The Sangh’s bloody trail

July 31, 2004

Hindu communal organisations have always maintained that it is always the Muslims who start riots, forcing "justifiable retaliatory acts by Hindus in self-defence". But virtually every single officially appointed judicial commission to probe into the cause of riots in different parts of the country has found the RSS and other majoritarian communal outfits guilty. We reproduce some excerpts below:

Report of the Justice Jagmohan Reddy Commission of Inquiry investigating the Ahmedabad riots of 1969:

"There was not only a failure of intelligence and culpable failure to suppress the outbreak of violence but (also) deliberate attempts to suppress the truth from the Commission, especially the active participation in the riots of some RSS and Jana Sangh leaders."

Report of the Justice DP Madon Commission of Inquiry into the Communal Disturbances at Bhiwandi, Jalgaon and Mahad of 1970:

"If the events surrounding the Shiv Jayanti procession in Bhiwandi, Jalgaon and Mahad are looked at more closely, the start of the riot was not with the simplistic reaction of the procession being attacked by a group of Muslims. Tension did not begin with the Shiv Jayanti celebrations of that year but began in 1964, the first year that the practice of publicly celebrating Shiv Jayanti had been started and had seen an annual build up in tensions since.

This practice did not only introduce the poison of communalism in Bhiwandi indirectly, but through the years, the organisers did not make any attempt to disguise the real motive and anti-Muslim slogans and provocative floats were part of the celebrations from the very beginning, the first year. In spite of police opposition, the organisers made every attempt to incite rioting by insisting on taking their procession through Muslim-dominated areas, throwing gulal (coloured powder) at mosques and shouting incendiary slogans like "we will grind any one who opposes us into dust".

In his report to his superiors, the SP, Thane district has stated, "I found that a section of Hindu elements, particularly the RSS and some PSP men, were bent upon creating mischief. Their idea in accompanying the procession was not so much to pay respects to the Great Shivaji but to establish their right and, if possible, to provoke and humiliate Muslims."

It was in 1970 that for the first time propaganda was carried on in villages exhorting villagers to participate in the Shiv Jayanti procession in Bhiwandi and this was the first year when villagers were mobilised to participate by the Rashtriya Utsav Mandal, an offshoot of the Jana Sangh, and the SS and the object of these organisations in bringing villagers to participate was ‘to intimidate the Muslims’, the participants carried lathis to which bhagwa (saffron) flags were tied, banners of the three organisations, the Jana Sangh, the RUM and the SS, were displayed by processionists.

The villagers shouted provocative, anti-Muslim slogans, behaved aggressively, threw gulal on the Moti Masjid at Bangad Galli and Hyderi mosque situated at the junction of Dargah Road and Sutar Galli aided by a passive police."

Report of the Commission of Inquiry, Tellicherry Disturbance, 1971, Justice Joseph Vithyathil:

"In Tellicherry the Hindus and Muslims were living as brothers for centuries. The ‘Mopla riots’ did not affect the cordial relationship that existed between the two communities in Tellicherry. It was only after the RSS and the Jana Sangh set up their units and began activities in Tellicherry that there came a change in the situation. Their anti-Muslim propaganda, its reaction on the Muslims who rallied round their communal organisation, the Muslim League, which championed their cause, and the communal tension that followed prepared the background for their disturbances.

According to the RSS, until the Muslims give up their separatist attitude and join the mainstream of Indian National Life there will be no communal harmony in this country. Guruji Golwalkar is said to have a very simple remedy for communal riots in India. He said: "Let Muslims look upon Rama as their hero and the communal problems will be over" (Organiser, June 20, 1971). That is what the rioters who attacked the house of Kunhammad asked him to do. "If you want to save your life you should go round the house three times repeating the words ‘Rama, Rama’. Kunhammad did that. But you cannot expect the 70 million Muslims of India to do that as a condition for maintaining communal harmony in the country. This attitude of the RSS can only help to compel the Muslims to take shelter under their own communal organisation."

Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Communal Disturbances at Jamshedpur, April 1979:

"The evidence of government officials shows that after the communal riots of 1964, the Ram Navmi Festival, like other festivals, became the occasion for greater vigilance and alertness for the law and order authorities; simultaneously, the number of Ram Navmi processions kept on increasing till it had risen to 79 in the year 1979.

In the run up to the communal build up before the elections prepared by the Intelligence Branch, Jamshedpur (dated March 23, 1979) there was special mention made to the Divisional Conference of the RSS scheduled to be held on March 31 and April 1 in which, among others, the RSS sarsanghchalak was to participate.

The dispute on the route of the procession (the administration after consideration had denied permission for the route to pass through Muslim areas) became sharp and agitated reactions from a group of persons calling themselves the "Sanyukt Bajrang Bali Akhara Samiti" who systematically distributed pamphlets to heighten communal feelings and had organisational links with the RSS. A call for the defiance of the authority and the administration when it refused permission for one of the routes led to a violent mob protesting and raising anti-Muslim slogans and thereafter an incendiary leaflet doing the rounds of Jamshedpur (issued on behalf of the "Sri Ramnavmi Kendriya Akhara Samity") that is nothing short of an attempt to rouse the sentiments of Hindus to a high pitch and to distort events and show some actions as attacks on Hindus that appear to be part of a design.

A survey had already established that all policemen, havaldars, home guards etc. were at heart ready to give support to them (Hindu communalist organisations). This not only shows the extent of the planning that had been going on, but also how the people in general were being assured of protection from punitive action by the police due to the alleged attitude of its subordinate formations."

Justice Venugopal Commission of Inquiry into the Kanyakumari riots of 1982 (prolonged confrontation between Hindus and Christians):

"The RSS adopts a militant and aggressive attitude and sets itself up as the champion of what it considers to be the rights of Hindus against minorities. It has taken upon itself to teach the minorities their place and if they are not willing to learn their place to teach them a lesson. The RSS methodology for provoking communal violence is:

a) rousing communal feelings in the majority community by the propaganda that Christians are not loyal citizens of this country;

b) deepening the fear in the majority community by clever propaganda that the population of the minorities is increasing and that of the Hindus is decreasing;

c) infiltrating into the administration and inducing the members of the civil and police services by adopting and developing communal attitudes;

d) training young people of the majority community in the use of weapons like daggers, swords and spears;

e) spreading rumours to widen the communal cleavage and deepen communal feelings by giving a communal colour to any trivial incident."

(‘Who is to blame?’, Communalism Combat, March 1998).

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11 No.100, Cover Story 12

Hubli hungama, Hindutva’s hypocrisy

July 31, 2004

At a press conference in New Delhi in August 1994, noted playwright Girish Karnad issued the following statement . As the sangh parivar’s propaganda machinery relies heavily on public memory being short, we are reproducing the statement in its entirety to put the current campaign of the sangh parivar on the Hubli controversy in its proper perspective

Citizens for Democracy, Karnataka (CFD-K) has just published a report titled The Controversy regarding the Raising of National Flag in the Idgah Maidan. The report is written by Dr. Sanjeev Kulkarni but is a collaborative effort of citizens from all walks of life, such as SR Hiremath, a scientist-turned-social worker, John Bellary, a teacher, Basava Prabhu Hoskeri, a lawyer, RA Nagamule, an engineer, Dr. AM Jamadar, a doctor, and several others. It is written in Kannada and an English version is being prepared.

I, as a citizen of Hubli-Dharwad, am keen that their findings be placed before the national press in view of the extensive coverage that the event has received this year as well as the escalating violence that has been accompanying it. Responsibility for phrasing of the following text as well as its tone of rendering and remarks within brackets are entirely mine.

There are two separate facets to the Idgah Maidan controversy. The first relates to the question of ownership of the Maidan, the second to the issue of hoisting the national flag in the Maidan. The two issues have to be understood separately if the whole sorry episode is to make sense.

The issue of ownership

The Idgah Maidan is an open plot of land of about 991 square yards (CTS No. 174 in Ward No. 3) near the main bus-stop in Hubli. The Muslim community of Hubli claims that the Idgah Maidan has been in their exclusive possession for over 200 years and that the prayer walls there are at least that old, a claim that has been contested by other parties.

The basic facts of the case are as follows:

The Hubli municipality was formed in 1920. On August 5, 1921, the municipality passed a resolution granting the Maidan on a 999-year lease to the Anjuman-e-Islam organisation for an annual rent of rupee one. (Among other provisions, it permitted the Anjuman to build a compound wall around the property, which in fact was never built). This grant was approved by the government of Bombay on January 11, 1922 and the lease deed was signed in May 1930.

In 1960, when the municipal borough was under suppression, the Anjuman sought the permission of the government administrator to build a building on the Maidan, the ground floor of which would be used for commercial purposes and the upper floors for an educational institution. This plan was approved by the divisional commissioner in Belgaum as well as by the then Mysore government. This is when the trouble started. The government’s approval of the plan proposed by the Anjuman was challenged by some citizens in a court of law.

I shall skip the tedious details. The decision delivered by the court of the munsiff in Hubli on December 7, 1972 went against the Anjuman-e-Islam. On appeal, the additional civil judge upheld a part of the verdict of the munsiff court. On further appeal, the high court of Karnataka, on June 8, 1992, upheld the judgement of the additional civil judge. The judgement of the high court may be summarised as follows:

1. The Idgah Maidan is not the exclusive property of the Anjuman-e-Islam but belongs to what was by then the Hubli-Dharwad municipal corporation.

2. The Maidan was licensed to the Anjuman for purely religious purposes, that is, to offer prayers on two days in the year, Bakri-Id and Ramzan.

3. The Anjuman may not use the property for any educational or commercial purpose.

4. The permanent structures already erected by the Anjuman may be demolished within 45 days.

5. The public (inclusive of the Muslim community) has no customary rights of the user on the property.
Following this judgement, the Anjuman made a special leave petition to the Supreme Court to appeal against the above judgement and sought a stay order against the demolition of the permanent structures. The stay was granted. Members of the sangh parivar also appealed to the Supreme Court seeking restoration of customary rights to the public. After condonation of delay, the petition was allowed by the Supreme Court on April 19, 1993. (This part is generally not known.)

What the Anjuman underlines is that from the beginning (in 1920), it has sought and received sanction from the requisite legal authority for every one of its actions. It has been scrupulous in remaining on the right side of the law.

The national flag issue

According to the statement made by the Rashtradhvaja Gowrava Samrakshana Samiti (The Committee for Protecting the Honour of the National Flag) to the Citizens for Democracy, Karnataka, when Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi declared that he would hoist the national flag in the Lal Chowk of Srinagar on January 26, 1992 as a part of the ‘Save Kashmir’ campaign, it was decided to hold similar functions all over India. In Hubli, neither the Nehru Maidan nor the Murusavira Matha Maidan was available. So the Samiti decided to hoist the flag in the ‘Chennamma Maidan’ of the corporation (the sangh parivar’s special name for the Idgah Maidan).

When they approached the police, the latter tried to dissuade them. But a group of about 50 volunteers decided to go ahead with their plan regardless. According to them, as they were raising the flag, the police rushed in and pulled the flag down in an insulting manner, which wounded their patriotic sentiments. Since in independent India a citizen has the right to fly the national flag in any place, they vowed to persist until they had succeeded in hoisting the flag in the Maidan. They wrote to all the political parties seeking support but only the BJP responded.

Two main points need to be noted here: The incident took place on January 26, 1992, when the case was still being considered by the high court and was therefore sub judice. The RGSS could not have been unaware of this fact. Secondly, as is clear from the above description, the dispute is between the RGSS and the police and therefore does not involve the Anjuman-e-Islam.

Since then, on every August 15 and January 25, the RGSS in association with the RSS and the BJP has attempted to hoist the flag in the Idgah Maidan. This year the BJP even gave their full support and treated it as an event of national importance by sending its leaders, like Uma Bharati, Sikander Bakht, and Abbas Ali Bohra, to participate in the event.
How lawful are these subsequent attempts? Apart from the fact that the high court has quite explicitly not conceded the customary rights of the user to the public and this has been challenged in the Supreme Court by the sangh parivar itself,

1. Before every August 15 and January 26, a certain Devendra Naik has been approaching the munsiff court in Hubli for permission to hoist the flag and has been refused permission.

2. In August 1993, several members of the RGSS approached the high court of Karnataka for permission to fly the flag and the high court left the decision to the government.

Neither the RGSS, nor the RSS nor the BJP is party to any of the lawsuits, preferring to fight them through individuals. (This enables them to claim victory when the verdict is in their favour and pretend ignorance when it is not.)
The Anjuman-e-Islam has refused to comment (or act) on the flag issue and has remained absolutely silent. The controversy thus involves only the RGSS and the state government and not the Anjuman. (I must point out here that the impression created in the press that the Muslim community is refusing to raise the flag in the Idgah Maidan because it does not want the national flag to fly on their prayer ground is totally baseless.

It is another instance of the deliberate misinformation that surrounds the issue. No question of flying the national flag on the Idgah Maidan had arisen until the problem was manufactured by the sangh parivar. The Muslim community sees no reasons to be pressurised into doing so now by parties obviously out to embarrass or harass them. The communal intent of the sangh parivar’s endeavour is clear in their insistence on calling the place ‘Chennamma Maidan’ after the statue of Queen Kittur Chennamma installed recently in the traffic circle nearby rather than by its official name, ‘Idgah Maidan’ – although the latter is used, by them, inevitably, in all court documents.)

The future

The absolute refusal of the Muslim community to comment on the flag issue has foiled the sangh parivar’s hopes of communalising the issue. That the debate is now only between the sangh parivar and the state government is not of any obvious advantage to the former. So they have now started saying that they do not care who flies the flag as long as it is flown.

(What political advantage the parivar will try to gain from the unfortunate police firing on August 15, 1994, in which six bystanders were killed, remains to be seen. It is significant that the ABVP leaders were demanding that the six bodies be cremated on the Idgah Maidan itself.)

The Karnataka state elections are scheduled for November 1994. The BJP is perfectly aware that if elected to power its government will not be able to fly the flag in the Idgah Maidan without being guilty of contempt of court. They have therefore been declaring that the attempt on August 15, 1994 would be the last such attempt.

The solution

The RGSS and its allies have always claimed that their wish is to see the national flag fly on the Idgah Maidan properly just once. On the morning of August 15, 1994, the sangh parivar claimed that they had succeeded in hoisting the flag on the Idgah Maidan, unseen by the police. Whatever the veracity of this claim, now that they have done so to their own satisfaction, it is to be hoped there will be no further repetition of this unfortunate event, which has turned the two national days into sheer nightmares for the citizens of Hubli-Dharwad.

Additional points

The Anjuman-e-Islam is an educational institution founded in 1905. It runs several schools, colleges and educational institutions. Only a third of its students are Muslim, the rest being mainly from the backward classes. It has a college named after Nehru. On every August 15 and January 26, the national flag is flown and the national anthem sung at all Anjuman institutions, which is more than can be said of the RSS!

Will the solution of the flag issue make life easier for the Muslims of Hubli-Dharwad? Since 1984, the Muslim community has stopped celebrating Mohurram as it invariably led to trouble. (In my childhood, Hindus also participated in the Mohurram celebration.) Several times in the past, and again this year, the massive procession on the day of the Id-e-Milad has been cancelled for fear of disturbances. Playing of music and the bursting of crackers at weddings have been stopped by the Muslim community.

The parivar’s next stop after the Idgah Maidan is the Dargah of a Sufi saint, Raja Bagh Sawar, which used to attract both Hindu and Muslim devotees. This Muslim shrine, which has traditionally had Hindu priests, has now been converted into a Hindu shrine. The saffron flag flies atop it. The Urs of the saint is now referred to as the Jatra of Changed Maharaja. When the Muslims registered a complaint with the police, they were asked to remain calm; the issue, they were told, would be sorted out by the authorities. Of course, nothing has been done so far. On the contrary, the converted shrine was quoted to bolster the case against the Anjuman in court documents.

The Muslim community allowed a highway to be built through its graveyard. But when, in order to protect its graves, they began to build a compound wall, a stay order was brought against the construction of the wall thus preventing them from enclosing their own exclusive property.
The flag-hoisting issue is only one example of the harassment and baiting to which the Muslim community in Karnataka has been continually subjected during the last two decades.

August 26, 1994.

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11 No.100, Cover Story 13

Blood for blood: An extract from Tamas

July 31, 2004

A young man’s chilling initiation into the world of hate politics and violence. Extract from Tamas by Hindi writer Bhisham Sahni

Ranvir, the son of the president of the committee, followed Master Devbrat, the instructor of the gymnasium-cum-wrestling pit, the sound of Devbrat’s boots echoing in the cobbled lane. The fifteen-year-old Ranvir was bursting with excitement. Today he would undergo the test and if he made it, he would be taken into the fold.

No lane of the city ran straight. A lane would run straight for a few yards and would then be joined by another tortuous lane. The houses flanking the lanes almost seemed to topple over one another so packed together were they. The sound of Devbrat’s heavy boots was a familiar one in the lanes of the town.

Ranvir was still very young and his eyes had not lost their child-like curiosity. They even lacked that earnestness, so necessary when undergoing a supreme test. But in place of earnestness he had a sense of bravado, a blind determination to do or die at the behest of his mentor.

When Ranvir was very young, Master Devbrat would entertain him with stories of heroes of Indian history. There was an episode from Rana Pratap’s life, for instance, when the cat had stolen his food, leaving him famished and making him acutely aware of his total helplessness. Ranvir would have visions of Chetak, Rana Pratap’s favourite horse, as it went tramping over the hills overlooking the city. He would even see in his mind Shivaji watching a horde of approaching Muslims from the top of some hill. He also recalled the dramatic episode in Shivaji’s life when he had caught a Muslim ruler in a fatal embrace. Masterji had taught Ranvir the basic principles of knot tying and wall climbing. He had explained the characteristics of the ‘fire’ and the ‘rain’ producing arrows depicted in the ancient Hindu epics.

Ranvir was told by Masterji that the Vedas were the repository of all knowledge and held the secret of making the bomb and flying machines. Masterji talks of the marvels of yogic power had held Ranvir spellbound. ‘One having yogic power can achieve the impossible,’ Masterji would repeatedly impress upon Ranvir.

‘You know the story of that yogi, don’t you?’ he would ask his pupil, and then repeat a story he had often narrated. ‘A yogi had gone into a trance at the foot of the Himalayas. He achieved great occult powers. One day, when he had gone into meditation, a Muslim, an unclean man, came there with the mischievous intention of disrupting his meditation. You know these unclean people. They don’t bathe, nor do they wash their hands after shitting. They have no compunction in sharing each other’s spittled food. This ‘unclean’ person stood there glaring at the sadhu. As his polluted shadow fell over the sadhu, he opened his eyes. A gleam shot out of his eyes and singed the polluted man to death.’

These ‘unclean’ people would often revolve before Ranvir’s eyes. In his neighbourhood, the cobbler who sat by the roadside, mending shoes, was said to be an ‘unclean’ man. So was the tonga driver who lived in front of their house. Hamid, who studied with him at school in the same class, was also ‘unclean’. All the members of the family living next door were also considered to be ‘unclean’ and polluted. It must be some such person who had gone to the foot of the Himalayas to disrupt the sadhu’s meditation. Today, out of the eight boys he instructed, Master Devbrat had singled out Ranvir for the test. The boys were scared of Masterji. He wore khaki shorts and heavy black boots and spoke in a voice like thunder. His wrath was unpredictable and could fall on anybody without warning. The test which Ranvir was to undergo was secret and esoteric, only the initiates knew what it was.

The lanes looked desolate. At one place Ranvir felt as if they were walking along a thick web of darkness. As they drew nearer they discovered that the wall of a house had crumbled down and the darkness was seeping out of its debris.

Suddenly Devbrat stopped in his tracks. Although the desolate look of the lane had given Ranvir an eerie feeling, it had not been able to curb his exuberance. There was a narrow door framed against a long wall. Devbrat pushed it open. They stepped into a big courtyard at the end of which they saw the door of a narrow room across which hung a tarpaulin curtain. In the left corner of the courtyard lay two big heaps of rubble. The place looked deserted.

Walking across the courtyard, Master Devbrat pounded on the door. Ranvir heard the sound of coughing, followed by the shuffling of feet.

‘It’s I, Devbrat.’

The door was flung open. The old Gorkha chowkidar of the school stood in the door, peering at the visitors. He folded his hands in salutation and bowed his head.

It was dark inside the room. To one side lay a charpoy covered with a dirty bedsheet. A lathi stood against the right wall and by its side a chelum lay upside down. Over a wooden peg hung the chowkidar’s woollen overcoat and a long sword sheathed in a black scabbard.

Ranvir heard the crackling of hens and turned to look. About half-a-dozen white hens lay tied in a big basket in a corner of the room.

Holding Ranvir by the arm Master Devbrat led him into another courtyard, much smaller than the first and abruptly ending against the high wall of a neighbouring house. The Gorkha chowkidar followed them holding a hen in one hand and a knife in the other.

‘Ranvir, kill the hen,’ Master Devbrat said. The chowkidar handed Devbrat the knife. ‘Before you’re initiated into our fold you must prove that you possess a stout heart.’

Devbrat pushed Ranvir forward. ‘An Aryan youth must be strong in faith, resolute at heart, and determined in action. Take the knife and go and sit there!’ He gave Ranvir another shove forward.

Ranvir felt the place had suddenly turned sinister. He saw feathers of hens lying scattered all over. Near some rubble rested a slab of stone turned black with blood.

‘Sit down and put one leg of the hen under your right foot.’ Devbrat pressed the hen’s wings and twisted one wing under the other.

The hen cackled furiously. But its wings having been firmly tied together it could only struggle futilely. It did this for a while then lay still.

‘Hold it!’ Master Devbrat sat down by Ranvir’s side. ‘Go ahead. Let the knife do its job!’

Sweat broke out on Ranvir’s forehead and his face turned pale. Master Devbrat knew that the boy was feeling queasy.

‘Ranvir!’ he cried and slapped him hard on his cheek. Ranvir fell down in a heap on the ground. He felt like crying. The Gorkha standing behind him, watched him, a glitter of excitement in his eyes. Ranvir was still feeling unequal to the task but the slap seemed to have driven away his nausea.

‘Get up, Ranvir!’ Master Devbrat cried.

Ranvir slowly rose to his feet and looked at his mentor with heavy, dazed eyes.

‘There’s nothing difficult about it,’ Master Devbrat said. ‘Watch, I’ll show you how.’

He pressed one of the hen’s feet under his boot. The bird’s eyes became glazed and then slowly closed. He held the hen’s neck in his right hand and slit it. Blood spurted from the neck, some drops falling on Devbrat’s hand. But he did not let the hen go even though its head had been cut off. He firmly held the windpipe down till it turned white. The hen’s headless body kept quivering and then became still and its wings drenched with blood became limp. All that Ranvir saw was a handful of white feathers spattered with blood lying before him. Master Devbrat flung the remains of the dead bird to one side and got up.

‘Bring another hen!’ he told the Gorkha.

As he turned towards Ranvir, he saw that he had vomited on the ground and was sitting there, holding his head between his hands, and breathing heavily. Master Devbrat felt like slapping him again but he controlled himself and just stood there watching him in disgust.

‘I’m going to give you one more chance,’ he said at last. ‘A youth who can’t kill a hen – how can one expect him to deal with an enemy?’

Soon Ranvir’s breathing became normal and his stomach, which had knotted gradually, loosened up.

I’ll give you five more minutes,’ Devbrat said. ‘If you fail to kill the hen this time it’s all over with you. No initiation, no nothing.’ He turned on his heel and walked out of the courtyard.

When he returned after five minutes, he saw a hen writhing under the wall, drops of blood flying from it in all directions, Ranvir was sitting by the side of the bird, his right arm held between his knees. Devbrat guessed how things must have gone. While Ranvir was struggling with the hen, it must have pecked at his hand and he had only succeeded in wounding the bird instead of killing it outright.

Writhing in agony the bird kept jumping in the air and falling heavily on the ground, leaving more and more blood stains on the ground. Blood fountained from its neck.

‘Get up, Ranvir!’ Master Devbrat patted him on his back. Ranvir slowly rose to his feet. He had succeeded in the test.

‘Shabash!’ Master Devbrat said. ‘You’ve determination, you have will power. Though your arm still lacks strength, you’ve made the grade and won your reward.’ He bent to the ground and dipping his finger in the blood spattered on the stone slab, made a blood mark on Ranvir’s forehead.

(Extract from Tamas (Darkness) by Bhisham Sahni, translated from the Hindi by Jai Ratan, Penguin Books (India) Limited).

Archived from Communalism Combat, August 2004, Anniversary Issue (11th), Year 11 No.100, Cover Story 14

Talaq Talaq Talaq

June 30, 2004

Whichever way you look at it, in simple human terms, rationally, constitutionally or theologically, the dogged refusal of the bulk of the ulema in India and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to call for an end to the Muslim male right to triple talaq (instant divorce) defies comprehension.

In human terms, in terms of any notion of gender justice, the unilateral, arbitrary and whimsical right of a Muslim male to divorce his wife in an instant – a letter, telegram, telephone, telex, fax even an SMS would do – cannot be described as anything but inhuman and anti-women.

In rational terms it defies any definition of justice or equity. Triple talaq cannot but be unconstitutional because it is so blatantly unjust, unfair, arbitrary and discriminatory.

Even theologically, it is difficult to digest the position long held by the ulema and until recently accepted by the courts: "Though bad in theology (haram, sinful), triple talaq is good in law".

What this means in simple terms is that the moment a Muslim male utters talaq, talaq, talaq, his wife becomes unlawful to him, even if he has uttered those words under coercion, in a fit of rage or in a drunken state and regrets his utterance the very next moment. The only way out for the couple to resume their marital relation, the ulema say, is through halala: the woman must marry someone else, consummate the marriage, get the second husband to divorce her and then remarry the first husband.

It is repeatedly claimed, not by Muslims alone but also by many non-Muslim scholars, that justice and equality are the key social message of Islam. How can the practice of triple talaq be squared with any notion of justice or equity? It is not known if the ulema or the AIMPLB have ever asked themselves this question, and, if so, what their answer is.

Accompanying articles in this cover story make clear that not all the ulema and not all members of the Board accept triple talaq as lawful. Besides, the triple talaq practice is today unlawful in an overwhelming majority of Muslim countries, even though Islam is declared to be the State religion.

For the first time since its inception in 1972, the AIMPLB resolved in its meeting of July 4, 2004 to take some concrete, if highly inadequate, steps to give justice to Muslim women. The Board resolved:

(1) To launch a nation-wide campaign to create awareness in the Muslim community that the prevalent practice of triple talaq was wrongful and to educate them on the Islamic way of divorce.
(2) To prepare and popularise a model nikahnama that both husband and wife be asked to sign at the time of marriage, committing themselves to not seeking a divorce except in the correct Islamic way as spelt out in the model nikahnama.
(3) To ensure that Muslim women get a share in agricultural property.
(4) To establish Darul Qaza (Islamic courts) in different parts of the country to settle marital disputes and to strive for constitutional status to these courts (so that its orders become legally enforceable).

The Board has fallen between two stools. These resolutions have left the Muslim fundamentalists aghast at the very thought that the AIMPLB is contemplating the unthinkable: bringing any change in Muslim Personal Law.

On the other hand, the proposed measures have not impressed women’s groups and other secular organisations in the least. And this is so for several reasons.

So long as you keep reiterating the position that triple talaq is good in law but bad in theology, what would be the efficacy of any campaign against it, even assuming (and this is a very big assumption) the Board has the machinery to run a nation-wide campaign and the mechanisms to ensure its success. As for a model nikahnama, the same Board has been sitting on a model nikahnama suggested by some of its own members for ten years. How many more decades before an approved nikahnama goes into mass circulation? How do you create mass opinion in its favour?

There now seems to be a near consensus among the upper echelons of the judiciary that unless it is for a reasonable cause and is preceded by efforts at reconciliation, talaq is un-Islamic and unlawful.

No less objectionable is the fourth resolution, asking for a religious body to be integrated as part of the judicial apparatus in a secular State. How can any secular State grant such legitimacy to any religious organisation? How would anyone react to the demand for a Hindu Dharam Sansad as an integral part of the courts set up in India?

The only saving grace in these four resolutions is the one concerning restoration of Muslim women’s right to agricultural property. It is a welcome development for more than one reason. In demanding fresh legislation to ensure Muslim women’s rights to agricultural property (a right that has been denied to them since 1937 with the connivance of the ulema), the Board will nullify the oft-repeated though baseless claim that any change in Muslim Personal Law is interference in God-given laws.

Even as there is endless debate over whether those concerned with gender justice should engage with or ignore the Board, victims of triple talaq (Muslim women) have kept knocking at the doors of constitutional courts in search of justice. And surprisingly, though neither the media nor the Muslim masses have awakened to its implications, a big, big change is evident here.

It is clear from a spate of judgements by the high courts and even a division bench of the Supreme Court since 1998 that the upper echelon of the judiciary is no longer willing to buy the "bad in theology, good in law" line of the ulema. (The accompanying article by Flavia Agnes refers to several of these judgements). There now seems to be a near consensus among them that unless it is for a reasonable cause and is preceded by efforts at reconciliation, talaq is un-Islamic and unlawful.

What this could mean for a victim of arbitrary talaq is best understood from a brief recount of the September 18, 2002 judgement of a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice RC Lahoti (now Chief Justice of India) and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi in the case of Shamim Ara v. State of UP and another, (2002) 7 SCC 518.

Shamim Ara from Allahabad got married to Abrar Ahmed in 1968. In 1979, she filed an application before a family court seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125, CrPC, on the ground that he had deserted her.

In 1990, the husband filed a written statement to claim he had divorced her in 1987 and so she was not entitled to any maintenance. Accepting the husband’s contention that she had already been divorced, the family court, in its judgement in 1993, dismissed the wife’s plea for maintenance.

On her appeal, the high court (Allahabad) held that the communication of talaq stood completed in 1990 with the filing of the written statement by the husband.

But on September 18, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that "neither the marriage between the parties stands dissolved on December 5, 1990 nor does the liability of the husband to pay maintenance come to an end on that day. The husband shall continue to remain liable for payment of maintenance until the obligation comes to an end in accordance with law."

The judges held that the mere plea of a husband of having divorced his wife sometime in the past was of no use as, "There are no reasons substantiated in justification of talaq and no plea of proof that any effort at reconciliation preceded the talaq".

The courts of secular India are the only hope for the countless victims of triple talaq.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004 Year 10 No. 99, Cover Story 1

‘We need to carry the ulema with us’

June 30, 2004

Uzma Naheed
Director, Iqra Education Foundation Member, AIMPLB

To begin with, there is complete unanimity among all Muslims that triple talaq is not in accordance with Koranic injunctions or the teachings of the Prophet.

Secondly, forget other schools of Islamic jurisprudence, even among the followers of the Hanafi school, the triple talaq practice is today unlawful in Hanafi predominant countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq (the Sunni minority in Iraq are followers of the Hanafi school).

India is perhaps the only country in the world today where triple talaq is lawful for Muslims. Can it be anyone’s case that Muslims throughout the world, except Indian Hanafis, are guilty of un-Islamic practice?

When we started talking about the need for an end to the wrongful practice of talaq-e-salasa (triple talaq) about ten years ago, there was little appreciation among the ulema about both the nature and the magnitude of the problem.

I was frequently asked: Is triple talaq the only or even the major problem that Indian Muslims are faced with? Besides, the incidence of triple talaq is negligible in percentage terms. Why, then, was this blown up into such a major issue?

My answer always would be: One, it may not be the only problem, but it certainly is part of the problem the community faces. And I, being a woman, consider the resolution of this problem as part of my priorities. Secondly, even assuming that the triple talaq practice is not so prevalent, what is haram is haram, what is gunaah is gunaah. So how can it be overlooked?

I am happy to see a sea change in the attitude of even the ulema in India today. I would go to the extent of calling it a revolutionary change in attitudes. It is not just that a person like me is invited to address large gatherings of the ulema from different parts of the country where I am given a very patient and sincere hearing. It is what many of the ulema have themselves started saying in public meetings that is more significant.

I am happy to see a sea change in the attitude of even the ulema in India today. I would go to the extent of calling it a revolutionary change in attitudes.

Personally speaking I feel it is very important to take the ulema with us because there is no denying the fact that for most Muslims what an alim or a kazi says matters a great deal. I can best illustrate my point with a real life experience. In Gujarat, Muslim women were being denied their share in the parental property on the pretext that the property was tied up in the form of assets like shops, inventory of goods, etc. Several years ago I was present at a meeting in Ahmedabad where the late Maulana Mujahid-ul-Islam (former president, All India Muslim Personal Law Board) told the gathering of Muslims that this was unacceptable, that the share that was being denied to Muslim women was haram and those responsible for this would be answerable to Allah on the Day of Judgement. This one rebuke from the maulana made a huge impact and families where women were being denied their share have since then started receiving it.

That is why I believe it is so important to interact and engage with the ulema. That is why I have been trying to get the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to, as a body, endorse the model nikahnama we had proposed several years ago. At a recent gathering of prominent ulema from different parts of the country, they asked me to send them the nikahnama we had drafted. They have promised that they will start campaigning for it and push for its implementation in their respective areas without waiting for the Board’s formal endorsement. This, for us, is a big leap forward.

It is not just the question of ending the wrongful practice of triple talaq. There are also issues such as that of mehr, the Muslim woman’s right to divorce under certain circumstances, maintenance, etc., which need to be reviewed in the context of modern day realities. This is the job of the fiqh schools and we need to engage with them too.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004 Year 10 No. 99, Cover Story 2

Reform! reform! reform!

June 30, 2004

Nazma Bibi, Orissa

Nazma Bibi is a 26-year-old Muslim woman from Bhadrak, Orissa. On July 3, 2003, under the influence of alcohol and as several members of the community looked on, Nazma’s husband, Mohammed Seru beat her and pronounced talaq, talaq, talaq. However, soon after his drunken declaration of triple talaq, Seru repented, and the couple wanted to get together again and re-settle at Nazma’s parents’ home since she is their only daughter.

The couple then approached the maulvi, the religious priest of Dhamra, to get his holy interpretation/judgement on the incident. After hearing both Nazma and her husband’s versions of the case, the maulvi decreed that the talaq was invalid since the husband had uttered the words ‘talaq, talaq, talaq’ in a drunken state.

But the community refused to accept the maulvi’s judgement declaring that the maulvi was ‘not qualified to give such a judgement’. By then the issue had been commandeered by a powerful local leader, Bari, who clearly did not appreciate ‘outside’ (i.e. the court or women’s organisations) interference. Bari claimed that his ‘NGO’ had settled 100 cases (all of which went against the women).

Mohammed Seru’s family then approached another maulvi, of Bhadrak, for further consultation and advice. He said that the talaq was valid and if at all Nazma wanted to stay with Seru, she had to first go through halala (i.e. marry another man, consummate that marriage and then go through a divorce) before returning to her first husband.

However, Nazma rejected the idea of halala and was forced to abandon her home, taking shelter at a short stay home, Ashiyana, in the town itself. Nazma’s husband then proceeded to a family court at Cuttack where he prayed for restoration of his conjugal rights. In a verdict given on December 13, 2003, the family court dismissed the talaq as illegal and ordered for restoration of the marriage as well as Nazma and Seru’s conjugal life as a couple.

But the local Muslim community to which Nazma belonged refused to accept the court order and was adamant in their opposition. The couple then cut all ties with immediate relatives and found a place outside the community where they stayed together for three months. Three months later, when the couple visited Nazma’s mother at Kantabania, a village some miles away from Bhadrak, some persons from the Muslim community physically assaulted and manhandled Seru.

In their continuing quest for justice, the couple ultimately approached the National Commission for Women (NCW). Two members of the NCW went to Bhadrak on May 21, 2004, and instructed both the collector and SP of Bhadrak to ensure that the victim couple could live together. Nafisa Hassan, a minority member of the commission, declared that since what the couple had undergone was not talaq, they should be allowed to stay in the woman’s parental house and police protection be provided to them. But after this measure of relief had been provided to the couple, an altercation between members of the NCW and local leader, Bari, further aggravated the situation. Members of the NCW stated that it was the people’s fundamental right to live wherever they wanted; the police could get an outside mufti to decide the case if necessary. Bari threatened the NCW, saying that they had no right to interfere in matters of the community whose members would conduct themselves as they saw fit. Bari stipulated that the couple could not continue to stay in Nazma’s parental home. As a result, community members adopted a more rigid stance and in spite of a few sincere efforts by the police and local administration the couple could not stay together for a while.

The community blatantly used compulsion and force to separate the couple. Nazma then had to face social boycott by being denied water and fire for everyday use. Water connections were cut off, her child was not allowed to go to school, and her father was prevented from earning his livelihood – he was a rickshaw-puller in Bhadrak.

It was at this stage that persons from the Centre for Women’s Studies of Utkal University as well as the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) intervened. It was their members, Muslim and other women who offered solidarity to Nazma and her family, who carried out negotiations locally. This solidarity at the grassroots compelled the local administration to provide Nazma with water and ensure that her child was no longer prevented from attending school.

On July 25, 2004, AIDWA and Centre for Women’s Studies took the issue further by organising a widely attended seminar on ‘Dialogue on Talaq’ at the Utkal University campus. The seminar passed a unanimous resolution to a) receive a delegation of prominent (and locally chosen) dignitaries to visit Bhadrak and dialogue with the local community by August 3, 2004; b) demand that the state government provide Nazma with financial support. In response to the second demand, Rs. 20,000 has already been released for Nazma’s use.

(Report from AIDWA, an all India women’s organisation).

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004 Year 10 No. 99, Cover Story 3

‘No faith in the Muslim Personal Law Board’

June 30, 2004

Haseena Khan
Co-ordinator, Awaaz-e-Niswan

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board is a government appointed body formed in 1972 that functions more or less like an NGO. It is now trying very hard to become a statutory body. We are strongly opposed to this move; we are opposed to anyone who in any way supports this move by the AIMPLB.

The name of the organisation suggests that it is a body that looks into issues concerning personal law or family laws. However, their record shows that since inception there is not a single thing they have done to better the situation of Muslim women. That is why we have no faith in this organisation; we are highly suspicious of this body.

The AIMPLB is now talking of setting up Darul Qaza, Shari’ah courts. If this were to be recognised by the government as they are demanding, it will be a big leap backward. They who only talk of women’s duties, never women’s rights, what can one expect of them?

On the Babri Masjid dispute, the AIMPLB says it will only abide by the decision of the courts, but in matters of personal law they want "no interference" from the courts.

Awaaz-e-Niswan believes that hope for Muslim women lies only through progressive, secular, democratic forces and that is the direction we are looking at. We are engaged in serious discussions with other women’s organisations and jointly exploring the best course of action to be taken for bringing justice to Muslim women.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004 Year 10 No. 99, Cover Story 4

‘Triple talaq has no place in the Koran’

June 30, 2004

Nilofer S. Akhtar
Advocate, Mumbai high court, specialising in family laws

Triple talaq is an absolutely sinful act that has no place in Islam. And we have now reached a situation in India where the courts are no longer willing to accept this practice as lawful.

In the past two years I have personally handled about a dozen cases and succeeded in getting rulings, where the court refused to accept the husband’s claim of having divorced his wife and ordered that the husbands concerned pay for the maintenance of the wife and children.

Unfortunately, the media, as also the ordinary Muslim, man and woman, are still largely ignorant of this changed reality. Giving wide publicity to these judgements could go a long way in putting a check on the practice of instant divorce.

Conflicts within marriage in Muslim homes are arising today due to changed social circumstances: in lower middle class homes it is the demand for dowry which is totally un-Islamic; in middle class homes it is interference from the husband’s family; in upper class families, where more and more women are getting into professional careers, it is the wife’s pressure to break out of the joint family mould.

Another highly disturbing trend is that of the Muslim male who goes abroad for work. Often the wife’s family members are coaxed, cajoled or coerced into contributing towards large payments to the recruiting agents. The husband goes abroad promising to send a visa for his wife soon. But in very many cases what she receives after anxious waiting is not the visa but a talaqnama. Often, all that the wife knows is the post box address of the husband’s workplace, so it is very difficult serving sermons on the man.

These are all real life situations that cannot be wished away and have to be addressed. In this context, the nikahnama, a document that clearly spells out the terms of the marital contract, becomes very important.

It is commonly thought that in Islam only the husband has a right to talaq, while the wife can at best ask for khula but on condition that she foregoes all her property-related rights. But this is not true.

For example, divorce by mutual consent is fully acceptable in Islam. Then there is the provision of talaq-e-tafweez, whereby, through an agreement between the husband and the wife either at the time of marriage or any time thereafter, the husband delegates his right to ask for divorce also to the wife.

Until the ’40s it was a widely prevalent practice among the upper class Muslim families in UP, where to safeguard their daughter’s interests, they would incorporate the talaq-e-tafweez provision in the nikahnama. This is an over 100-year-old practice, well-recognised by the courts, but about which there is near total ignorance among Muslims today.

It is perfectly acceptable in Islam (Surah 33, ayat 28 of the Koran) that at the time of marriage, a bride can stipulate conditions for the marriage that are lawful and in accordance with public morality. This could include, for example, clauses concerning a husband’s second marriage, maintenance, custody of children, share in matrimonial property, etc.

Incidentally, a nikahnama is a very private document that does not necessarily need the approval or endorsement of the Muslim Personal Law Board or any other authority.

We have drawn up a nikahnama in 2001 and I know of 12-13 couples who have entered into marriage according to its stipulations. For my own daughter, I will draft my own nikahnama when it comes to her marriage.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2004 Year 10 No. 99, Cover Story 5

1...2,6522,6532,654...2,696 Page 2,653 of 2,696

The Sangh’s bloody trail

Hubli hungama, Hindutva’s hypocrisy

Blood for blood: An extract from Tamas

Talaq Talaq Talaq

‘We need to carry the ulema with us’

Reform! reform! reform!

‘No faith in the Muslim Personal Law Board’

‘Triple talaq has no place in the Koran’

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT