by ChoudhryNazeer Ahmad. Naqushwas consequently slapped with a several month long ban, and the charge of obscenity against ThandaGosht by the Punjab government swept up Arif Abdul Mateen and Nazeer Ahmad along with Manto. During the trial Faiz and other Progressives appeared as witnesses for the defense on Manto’s behalf.^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Even though Faiz unambiguously rejected the charge of obscenity leveled at Manto’s story, his testimony can be seen as less than full-throated. Some argue that Faiz was responding to the PWA call for Manto’s boycott issued during the 1949 conference. One can only speculate about this, but there are two factors that make one question this reading. One, Faiz was not the sort to abide by the PWA’s pronouncements in such matters; he faced his own share of censure during this period for holding independent opinions. Two, Manto himself writes about the fact that the trial was essentially an endeavour to go after Javed, a leftist publication. By Manto’s own account, Faiz tried hard at the meeting of the Press Advisory Board to dissuade the state from bringing a case against Thanda Gosht, but failed. Further, in Manto’s recollection of the trial, there’s never any sense that he felt betrayed by Faiz.

Attack on JNUSU and Left Built on Lies

February 13, 2016

Courtesy: http://newsclick.in/india/attack-jnusu-and-left-built-lies

In an unprecedented move, today morning (February 12, 2016) Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of the JNU students' union and an activist of AISF, was arrested by police in plain clothes, charged with sedition and conspiracy, and sent to custody for three days. The case was filed over holding of an event against hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru. The move came as a shock for many as the JNU students union had come out with a statement criticizing the slogans raised in the event. It had explicitly mentioned that their protest was against the cancelling of the event by administration under the pressure created by the ABVP. The arrest has drawn criticism from various progressive groups and individuals. The left organisations and parties have criticised the slogans raised by a group of students but have also condemned the arrest in strong words. They pointed out that the entire propaganda by the right wing is to malign the left forces in the country and is built on lies. While this report was being written, more than thousand students were marching inside the JNU seeking immediate release of the JNUSU President. A source in the administration says that the newly appointed VC, and the Registrar have given a written authorisation to the Delhi Police to enter and take any action they want in the campus.

The CPI (M) in a statement issued on behalf of the Polit Bureau condemned the arrest and demanded his immediate release. The statement said that, “an isolated incident, which does not reflect the opinion of the vast majority of the students, is now being blatantly used as an excuse to clamp down on the progressive and democratic student movement. This has been a long harboured design of the RSS and its camp followers. This anti-democratic authoritarian attack on JNU campus, seen in the light of State sponsored efforts by the BJP central government to silence dissent in premier educational institutions, has serious implications.” The General Secretary of the CPI (M) Sitaram Yechury also compared the times to that of emergency and said in a tweet that, “Police on campus, arrests and picking up students from hostels. This had last happened during Emergency.”

The deans of various departments of the university and the JNUTA have also come out in defense of the student’s community. The deans in a statement issued have said that, “As he belongs to the All India Students’ Federation, his views and political associations are well-known, and to accuse him of sedition is beyond the bounds of credibility. The only previous occasion when the President of the JNUSU had been arrested was during the Emergency of 1975-77, and the present situation on the campus brings back memories of the Emergency days.” The JNUTA extended support to the JNUSU and said that , “ The teachers of JNU have always stood for upholding the Constitution of India and values enshrined therein and are opposed to any unconstitutional activity in the campus or outside. This very sentiment makes us express our strong opposition to attempts to use the law and the police to suppress democratic dissent and conduct a witch-hunt on our campus. The fact that the JNU Students Union (JNUSU) President is the first to be arrested establishes it. The JNUTA, following its Emergency Meeting, expresses its deep concern on the recent developments on our campus. The teachers of the University condemn the massive police presence and the attempt to escalate tensions.”

The former JNU students who had been arrested during emergency have issued a statement condemning the act of arrest. The statement read, “Coming in the wake of the dastardly conspiracy of connivance and blatant discrimination that forced Rohit Vemula to take his own life, the storming of the hostels and the arrest of the president of JNUSU are signs of the imposition of an undeclared emergency that need to be opposed, confronted and defeated.”

The events preceding the arrest could be closely compared to that of Hyderabad Central University. After a complaint lodged by BJP law maker Mahesh Giri and ABVP, the case was registered yesterday under Section of 124 A (sedition) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC against unknown persons at Vasant Kunj (North) Police station. Early morning the Home Minister took matters in his hand and said that, “If anyone raises anti-India slogans, tries to raise questions on country's unity and integrity, they will not be spared. Stringent action will be taken against them. “He was closely followed by MHRD minister Smriti Irani who is known for writing 5 letters to UoH asking them to take action of research scholar Rohith Vemula. Such interventions by the ministers are politically motivated and are attack on the autonomy of the insitutions.

Kumar, a third year student of PhD had won elections after an electrifying speech by securing 1029 votes. He is known for his oratory skills and staunch logical critique of the right wing forces. In a event yesterday, he was vocal about the negligible involvement of the RSS in the freedom struggle. He pointed out that the JNU students community does not need the certificate of being nationalist by organizations like RSS and ABVP which have not participated in the freedom movement and do not believe in the constitution.

References:
1. No, the slogans of the JNU students don't count as sedition under the law http://scroll.in/article/803522/no-what-the-jnu-students-did-doesnt-count-as-sedition-under-the-law
2. Freedom of speech at JNU: Is there really any difference between sedition and blasphemy? http://scroll.in/article/803511/freedom-of-speech-at-jnu-is-there-really-any-difference-between-sedition-and-blasphemy
3. Anti-national? Not my son, says mother http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160213/jsp/frontpage/story_69039.jsp#.Vr7pyEDk8cA
4. Do not disagree: JNU arrests over Afzal Guru event are ill-judged, threatens basic rights http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/afzal-guru-film-jnu-student-protest-do-not-disagree/
5. JNU storm intensifies, students accuse Centre of political vendettahttps://sabrangindia.in/node/4296/edit http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/students-accuse-govt-of-vendetta-as-jnu-storm-intensifies/story-R1HHVXgCsg8ClxJgtB1etK.html
6. The problem with JNU: Too left for liberals, too liberal for leftists http://scroll.in/article/803517/the-problem-with-jnu-too-left-for-liberals-too-liberal-for-leftists

The Criticality of the Right to Dissent

February 13, 2016

Text of the annual Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India in Delhi on February 12, 2016

I begin on a self-indulgent note. “How is Amartya?” asked my uncle Shidhu (Jyotirmoy Sengupta) — cousin of my father — in a letter written from Burdwan Jail, on August 22 of 1934, before I was one. He complained about the name “Amartya”, given to me by Rabindranath Tagore, and argued that the great Tagore had “completely lost his mind in his old age” to choose such a “tooth-breaking name” for a tiny child. Jyotirmoy was in jail for his efforts to end the British Raj. He was moved from prison to prison — Dhaka Jail, Alipur Central Jail, Burdwan Jail, Midnapur Central Jail. There were other uncles and cousins of mine who were going through similar experiences in other British Indian prisons.

Jyotirmoy himself came to a sad end, dying of tuberculosis, related to undernourishment in the prisons. As a young boy I was lucky to have a few conversations with him, and felt very inspired by what he said and wrote. He was committed to help remove “the unfreedoms heaped on us by our rulers.”

How happy would Jyotirmoy have been to be in today’s India, with the Raj dead and gone, and with no unfreedoms imposed on us by the colonial masters? But — and here is the rub — have these unfreedoms really ended? The penal codes legislated by the imperial rulers still govern important parts of our life. Of these, Section 377 of the code, which criminalises gay sex, is perhaps the most talked about, but happily a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is re-examining it.

It is, however, often overlooked that the putting on a pedestal of the sentiments of any religious group — often very loosely defined — is another remnant of British law, primarily Section 295(A) of the penal code introduced in 1927. A person can be threatened with jail sentence for hurting the religious sentiments of another, however personal — and however bizarrely delicate — that portrayed sentiment might be.

The Indian Constitution, despite claims to the contrary, does not have any such imposition. In a judgment on March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court in fact gave priority to the fundamental right of the people to express themselves, as enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution’s insistence on “public order, decency or morality” is a far cry from what the organised political activists try to impose by hard-hitting kick-boxing, allegedly guided by delicate sentiments. The Constitution does not have anything against anyone eating beef, or storing it in a refrigerator, even if some cow-venerators are offended by other people’s food habits.

The realm of delicate sentiments seems to extend amazingly far. Murders have occurred on grounds of hurt sentiments from other people’s private eating. Children have been denied the nourishment of eggs in school meals in parts of India for the priority of vegetarian sentiments of powerful groups. And seriously researched works of leading international scholars have been forced to be pulped by scared publishers, threatened to be imprisoned for the offence of allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

Journalists often receive threats — or worse — for violating the imposed norms of vigilante groups. The Indian media has a good record of standing up against intimidation, but freedom of speech and reporting need more social support.

To see in all this the evidence of an “intolerant India” is just as serious a mistake as taking the harassment of people for particular social behaviour to be a constitutional mandate. Most Indians, including most people who are classified as Hindu (including this writer), have no difficulty in accepting variations in food habits among different groups (and even among Hindus). And they are ready to give their children the nourishment of eggs if they so choose (and if they can afford them).

And Hindus have been familiar with, and tolerant of, arguments about religious beliefs for more than 3,000 years (“Who knows then, whence it first came into being? … Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not,” Rigveda, Mandala X, Verse 129). It is a serious insult to Indians — and to Hindus in general — to attribute to them the strange claims of a small but well organised political group, who are ready to jump on others for violations of norms of behaviour that the group wants to propagate, armed with beliefs and sentiments that have to be protected from sunlight.

The silencing of dissent, and the generating of fear in the minds of people violate the demands of personal liberty, but also make it very much harder to have a dialogue-based democratic society. The problem is not that Indians have turned intolerant. In fact, quite the contrary. We have been too tolerant even of intolerance. When some people — often members of a minority (in religion or community or scholarship) — are attacked by organised detractors, they need our support. This is not happening adequately right now. And it did not happen adequately earlier as well.

In fact, this phenomenon of intolerance of dissent and of heterodox behaviour did not start with the present government, though it has added substantially to the restrictions already there. M.F. Husain, one of the leading painters of India, was hounded out of his country by relentless persecution led by a small organised group, and he did not get the kind of thundering support that he could have justly expected.

In that ghastly event at least the Indian government was not directly involved (though it certainly could — and should — have done much more to protect him). The government’s complicity was, however, much more direct when India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.

So what should we do, as citizens of India who support freedom and liberty? First, we should move away from blaming the Indian Constitution for what it does not say. Second, we should not allow colonial penal codes that impose unfreedoms to remain unchallenged. Third, we should not tolerate the intolerance that undermines our democracy, that impoverishes the lives of many Indians, and that facilitates a culture of impunity of tormentors. Fourth, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have good reason to examine comprehensively whether India is not being led seriously astray by the continuation of the rules of the Raj, which we fought so hard to end.

In particular, there is need for judicial scrutiny of the use that organised tormentors make of an imagined entitlement of “not to be offended” (an alleged entitlement that does not seem to exist in this particular form in any other country). Fifth, if some states, under the influence of sectarian groups want to extend these unfreedoms through local legislation (for example, banning particular food), the courts surely have to examine the compatibility of these legislation with the fundamental rights of people, including the right to speech and to personal liberties.

As Indians, we have reason to be proud of our tradition of tolerance and plurality, but we have to work hard to preserve it. The courts have to do their duty (as they are doing — but more is needed), and we have to do ours (indeed much more is surely needed). Vigilance has been long recognised to be the price of freedom.

(Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and professor of economics and philosophy at Harvard University)

Slaves shall be henceforward and forever free

February 12, 2016

“Emancipation of the slaves, proclamed [sic],” J. Waeschle, 1862 Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division
As president of the United States, in the midst of the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln issued this proclamation – the Emancipation Proclamation- that signalled freedom from slavery

Two hundred and ten years ago, on February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln was born. He was the 16^th President of the United States, between 1861-1865. Regarded as one of the great persons to hold this office, he has become something of a legend, undoubtedly greater for his having been the first President to be assassinated while in office. Six foot four in height, though not an abolitionist, he regarded slavery as evil.

Prior to his election as President, seven Southern states had seceded from the Union. In his inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Lincoln reached out to the South by telling them he had no intention of changing slavery as it existed; but he held firm to the ideal that the Union be forever preserved and indissoluble.

Southern states formed their own Confederate Union, claiming Fort Summer in Charleston. This was the first hostile act of the Civil War. Lincoln ordered supplies sent by sea to support Fort Sumter, but within two days the Confederates began their siege of the fort, and it surrendered. North and South, the border was drawn. States with the Union were asked by Lincoln to send 75,000 men even as he established a blockade of all ports with the Confederates. Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland remained in the Union, while Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas joined the Confederacy.

As he led the Union through the Civil War, Lincoln enjoyed vast powers. The battle was not swift; the Battle of Bull Run in Virginia, where the Confederates trounced Union Army. To quote, “the struggle for the heart and soul of a nation would weigh heavily on the shoulders of this Commander and Chief.”

It was in the September of 1862 that the Union Army won a small victory at Antietam in Maryland. Lincoln used this event to make one of his most important decisions. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that slaves residing in rebellious states "be then, henceforward and forever free." This would become effective January 1, 1863.

Strategically, the Emancipation Proclamation was aimed only at those states at war with the Union, and did not affect slave-holding border states that did not join the Confederacy. More than an attempt to free the slaves, it was an attempt to re-join the country.
The Proclamation was an important factor in turning the tide of the war. Not only did freeing the slaves deprive the South of manpower, but in the neighbourhood of 186,000 former slaves joined the Union Army. Europe’s perspective on the War altered, from being about politics to being about principle. Earlier defeats had tempted both Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy; but the Proclamation made them reconsider.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the Confederate States that were still rebelling.

The Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863

A Transcription of the Text
By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labour faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

Source: United States National Archive and Records. – http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html

Islam guarantees rights but where are the women theologians?

February 12, 2016

Rights and freedom of women have always been a burning issue. The problem of Muslim women in this connection has become especially controversial. Muslims constitute more than 14 percent of India’s total population, fifty per cent of this vast population are Muslim women. The unhappy fact in India is that women of the Muslim community have been almost as much suppressed or oppressed as women in general within Indian society. It is only the form and types of of exploitation that have varied between one religious community to another.

Within Islam, discussions on women’s status have been discussed in detail. The Quran itself has laid down rules regarding matrimonial relations, the social position of women, and their legal and economic rights. It has prescribed certain laws regarding maintenance, dower, and inheritance and sharing of property by women in their different capacities as a daughter, sister, mother and wife.

In practice, however, Indian Muslim women are less assertive in enjoying these rights granted to them. The reason lies in the lack of awareness of these rights granted within religion itself; and this leads further to a sense of helplessness. This state of affairs prevailing among large sections of the Indian Muslim women is not only keeping them in a state that amounts to a denial of their basic rights but is also hampering their full and complete contribution to the social, political and economic life of their community, and in their participation in the development of Indian society as a whole.

Marriage and Mehr
Islam has not laid down a definite age of marriage for girls or boys. The Quran is silent about this. In pre Islamic days the custom among the Arabs allowed the father to marry off his daughter to whomever he liked and at whatever age the girl was. Islam introduced certain changes and laid down a general rule, namely, that the girl should not be married off by her father against her own will. The implicit pre-requisite, the agreement of the girl being a necessary condition to the nuptial contract, could hence be used (in interpretation) as the basis for interpreting the age of the girl at which she could be considered fit for entering into matrimonial relations.

There is an instance of the Prophet’s view on this subject. A young girl come before the Prophet perplexed and anxious; she exclaimed,

“No Messenger of Allah from the hand of this father!”
“But what has your father done to you,” the Prophet asked.
“He has a nephew she replied,” and he has given me in marriage to him before consulting me in the matter.”
“Now that he has done it,” said the Prophet, “you should not oppose it. Agree to it, and be your cousin’s wife.”
“O messenger of Allah I do not like my cousin. How can I be the wife of a man whom I do not like..”
“If you do not like him that is an end to the matter. You have full authority. Go and make the choice of a man whom you would like to marry.”[1]

This makes it quite clear that the opinion of the girl to be married is regarded as decisive to the marriage. According to Muslim Law, marriage is purely an agreement between two persons. At the time of the ‘nikah’ (marriage) the Qadi [2] determines the person who is to act as ‘wali’[3] on behalf of the bride. He requests the ‘wali’ to go to the bride along with two witnesses and ask whether she is ready and willing to marry ‘such and such a man’ with a definite amount as ‘mehr’ (dower). If she says ‘yes’ she is deemed to have agreed to the alliance.

The ‘wali’ returns with the witnesses to the Qadi and informs him that the bride has agreed. The Qadi recites some verses from Q’uran and gets the signature of the bride, bridegroom and ‘wali’ on the ‘nikahnama’ (the marriage register). He too signs in the ‘nikahnama’ in token of his having performed the marriage.

Although there is no need to change the form of marriage, in Jordan there is a provision that a woman, at the time of marriage can stipulate that she will have the right to divorce given specified circumstances or to live in a specified place.

Within the Muslim community the religious text allow the man to have four wives, but on the condition that all four be equally treated, financially and emotionally. The Quran has permitted it under exceptional conditions but these conditions are violated in practice. Several Muslim countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria etc. have changed their law. In these countries a plurality of wives is positively prohibited, marriage with more than one wife is not permitted except with the permission of the Qadi. In Pakistan no man can now marry a second time if his first wife was alive, unless she documented her consent, something which the Shariat did not provided for.

Marriage and Mehr are importance factors in the life of a Muslim woman. The Mehr (dower) according to Islamic scriptures requires that a man must pay a certain amount of money to the women, he is going to marry. The exact amount of money is determined keeping in view the status of the man. According to Islam if ‘Mehr’ has not been paid by the husband during his lifetime, it has to be paid out of his bequests after his death. Islamic law also lays down that if the husband divorcees his wife he must pay her the Mehr amount and give her a proper maintenance allowance as long as she does not remarry or does not find an alternative support. In the Quran sura ( Chapter) II, ayat (verse) 241 runs as follows:

“Wali Motallaqatay Mata Un Bill Maaroofay Haqqan Alal Muttaqeena”[4]
“For divorced women maintenance should be provided on a reasonable scale. This is a duty on the righteous husband.”

“Kazaleka Yubaiyyanullaho Lahum Ayatehee Law Allakum Taqeloon”[5]
“It is expected that you will use your common sense”.
This arrangement seems reasonable if followed in practice according to the spirit of the precept.

Mehr in the Islamic System
There are a number of verses in the Quran ordaining that the woman’s Mehr belongs to her and not to anyone else, whether father or husband. The Quran says: “..and give unto the women, (whom ye marry) free gift of their marriage portions : But if they of their own accord remit unto you a part there of, then ye are welcome to absorb in (in your wealth).”[6] The Quran encourages man to give as much as possible. It says: “And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money (however great), take nothing from it. Would ye take it by the way of calumny and open wrong?”[7] When the second caliph Hazarat Umar wanted to impose a ceiling on Mehr a woman stood up and recited this verse and said, “when Allah wants men to give a heap of gold (by way of Mehr), who are you to put a ceiling on it?”

Thus according to the scriptures a woman can ask much as a heap of gold by way of Mehr. The Quran also warns men not to take anything away from their wives after giving something to them. The Quran says: “And it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them.”[8]
It is usually asserted that the Mehr money is a good security for the woman in case of any difficulties in her marital life. For example, if and when she is divorced, the Mehr money has to be given to her (but in case the divorce has taken place due to her own fault or volition, she will not get any money). More so, the woman is entitled to her Mehr money) (if not paid) after her husband’s death, the sons have to pay her the Mehr money.

In case the woman dies, then her father and brothers can demand the Mehr money from her husband. This account gives a reasonably secure picture of a woman’s financial position. In reality, however, one finds that very few women can avail of this money.

Payment of Mehr
The Mehr (dower) assist according to the scriptures is that a man must pay a certain amount of money to the woman he is going to marry. The exact amount of money is determined keeping in view the status of the man, and the payment is to be paid either at the time of the marriage itself of at some later date that has been agreed between the practices concerned. According to scriptures, Mehr (dower) may be prompt dower (Muajjal Mehr) or deferred dower (Muwajjal Mehr). Prompt dower is payable immediately after marriage. A wife can refuse to enter into conjugal domicile with her husband until the payment of the prompt dower. Deferred dower is payable on dissolution of the marriage by either death or divorce. In India it has been the general practice, not to pay Mehr money or pay only a part of it. In the vast majority of cases Mehr is a mere paper transaction. Its fixation is more of a ritual than a realistic assessment of women’s general requirement in the event of “talaq”. Moreover, if the husband is unable to pay the Mehr, he requests his wife to forgo it. The request is a form of emotional blackmail to which the wife invariably succumbs. Thus, the concept of Mehr, which was created to guarantee the economic security of a woman, is not presently serving any useful purpose.

Islamic law also lays down that if the husband divorces his wife he must pay her the ‘Mehr’ amount and give her a proper maintenance allowance as long as she does not remarry or does not find an alternative support. This arrangement seems reasonable if followed in practice according to the spirit of the precept. What Islam has laid down for payment by the husband in the form of ‘Mehr’ is to be paid right at the marriage time or later is certainly a guarantee for the protection and maintenance of the woman at the time of divorce or against ill-treatment meted out to her during the period of the marriage, e.g. Islamic traditions have laid down that the husband has no right to compel his wife to suckle the babies, to do domestic work like cooking and washing etc, she can claim a salary from her husband in return for such tasks, or part ways with her husband in return for his demanding that she perform such tasks. She also has the right to part ways with the husband and earn whatever she can, out of a sense of fulfillment, in various occupations.

Divorce and Maintenance
Islam is perhaps the first religion in the world, which has expressly recognised the termination of marriage through divorce. Islam recognizes the right of every husband to divorce his wife with or without reason. But if the wife wishes to leave the husband, she has to persuade the husband to divorce her. This form of divorce is called ‘khula’. In the Quran, there is no mention about wives divorcing their husband. It only speaks of husbands divorcing their wives and lays down rules regarding how to divorce, what treatment to ensure after the divorce, such as maintenance to the divorcee and for the upbringing and custody of the children if any, etc.

To deal with the Quranic position first, a number of Quranic verses mention the rules regarding divorce and its implications in various suras (chapters) of the book.

Talaq was a constant threat to the wife, which could at any time, throw her into a state of social insecurity. In early Arabia, the Arabs used to pronounce talaq and revoke it. To end this practice of the Arabs, Prorhet Mohammed declared that,” of all the permitted things the most detestable is divorce in the eyes of God.”

He affected many reforms in the institution of talaq. In the Quran, the following procedure was prescribed for divorce, “When you divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed time and calculate the number of days prescribed and be careful of (your duty to), God, you Lord. Do not drive them out of their houses, nor should they themselves go forth, unless they commit on open indecency.”[9]

In another verse, the Quran says, “For divorced women a provision in kindness : a Duty for those who ward off (evil).”[10] The Quran ordains, “…….if ye fear a breach between them two in (the husband and the wife) appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment, Allah will make them of one mind”[11].

The pronouncement of talaq may be revocable or irrevocable. The revocable forms of divorce are considered as the “approved” ones and the irrevocable divorce are considered to be the ‘not approved’ category; Prophet Mohammed favored the revocable mode of divorce over the irrevocable forms.
The forms of talaq are classified as follows:-

Talaqus – sunna i.e. revocable or approved (three sitting).
Talaq-i-bida i.e. irrevocable or not approved (one sitting).

The subject of divorce has proved a fruitful source of misconception and controversy; but there can be no question that the Quranic verses concerning the treatment of women in divorce are from a position of ‘better humanity and regard for justice.” According to the principles of Islam, whether divorced or widowed, a woman is at liberty to marry again. The only restraint is that they have to wait for a period of three menstrual periods, before re-marrying. The Prophet promoted specific legislation in woman’s favour addressing various domestic situations. The law gave considerable rights to free women. It was obligatory for the husband to pay to the bride, before marriage, what was called ‘Mehr’.

We may say then that though Islam has not given men and women absolute and equal rights, it treats women with respect and honor. Unfortunately, in actual practice, the tendency seems to be to overlook or misinterpret the principles (and orders) in the Quran and consequently to accord to her an inferior status. M. Mujeeb observed that actual practice was based on the custom of the family, which was the custom of the community or the professional group to which the family belonged rather that based on religion.[12]

In the Prophet’s own words and his own life were the best commentary upon the divinely inspired Last Testament or the Final Gospel, i.e. the Holy Quran, we shall see what he himself had to say about women and how he treated members of that sex. Prophet Mohammed has said :-

“The thing which is lawful, but disliked by God, is divorce.”
“The Great Apostle dislike the idea of beating women : Those men who beat their wives do not behave well. He is not of my who teaches a woman to stray.”
“That is the best Muslims whose disposition is best; and the best of you are they who behave best to their wives.”
“God, enjoins upon you to treat women well, for they are your mothers, daughters and aunts.”
“The rights of women are sacred. See that women are maintained in the rights granted to them.”
“A virtuous wife is a man’s best treasure.”
“Do not prevent your women from coming to the Mosque.”[13]

The Sharia
There are four sources from which is derived the Shariah and it if from these that it draws its authority: the Quran, the Sunna, Ijma, and Qiyas. Deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” the Quran reflects direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic law. After the Quran, Islamic jurists next turn to the Sunna, considered to be an indirect divine revelation arising out of the Hadiths, or sayings or acts of Mohammed. Ijma refers to the consensus of the grand Mujtahids of the past, a historic process in which, once consensus was reached, provisions became a permanent part of the immutable body of Islamic law. Finally, the fourth source for the Shariah is the Qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, which applies accepted principle(s) or assumption(s) to arrive at a legally binding ruling.

According to Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer it is believed by millions of Muslims across the world that Sharia laws are immutable and represent divine will. This is based on serious misunderstanding.

Sharia is not and cannot be immutable.
Justice being a very important ingredient for Sharia laws, it is clear that there is enough scope within the Islamic Sharia to bring about changes ensuring gender justice. The Quran supports gender equality and so any such change will be in line with the Quranic framework. This will only help clear the misconceptions and contradictions that have crept in on account of different cultural and customary practices.

In fact, as already pointed out, if Muslims had carried out Quranic injunctions, without interjecting dominant (often patriarchal) cultural practices, the Islamic world would have been a great pioneer in ushering gender equality in the world. Unfortunately, feudalism destroyed, in practice, the revolutionary spirit of Quran.[14]

In order to emphasise the principles of gender justice it is high time that we produce female theologians with profound knowledge of the Arabic language. In this context we welcome the recent development of Muslim women as theorists/Qazis. This will help to resolve the grievances regarding family law, especially Islamic personal law, in India.

* Researcher, Gandhian Institute of Studies, Rajghat, Varanasi-221001

[1] Mutahhari Murtada, The Rights of Women in Islam. (Tehran: World Organisation for Islamic Services, 1981), pp-61-61

[2] a Muslim judge who renders decisions according to the Sharīʿah, the canon law of Islām

[3] A wali (guardian) is a very important and vital aspect in a marriage. It determines whether or not a certain marriage contract (akad nikah) that has been performed is valid. This can be clearly understood from a hadith by the Prophet

[4] The Quran; 2:241

[5] The Quran; 2:242

[6] The Quran; 4:4

[7] The Quran; 4:20

[8] The Quran; 2:229

[9] George Sale, The Quran, Commonly called the Quran of Mohammed (New York, n.d.) p.560

[10] The Quran; 2:241

[11] The Quran; 4:35

[12] M.Mujeeb, Islamic Influence on Indian Society (Merrut, 1972), p.91

[13] Allama Sir Abdullah Al-Suhrawardy, The Sayings of Mohammed (1954), pp. 115-117

[14] Asghar Ali Engineer; The Rights of Women in Islam, 2008

Why the idea of an Islamic state is full of holes

February 12, 2016

The attitude of Indian Islamist organisations and scholars towards secularism is ridden with hypocrisy and double standards

It is sad but true that there is a large degree of hypocrisy and double standards on the part of Indian Islamist organizations and scholars when in their attitude and approach towards secular democratic India.

Over the course of the last five-odd years, ever since the crisis that has erupted all across the Muslim world, in Muslim-majority and Muslim minority contexts, I have been troubled by a simple question. Do Indian Islamists accept the Indian secular state and the values and ethos of secularism only because Muslims are in a minority? If Indian Muslims were in a majority, would India have had a secular or an Islamic state? My assessment is that the latter would be true and without doubt we would have been reduced to another Pakistan.

The Islamists start by saying since I am asking a hypothetical question, it requires no answer. I then request them to give me a hypothetical reply. I request a simple yes or no which they try and avoid. But the honest ones do say ‘yes’, if India were a Muslim majority country, it would have been an Islamic state, as they claim that essentially secularism is shirk, a sin.

A few of the moderate elements go on to state that Indian secularism does find the right balance between religion and modernity and is therefore acceptable as the way ahead.

But with the rising tide of political Islam, symbolised by the crisis raging all the way from West Asia to North Africa, with the crisis gripping certain nations of South Asia, an Islamic Caliphate is very much a subject of conversation.

The saving grace here is that the Indian Muslims masses are committed to the idea and the ethos of a ‘living secularism’. The very Idea of India for them is a unique experiment in the annals of human history, unparalleled at many levels.

Indian secularism is founded on the idea, an ethos of “mutual acceptance and respect” and not mere “tolerance”, which a very weak expression indeed. All those who still tom-tom the idea of a theocratic state – Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish – need to understand that modern democracies and nations have no place for any theocracy. This is so because theocracies are inherently against equal citizenship rights, against equal rights for people of all religions, against the very concept of ‘sarva dharma samabhava’, that is, mutual respect and acceptance of all faiths, religions and cultures. It’s as simple as that.

In an Islamic state only Muslims have the right and freedom to practise, preach and proselytize, convert, whilst all other religions only have only the right to practice, that too with restrictions. Forget the right to preach and convert; Dhimmis are simply not allowed to do so. Islamists who hold such notions are the very same ones who demand equal rights in India or in the western countries wherein they dwell

Theocracies cannot lay the foundation for modern nations and democracies, or even regional unions and confederations. Nations need to be built around a vision where each citizen is equal, where every religious, gender, cultural, ethnic, sect, linguistic, class, tribal diversity and identity finds itself mirrored in the Constitution in equalitarian and legal terms, and not only that of the majority faith or sect. This has and will only create a weak society, a divided nation, regions, leading to hatreds, divisions and chaos which ruling elites and foreign imperial powers will take advantage of. Thus every individual, every section of society needs to be made an equal stake-holder without any exception.

This principle also applies at the regional and global levels, even as humanity integrates and evolves. In these nations and societies, all religions are accorded due respect and constitutional space, protecting and safeguarding the rights of diverse groups and communities.

I am opposed to the idea of a theocratic state just as I am opposed to a Communist state, as the latter too has proved to be as intolerant of other ideologies and religions, as well as multi-party democracies.

In an Islamic state as propagated by the Islamists –

1) Muslims have more rights than the Dhimmis (non-Muslims), who are ‘protected citizens’ but not equal citizens.

2) In an Islamic state only Muslims have the right and freedom to practise, preach and proselytize, convert, whilst all other religions only have only the right to practice, that too with restrictions. Forget the right to preach and convert; Dhimmis are simply not allowed to do so. Islamists who hold such notions are the very same ones who demand equal rights in India or in the western countries wherein they dwell.

3) Islamists are also committed to the concept of ‘murtad’ (apostate) that a Muslim who leaves the fold of Islam and converts to another faith deserves to be killed. Where then is the concept of ‘freedom of conscience’, which they demand for themselves in secular lands?

4) Only a Muslim can become a prime minister or president in an Islamic state. Others cannot even think of rising to the highest office in the land, as that is prohibited by the Constitution of such countries. Thus out of the window goes the concept of equal rights. This is very different from the Indian ethos where we have had a Sikh as our PM for 10 years, four Muslims have been elevated to the President’s post and a Muslim may even dream of some day sitting in the PM’s chair.

In short, in a modern, secular democratic State, all citizens are equal whereas in a ‘theocraZy’, those from the majority are more equal than others.

(The writer is an activist and an expert on West Asian Affairs).

Stop the deification and appropriation of Babasaheb: Dalit youth to the Sangh Parivar

February 12, 2016

On January 22, 2016, graduate students of the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Lucknow, created history of sorts when they raised sharp and aggressive slogans against Narendra Modi, the prime minister. “Modi go back,” they shouted as he addressed the Convocation barely four days after Rohith Vemula’s “institutional murder” on January 17.

“If we had not protested, Modi would not have apologized,” Ram Karan Nirmal and Amrendra Singh Arya told Communalism Combat in this exclusive interview. Done in collaboration with Newsclick.in and Hillele, these two students and another, Manoj Kumar spoke at length on issues of discrimination and redressal in Indian society and on the campus. Teesta Setalvad of Communalism Combat conducted the interview.

“This is the first time after the Mandal commission agitation that campuses across the country are aflame with cries for justice. Caste, gender and minority rights, these are the three issues around which youngsters are agitating. All progressive forces need to join in.”

‘Today, even after the enactment of the Right to Education Act (RTE) and the provision that there should be 25 per cent entry to lesser privileged children, most schools do not meet this requirement. Those that do, single these children out, brand them, cut their hair, differentiate them; it is shameful,” Amrendra Arya.

“The movement that has begun with the death/sacrifice of Rohith Vemula is not going to stop. India is a land of the youth. The youth want this country to change: they want casteism, gender and religious discrimination to go,” Ram Karan Nirmal.

“The nature of casteism may have changed but caste discrimination has not disappeared. I recall one bitter experience at the Banaras Hindu University where I had completed my LLB. I was presenting a paper on “The Marxist Theory of International Relations. I had worked hard and thought I did a good job. You know what the professor remarked? “Until now Brahmans and Rajputs used to speak. Now ‘others’ have also started speaking!’” This hurt me and made me feel very uncomfortable,” Manoj Kumar.

“There are so many vacant seats in central universities, this need to be filled. Adequate representation at all levels is a must, even in the judiciary, “Ram Karan.

“Others say, Garv se kahon ham Rajput hai!. When will we able to say, “Garv se kahon ham Dhobhi ya Chamar hai?” Manoj Kumar.

“This appropriation of Babsaheb Ambedkar is nothing short of a deification and saffronisation of a personality. Babasaheb was rational and scientific. You cannot deify him and take away this essence, which is a sharp critique of the Hindu religion itself which anoints and legitimises caste,” Ram Karan Nirmal.

“The RSS move to have a Samrasta Week –to assimilate or appropriate Dalits is hypocritical. As Dalits we eat non-vegetarian food. Then why the Samrasta week with enforced vegetarianism, without our food our culture?” Manoj Kumar.

“The patriarchal and casteist attitude towards Rohith Vemula’s mother, Radhika questioning her Dalit identity; the behaviour of ministers Bangaru Dattarya and Appa Rao (Vice Chancellor) is simply trying to weaken the movement. But this movement is not going away.” – Ram Karan, Manoj Kumar, Amrendra Arya.

Whither Freedom: The Chhatisgarh attack on journalists

February 11, 2016

Smashed rear window of Malini's WagonR. [Photo courtesy: Malini Subramaniam]

Two days after the attack on the house of Scroll.in contributor Malini Subramaniam, the Chhattisgarh police finally filed a First Information Report in the incident on February 10. Subramaniam's lawyers have, however described the FIR as "inadequate" since it does not account for the events leading up to the attack and fails to name anyone.

It was on Sunday (February 7, 2016) evening, that a group of 20-odd men from the Samajik Ekta Manch, a newly formed group that claims to be working to counter the spread of Naxalism in Bastar region, staged a demonstration outside Subramaniam's house. She has identified two of the men, since they had visited her house on January 10 and warned her against writing articles that tarnished the image of the police. Later that night, around 11 pm, the police had turned up at her house for questioning.

The month-long process of intimidation had culminated in an attack on Subramaniam's home in the early hours of Monday. Around 2.30 am, stones were hurled at her house, shattering the rear window of her car. The local police initially refused to file an FIR.

After reports of the attack appeared in both local and national media, and there was widespread condemnation of the incident, the police registered an FIR was filed against unnamed persons for the offences of house-trespass and "mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees and more".
Isha Khandelwal, Subramaniam's lawyer, pointed out that the FIR had several holes in it. "While registering the FIR, the police has ignored the incident that took place in the evening before the assault. The police has, in effect, refused to accept the obvious fact that what happened in the night happened as a result of the incident of the evening, thus making both incidents part of one single continuous transaction.

Also, the action of the Samajik Ekta Manch's action in the evening on its own amounts to an illegal act under Sections [of the Indian Penal Code] such as 117, 143,147,153 [relating to unlawful assembly, promoting enmity between classes and other charges] which are all cognisable. Then why was an FIR for that incident where Malini has recognised people not been registered? Also the sections they have put up for the incident that took place in the night are ones that attract simple imprisonment even though offences under Section 440, 451, 452, 457 [relating to house trespass] have been clearly made out.”

Meanwhile, in a press conference, members of the Samajik Ekta Manch denied any involvement in the attack and claimed they were simply protesting against Subramaniam's writings in a "democratic manner". The press release of the Samajik Ekta Manch can be read below. See also our earlier story at https://www.sabrangindia.in/article/nwmi-condemns-attack-malini-subramaniam

Statements in support
Support has continued to pour in for Subramaniam. The Editors' Guild of India issued a statement expressing concern over attempts to intimidate her. The human rights organisation Amnesty International also issued a statement, calling at the attack "another indicator of the increasingly hostile atmosphere in which journalists and human rights defenders operate in Chhattisgarh. The government of Chhattisgarh must not just sit on its hands and watch journalists being threatened and harassed," said Makepeace Sitlhou, Campaigner at Amnesty International India. "They must act on their promise to protect journalists from being attacked simply for doing their work.”

Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, a non-profit in the state, has also issued a statement asking the government to ensure such attacks do not take place. It said an attempt was being made to create front organisations that would cover-up for the police.

Full text of the Editors' Guild statement
The Editors Guild of India is deeply concerned by the intimidation of a contributor/stringer of the online magazine Scroll.in, Malini Subramaniam, currently based in Jagdalpur town of Bastar region in Chhattisgarh.

On Monday, February 8, a group of unidentified persons allegedly hurled stones at her home in which the rear window of her car parked in the compound was shattered. The incident took place within hours of a mob of 20 people who are part of a social group called Samajik Ekta Manch, which comprises of political workers of all major parties in Bastar and some former Salwa Judum activists claiming to be anti-Maoists, gathering outside her home Sunday evening and protesting against her writings as being pro-Maoists. They even accused her of being a Maoist sympathizer. Ms Subramaniam has been living with her daughter in Jagdalpur for four years now. While she is working as a stringer/contributor for the online news site Scroll.in for a little over one year, she was previously working on a project for the International Red Cross in Bastar. It was perhaps in the context of a series of her recent reports in Scroll.in that were perceived to be against the police that the Samajik Ekta Manch activists recently met her at her residence last week – this came after several inquiries and questioning of her by the local police themselves.

Bastar has been in the throes of an armed conflict. Two local stringers working for a newspaper have been arrested by the police on charges of aiding the Maoists and are languishing in jail. The Manch activists reportedly took objected to her reportage saying it was in support of the Maoists and against the development of the region and that she was not giving the others versions. While the activists and the police are free to place their point of view, even counter the stories that she has written, the physical and mental intimidation of the Scroll.in writer, Ms Subramaniam, and the attempt to stop her from reporting from the region is not acceptable; it’s a crime to attack someone’s home. The incident is highly condemnable and against the tenets of the freedom of the press. That the local police have not deemed it fit to register an FIR in this incident, smacks of partisan behaviour. The Editors Guild of India urgently calls for the intervention of the Chattisgarh Chief Minister and hopes that he would ensure a free and fair probe into the matter.

On February 10, 2016, the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists has also issued the following statement:
Indian authorities should immediately investigate the harassment of and threats against journalist Malini Subramaniam, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

Assailants on Monday pelted Subramaniam's home in Bastar, in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh, with rocks, shattering the rear window of her car, according to news reports. Subramaniam, who has reported on human rights abuses and the conflict between Maoist groups and the state in Chhattisgarh for the independent English-language news website Scroll.in, told CPJ that a group of about 20 men demonstrated outside her house on Sunday evening, accusing her of supporting Maoist groups and chanting, "Death to Malini Subramaniam."

"Chhattisgarh police must send a firm message that vigilante attacks and mob violence against any citizen, any journalist, are unacceptable," said CPJ Asia Program Senior Research Associate Sumit Galhotra. "Authorities must fully and immediately investigate this attack on Malini Subramaniam, make sure the perpetrators face justice, and preserve the safety of all journalists."

In an interview with Scroll.in, Subramaniam said she recognized two of the men from the group, and that they belonged to major political parties in the state. She also said she recognized men from the crowd as members of the anti-Maoist group Samajik Ekta Manch who had previously visited her to discuss her coverage of the decades-old, low-intensity conflict between Maoist rebels and the government.

The group of men urged her neighbors to join them in pelting her home with stones, alleging that Subramaniam had been supplying arms to Maoists and that she could plant explosives in neighboring houses, according to reports.

In the last month, police officials have come to Subramaniam's home several times, once late at night, to interrogate her about her reporting, she told CPJ. "There is pressure to cover their version of the story," she said.

Subramaniam told CPJ that while police allowed her to file a complaint, they initially refused to file a First Information Report, a necessary step to set in motion a police investigation. On Wednesday, police finally did register a First Information Report, but Subramaniam told CPJ that it was weak because it did not name any individual and because the charges related only to trespassing and damage to her property.

The online directory for Chhattisgarh police was unavailable at time of documentation. When CPJ reached the superintendent of police in Bastar district, R.N. Dash, at a phone number provided by local journalists, he declined to comment and declined to pass CPJ on to someone else for comment.
Reporting from the region poses serious challenges: According to CPJ research, police often pressure, harass, or abuse journalists in an effort to silence critical reporting or to compel them to serve as informants. Meanwhile Maoists have attacked journalists they accuse of being informants for police, according to CPJ research. In 2015, Chhattisgarh police arrested two journalists–Somaru Nag and Santosh Yadav–on unsubstantiated allegations that they were aligned with Maoists. Both Nag and Yadav remain jailed.

1...2,6022,6032,604...2,697 Page 2,603 of 2,697

A Stormy Relationship: Manto and the Progressives

Attack on JNUSU and Left Built on Lies

The Criticality of the Right to Dissent

Slaves shall be henceforward and forever free

Islam guarantees rights but where are the women theologians?

Why the idea of an Islamic state is full of holes

Stop the deification and appropriation of Babasaheb: Dalit youth to the Sangh Parivar

Whither Freedom: The Chhatisgarh attack on journalists

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT