Home Blog Page 2670

Male order

0

Liberal Muslims, men and women, must condemn the male chauvinism of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board

There are at least two good reasons why liberal Muslims, men and women, must demand that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board can retain the acronym, AIMPLB, but change its name to All India Male Privileging Laws Board. Firstly, it should be evident to any one with even a little knowledge of Islam that while pretending to defend the Shariah, or the Islamic way of life, all that this assorted body of Muslim clerics actually does is to protect the privileges of Muslim males.

One has only to do a quick comparison with laws governing family relations — marriage, polygamy, divorce, maintenance and custody — prevailing in most Muslim majority countries, including those that call themselves Islamic to realise how shockingly anti–women India’s Muslim personal laws are. (That the separate personal laws for all religious communities in India discriminate against women does not concern us here.)

Secondly, just as the Hindutva–inspired Dharam Sansad gives a bad name to the very religion it claims to represent, the AIMPLB gives Muslims and Islam a bad name. It publicly proclaims and defends social practices that millions and millions of Indian Muslims would find too abhorrent to even contemplate.

Take, for example, the decision of the AIMPLB at its recent conclave in Hyderabad to challenge the Child Marriages Restraint Act, 1929, which stipulates 18 years as being the minimum marriageable age for a girl. The moulvis say that the Shariah says marriage is permitted the moment a girl or a boy attains puberty. So they now propose taking a case before the Supreme Court of India to argue that Indian Muslims be kept out of the purview of the law against child marriages!

(It is the same worthies, remember, who in the ’80s had raised a nationwide storm forcing the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to bring in a new legislation putting Muslims out of the purview of section 295 of the Criminal Procedure Code — Shah Bano case).

To appreciate what this demand amounts to in practice, please note that for a variety of reasons, in recent decades the age at which girls attain puberty has been going down. So it is no longer unusual for a girl to start menstruating when she is barely 10 or 11. Now imagine a situation where, heaven forbid, the Supreme Court or some future government concedes the outrageous demand of the male privileges board. The moment this happens, an aged Muslim male would be at perfect liberty to marry a girl child since there is nothing either in the secular laws of India or the shariah that puts a ceiling on the age gap between a man and a woman (or girl) of marriageable age.

So what happens if a 70–year–old Muslim husband gains the ‘blissful’ company of an 11–year–old wife? In the best possible scenario, as in the case of the repugnant practice of instant talaaq, moulvi sahebs compelled to condemn it as "socially repugnant" will nonetheless have to defend it as "theologically unexceptionable." But the rest of the modern world has a different word with which to describe such a relationship — paedophilia!

The wise men from the All India Male Privileging Laws Board may not know or couldn’t care less that paedophilia is today considered one of the worst forms of child abuse and there is a growing worldwide movement against this obnoxious practice. Campaigns have been launched against paedophiles from the West who are shamefully exploiting the poverty in developing countries to satisfy their sexual lust, the hapless child’s welfare be damned. But once the ‘Islamic paradise’ the Indian mullahs dream of prevails in India, western paedophiles need only fly to India convert to Islam and, hey presto, acquire a 10–year–old wife!

My God–fearing sister Nikhat, a housewife, expresses outrage when I ask her what she thinks of the ulema’s latest agenda. Irfan Khan (24) lives in Malavni, a large colony of mostly lower middle–class Muslims in Malad in Mumbai. He cannot think of a single Muslim marriage he has attended over the years where the girl getting married was a minor.

"These moulvis are mad. Who listens to them in any case?" says Irfan. Well, Varsha Bhosle, does. To this saffro sister, who obviously has serious problems with Islam and with Muslims, the Hyderabad conclave served up a delicious headline for her weekly column in rediff.com on a platter: ‘Paedophilia and the Muslim Board’.

For the last 10 years, the maulanas on the Board have doggedly stonewalled an elementary demand from Muslim women: their endorsement of a model nikaahnama that is entirely within Islamic principles and which, if popularised, could give a lot of succour to Muslim women. Amongst other things, it would put a check on the obnoxious instant talaaq practice.

It is time Muslim men and women realised that the AIMPLB, which hides behind the shariah, is a bastion of male privileges. To expect deliverance from these misogynists who have nothing but chadar and chardiwari to offer Muslim women (the Hyderabad meet also proclaimed purdah to be part of a Muslim woman’s ‘Islamic’ identity) is naivete to say the least. To go no further than the experiences of the past 15 years, it is clear that the courts of secular India remain the only forum from which Muslim women can expect some justice.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2002, Year 8  No. 79, Comment

Target: Bangla minorities

0

Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh were the target of widespread violence before during and after the general elections in October last year, in the Bangla Nationalist Party and Jamaat–e–Islami led alliance’s successful bid to grab power. Perceived as supporters of the ‘pro–minority’ Awami League, a large number of Bangla Hindus were killed, women raped and their property looted or destroyed, leading to their distress migration to India. Independent human rights groups, women’s organisations, other civil society actors and much of the press did a commendable job in highlighting atrocities against the country’s minorities. But the chief beneficiary of minority votes, the Awami League, was content to shed crocodile tears only after the orgy of loot, killing and rape was over. (See CC, December 2001, cover story).

A fresh round of violence in recent months indicates that the minorities of Bangladesh are being targeted with a vengeance yet again. In early April, a report in the Far Eastern Economic Review described the country under the new political dispensation as a "cocoon of terror." As was only to be expected, the Review report was accused of being ‘biased’ and ‘prejudiced.’ But within days of the ban on the April 4, 2002 issue of the magazine, a Buddhist monk and a Hindu priest were killed in their monastery at Hingala (Raozan PS, Chittagong district) and a temple at Manikchhari (Khagrachari district) respectively. Yet another Buddhist monk, also in the Raozan area survived only because locals came to his rescue.

Following a field investigation and interviews with victims, Rabindra Ghosh, an advocate and the Dhaka-based country co–ordinator of the global organisation Human Rights Congress of Bangladesh Minorities (HRCBM) reported gang rape of Hindu women and torture of men in Palagram village in Chittagong district in separate incidents on May 8 and May 14. In the assault on the night of May 14 by an armed group whom the victims described as "Islamic terrorists". "After they raped the women of the household (Hore family), miscreants threatened to slaughter the head of the household if all the belongings are not given. About 40,000 Taka worth jewellery and cash were stored in a steel Almery which was pushed upon Mr. Hore (72) until he agreed to hand over the belongings to the miscreants," says Ghosh’s report (www.hrcbm.org).

In an earlier incident on May 8 in the same village, an armed group of about 25–30 miscreants mercilessly thrashed Shri Pradiwpananda Brahmachari, principal of the local ashram, some of the miscreants gang–raped two young girls (aged 12 and 16) of the local Dey family and severely beat up their mother. "I asked them why they did not report this to local police, they flatly told me if they have done so justice will not be attained, miscreants will never be arrested instead, they will be subject to more torture and perhaps brutal slaughtering," Ghosh reported. The report also said that in what appears to be a new trend, several orphanages being run by and for members from the minority communities are being targeted.

Following a second field investigation and video–taped interviews with victims and police officials in Satkhira district on June 21 and 22, Ghosh has documented serious incidents of persecution of Hindu families. In one of these incidents, a local MP from the ruling BNP party, Md. Habibur Islam Habib is charged with terrorising a Chatterjee family in a brazen attempt to force her to leave the country and grab the substantial land they own. In the second incident at village Fatepur, about 14 kms from Satkhira town, Muslem Ali Gazi, a local Jamaat–e–Islami leader is accused of torturing a local Sadar family. "The mother and son of the Sadar family were unclothed and dragged out of their house tied up with rope and beaten up on the way to the torture cell of the accused Jamaat–e–Islami leader".

And on July 1, the HRCBM website sent out an action alert, stating that Ghosh, an advocate at the apex court, was abused and attacked by some pro–BNP advocates "with the help of some terrorists" inside the Supreme Court’s Bar Association Hall at Dhaka while a meeting was in progress. The video–tapes and other documentary evidence collected by him during the Satkhira investigation were also snatched away from him.

Meanwhile, newspapers have reported that fanatics from the border township of Haluaghat have been inciting Muslims over the public address system to kill local Christians to avenge the massacre of Palestinians in Israel.At a meeting of the Aid Bangladesh Consortium in March, the donor countries had warned that they would be forced to suspend aid to the country unless the rapidly deteriorating law and order situation is brought under control. But the continuing targeting of Hindus, Christians and Buddhists in different parts of the country since then leave little room for optimism.

Archived from Communalism Combat, July 2002 Year 8  No. 79, Neighbours 1

NCERT Syllabus: Joshi’s Shastras

0

The new NCERT syllabus is a brazen reflection of the sectarian agenda of the BJP-led NDA regime and has been announced despite widespread protests against the moves to doctor education in social studies and history

Undeterred by the countrywide criticism on the New Curricuilum Framework for Value Education, a criticism that has pointed out over a whole year of heated debate – that education ministers of states were not consulted before the syllabus was framed (CC, Jan01), that CABE concurrence was not obtained, that Parliament was bypassed – the NCERT went ahead and published it’s new syllabus in late January 02.

Two months earlier, in November 01, textbooks authored by eminent historians, Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma and Satish Chandra had been subject to the saffron sledgehammer and politically inconvenient paragraphs were summarily deleted.

SAHMAT, one of the organisations that has been at the forefront of the mobilisation against these developments challenged the new syllabus through written analyses proferred by eminent historian Irfan Habib.

The yearlong and countrywide protests have drawn in a wide section of Indian academia and social activists. Within Parliament, a handful of thinking Parliamentarians had launched the cross-party Parliamentary Forum of Education and Culture (see CC, May 01). Khoj –education for a Plural India and Communalism Combat had intitiated a debate on the New Curricular Framework as early as January 01, through a letter addressed by independent Member of Parliament, Shabana Azmi. Azmi’s letter to the chief ministers and education ministers of all states accompanied by a detailed note that explained the implications of the new thrust in education policy, urged them to call for an Education Minister’s Conference.

The movement against these developments received a fillip when SAHMAT organised a national convention against the communalisation of education, drawing in nine education ministers to oppose these developments in the beginning of August 01.

Regardless of the depths of these protests, the NCERT, under hard-liner, union HRD minister, Murli Manohar Joshi, has carried on with the proposal to limit and doctor the vision that drives Indian education especially in the area of social studies. New NCERT textbooks written by persons whose names the NCERT refuses to divulge are also expected out in March this year.

A detailed note prepared by eminent historians was released by SAHMAT in New Delhi on January 31, 02. Stung by the opposition, NCERT’s director J.S. Rajput resorted to mudslinging, questioning the ‘willful misrepresentation’ by SAHMAT, to which the organisation has promptly replied. Meanwhile, in a seemingly unrelated development, SAHMAT was evicted from its small premises at VP Bhavan, a space that it has occupied for over a dozen years.

According to the analysis collated by SAHMAT, there are some Specific Errors, Omissions, Comments on the Content Outline in History-Related ‘Themes’ . These include:

Class VI: People and Society in the Ancient period

  • Vedic culture has been made a part of the Bronze Age along with Harappan and Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Chinese civilisations.
  • Iron Age’s relevance only to the Megalithic culture of Deccan and South India
  • No reference to the early South Indian Kingdoms (Cheras, Cholas,Pandyas) and, more importantly, even to the Satavahanas and Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Kushans, Parthians, etc and their contribution to developments during the period 200 BC–AD 300 supposedly covered by the words ‘Central Asians’.
  • ‘Contributions of India to world civilization’ until before 6th Century BC.
  • Projects activities–Konarak, Lingaraja temple, Nataraja at Chidambaram-nothing to do with the period covered in this course.

Class VII : People and Society in the Medieval Period

  • Cholas and Delhi Sultanate along with some others as small kingdoms-Pallavas whose power ended in the 9th century are here as well as in class VI-Turkish rule and Delhi Sultanate as different entities.-The idea of ‘resistance’ introduced here; No art, culture, etc. for this period ( up to about early 16th century)
  • Mughal empire and rise of small states and assertion of independence clubbed together– ‘Assertion of independence’ by Sikhs, Marathas and Rajputs

Class VIII: People and Society in the Modern period

  • World scenario in the Modern period ends with European conquest of Asia and Africa while Indian developments conclude with independence.
  • American and French Revolutions and German and Italian unification placed after Indian independence.
  • Because the world scenario ends with the 19th century, Russian Revolution, the two world wars, etc. are not a part of ‘People and society in the Modern Period’.
  • The Moderates and Extremists referred as Petitioners and Radicals, ‘division of Bengal’ but no reference to anti-partition movement; 1942 movement-the only mass movement referred to.

Class IX : India in the Twentieth century world

  • The 20th Century world presented here covering the period from colonialism to Peace Treaties ( after World War I),
  • ‘Towards to New World’ comprising, among others, ‘Development of fascism and nazism and ‘World After 1945’ in which ‘use of Atom Bomb’ comes after UN Charter and Cold War.
  • ‘India in the Twentieth Century world’ begins, besides some other topics, with the uprising of 1857.

ClassX : The only history-related topic is ‘ Heritage: Natural and Cultural’.

Classes XI: XII : ( History as an ElectiveSubject)

Semester I : Ancient India

  • Unit 1: The relevance of sub-topics relating to tradition and traditional history here will depend on how they are treated in the textbooks. The notion of ‘Eternal India’ introduced here may be unhistorical obfuscation.
  • Unit 3: On the Harappan civilization refers to its ‘Vedic Connection’ which may be unhistorical.
  • Unit 4: is entitled Vedic Culture. The period which this unit is supposed to cover is not clearly stated though the period third to first Millenium BC is mentioned with reference to ‘Mathematics and Science’. Does the Vedic period begin in the third millenium BC The way some sub-topics are worded e.g. ‘Spiritual and religious traditions of the Vedic India’, ‘India as described in Vedic literature’, ‘The antiquity of Vedas and Vedic people’ and various others is meant to project a mythical view. Is the germination high philosophy (unit 6) post-Vedic and does the spiritual and philosophical thought of ancient India consist of Upanishads, Brahmanas and Sutras only and India’s only contribution to the philosophical thought of the world?
  • Unit 9: refers to Chanakya’s efforts for geographical and political unity as well as to Maurya attempts at political unity of India. In unit 12, Guptas attempts to unite India. No such attempt is attributed to the Sultans and even to the Mughals in the syllabus outline for medieval India.
  • No political unit of the Deccan and South, except the Rashtrakutas .is mentioned—not even the Satavahanas, the Pallavas, the Chalukyas, not to speak of the early Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas.
  • There is no reference to the Varna system in the period before 300 BC. The only reference to caste occurs in unit 11 which deals with ‘Social life as reflected in contemporary literature from 200 BC to 300 AD.
  • Numerous units refer to India’s influence on world civilisation in general and some specific regions but none whatsoever of other cultures’ influences India.

Semester II: Medieval India
The content outline of this period of Indian history reflects the total incompetence and appalling historical ignorance of those who have drafted it and is a reflection on the credentials of the academic body which has published it. The denigration of the Sultanate of Delhi and the Mughal empire is clearly meant to ensure that students do not develop any understanding of the place of this period in the country’s history in the growth of India’s composite culture.

  • The syllabus for the period is organised in the form of three units. Unit II which is entitled ‘ The Rise of Ghaznavis’ begins with the first Turkish (Ghaznavid) invasions and covers the history of the Sultanate which had nothing to do with the Ghaznavis (sic) (who had been supplanted much before the end of the 12th century) and some of its successor states. The period covered, though nowhere stated, may be, for some parts of India, up to the 15th century.
  • This unit is followed by the third and the last unit in medieval Indian history which is, oddly given the title ‘ The political Conditions’. Though again the specific period this unit is supposed to cover is not stated, a number of dynasties that it refers to such as the Cholas, had arisen in the 10th century and most of them had ceased to exist before the disintegration of the Delhi Sultanate.
  • It also perfunctorily refers to the Mughal Empire but, of course, not to the political unification brought about by them. The unit also introduces the concept of ‘ resistance’ in the context of Mughal Empire. There is not even a reference to the Bhakti and Sufi movements or to the birth of Sikhism.
  • There was a reference in the media some months ago to the suspicion that the NCERT is going to more or less do away with the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal empire. The present syllabus tends to confirm that suspicion. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, January-February 2002 Year 8  No. 75-76, Debate