In his speech on August 6, 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi finally expressed his views on cow miscreants. This after the Dalit community in Gujarat refused to pick up cow carcasses. Seven Dalit men were beaten by right wing miscreants ('gau rakshaks') in Una. The Dalit community protested against the violence by disposing off dead animals in front of government offices. They have refused to pick up dead animals. Something considered to be their job by the Indian (read Hindu) caste system.

This large scale Dalit protest lead to Anandiben Patel’s resignation. Chief minister of Gujarat is a close aide of Prime Minister and yet she resigned. In short BJP is alarmed and stunned by Dalit power. Real, visceral, in your face, on the street, political power. If cow is your mother, you perform her last rites, is the resounding new Dalit slogan on the roads of Gujarat. And on the virtual roads of social networking sites.

The young Dalit gives a damn for news channels where caste Hindu and corporate interests refuse to smell the coffee. Dalit protests are beyond all conventionalism. Nothing is conservative about Dalit protests. BJP and other political parties have been zapped out of their wits about what might come next!

Welcome change of heart!

In his speech on gau rakshaks on August 6, 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi  tells the gau sevaks (cow servants) to be aware that cows mostly die eating plastic. That the sevaks should keep plastic away from cows. In  his best environmentalist avatar Narendra Modi talks about getting rid of plastic altogether for the cause of cow. The slaughter house rant is old and over!

Narendra Modi’s views on cow, beef and 'Gau Raksha' (Cow protection) have changed substantially from the time he was chief minister of Gujarat. Not long ago in one of his many speeches on cows, Modi observed that the then Congress-led Central government had acknowledged India’s number one position as beef exporter. In the video below he seems surprised that people don’t react angrily to such things.

In another speech in the not so distant past, Modi made fun of “pink revolution”. With his characteristic wit and humour Modi said most people talk about white and green revolution but the then Central government had been speaking of pink revolution. This without the caveat that Modi's government was not responsible for white or green revolution. By 'pink' Modi had meant the colour of meat. He seemed traumatised that the Central government believed in cutting animals and exporting meat. He called the meat mutton and beef.

Dalit Ki Baat

The Prime Minister regularly talks to Indian citizens through his show, 'Mann ki Baat' (broadly translated: Soul Chat). For months, however, the prime minister's mann was mum on cow vigilante groups. His citizens were getting killed, tortured, hung, humiliated in the name of the cow!

A man named Aqhlaq was killed in Dadri. A cow vigilante group spread beef rumour. They entered his house under the pretext of beef in his fridge. Aqhlaq was killed. His son suffered a head injury. His other family members were beaten and humiliated. Ironically, the meat in the fridge was sent by officials to the forensic department. To examine the nature of the meat. There were discussions on television channels on the issue as to whether the meat was beef or mutton. Modi and his government kept quiet about the absurdity of the situation.

On July 17, a gang of 30-40 Bajrang Dal members barged into the house of a Dalit family in Karnataka, beat them up with sticks and threatened them with machetes. The incident, however, came to light only on July 23. The attackers warned Dalits that if they didn't stop eating beef, they would be killed. Prime Minister Modi's government kept quiet.

Two Muslim women were beaten up by members of cow vigilante groups at Mandsaur railway station in Madhya Pradesh over suspicion that they were carrying beef. Not a word from  the prime minister who talks about women's empowerment. No reaction from his government to women being beaten up in a crowded railway station in broad day light by a bunch of goons.

However, when the highways (freeways) of Gujarat are full of dead animals – the Prime Minister must speak. These are not slogans on television. These are not distant, under privileged, men and women getting beaten up somewhere far away. These are streets of the prime minister's home state. Streets that must embody his idea of Swatch Bharat. What we see instead now are endless rotten, smelling, dead animals.

Uttar Pradesh Elections in 2017

Prime Minister, like the leaders of the Opposition, knows that assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh (largest province of India) is round the corner. Mayawati, former chief minister from this state, is a popular Dalit leader. She is liked by non-Dalits too. The change in Dalit mood has changed the moderate population's idea of the right-wing already.

In his town hall speech, Modi told state governments to create a dossier of cow miscreants. He added that those who were anti-social elements at night pretend to be cow protectors in the day.

Modi's show of anger towards the gau rakshaks is definitely a resounding support for Dalit workers who clean carcass in Gujarat. Prime Minister Modi extended support to Gau Sevaks or Hindus who are cow worshippers from the same stage. I am wondering how to interpret Prime Minister's sentence that Rajas (Hindu kings) protected cows and Badshahs (Mughal/Muslim kings) used cows to win battles. And the timing of it!

The post Prime Minister Modi’s Cow Talk: Hypocrisy or a Change of Heart? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

January 30, 2004
The Chairman
All India Muslim Personal
Law Board
Nadwa Sharif
Lucknow

Sir, We write this memorandum to you on behalf of the All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) representing 7.5 million women of all communities and regions. In particular AIDWA has a substantial membership among Muslim women and is deeply involved in many of the issues of specific concern to Muslim women in the economic, social and political spheres. We believe that there is discrimination against Muslim women by the State reflected even in government statistics on employment, credit, education, and so on. At the same time, similar to women in other communities, Muslim women also suffer from the lack of substantial reform in personal laws applicable to them.

In this context our association has had several rounds of discussions with the Muslim Personal Law Board officials. You will also recall that our members had participated in the meeting called by the MPLB on Muslim women’s issues in April 2001. On that occasion we had submitted a memorandum to you endorsed by almost all the women present requesting you to initiate certain important reforms in Muslim Personal Laws. The then chairman of the Board, the (late) Qazi Mujahidul Islam Qasmi had given us a sympathetic hearing and assured the women present that the Board would prepare a model nikahnama to bring relief to Muslim women.

Unfortunately, it has taken four long years for the draft to be prepared. We have studied the draft now prepared by the MPLB. We would like to express our deep disappointment with the contents of the draft. Since the draft is to be ratified in the general body meeting of the Board at a later date, we are taking this opportunity to bring to your notice certain infirmities in the draft which we hope will be rectified by you.

A marriage performed under Muslim Personal Law, which recognises marriage as a contract between two persons, gives the Muslim woman certain rights not available to other women. She can draw up a nikahnama which guarantees her rights within the marriage. A model nikahnama must necessarily be framed in a way to safeguard the welfare and rights of the bride. It is then up to the groom to accept the conditions. Once the conditions of the nikahnama are accepted it is binding on both parties. Unfortunately, the model nikahnama circulated by you does not at all protect the interests of the bride, nor does it give her the right to put her own conditions for the marriage. Most Muslim women in our country are not even aware of the fact that they have the right to frame the nikahnama and impose conditions on their husbands. This is a very important right that Muslim women have been given which is, unfortunately, being withheld from them by keeping them in ignorance. The Muslim Personal Law Board must necessarily educate the community that the woman under personal law does have the right to frame conditions in the nikahnama.

Unfortunately, instead of making this right of Muslim women central to the concept of a model nikahnama, the MPLB draft is discriminatory against women: everything that is favourable to women has been included only as a pious piece of advice, on the other hand, everything that militates against woman’s rights has been described as Islamic injunctions.

At the outset we would like to express our strong disagreement with the directive in the draft that in case of any unresolved dispute between the two parties, they should appeal to a Shari’ah court. This directive impinges on the rights of Muslim women to appeal to secular courts on issues of direct concern to them. Clearly, this cannot be accepted. This also seems to be part of the long-standing demand of the MPLB for the establishment of Shari’ah courts. Without going into the demerits of this demand we emphasise that it should not be included in the nikahnama. In case of an unresolved dispute either side has the right to go to court as is the right of all Indian citizens.

One of the major issues before Muslim women is that of arbitrary triple talaq in one sitting. This practice exists only in India. Everywhere else in the world, including in Islamic States, there are conditions for talaq. We had expected that the Board would have taken a clear and strong position against this retrograde practice. However, the wording of the sentence "to avoid talaq in one sitting" or to "avoid talaq without compulsion" is far too vague and will not give any relief to women victims of this practice. We therefore request you to declare that arbitrary triple talaq is impermissible and is banned. This is essential to protect the rights of women.

We welcome your suggestion in the section on instructions to the bride and

groom that cash, dowry and feast for the baraat should not be demanded by the groom or his parents. You have stated that it is against Shari’ah and is a great sin. Perhaps you could add that it is impermissible. Please also think of ways that those who demand dowry should be punished by the community.

We list some of the other points below:

In the section entitled ‘Instructions to the maulvi performing the nikah’:
1. It is stated in the MPLB draft that if the couple are both minors or if one of them is a minor, the guardian’s/guardians’ consent must be obtained. This is extremely unfortunate since it condones marriage of minors. The Child Marriages Restraint Act based on the protection of the rights of children must be the guiding point on this issue.

2. It is stated that the woman should not be the divorcee of the same man, even mitigating circumstances are not mentioned. This is giving sanction to the humiliating practice of ‘halala’.

3. The draft states that Shari’ah has permitted second marriage or polygamy with the condition of all wives being given equal and just treatment. Instead of discouraging polygamy and putting it in the context when it was first permitted, the draft thus sanctions polygamy. How can the maulvi know whether the second or polygamous marriage will not lead to discrimination against the first wife or that all wives will be given equal and just treatment?

4. In this section, maulvis are asked not to permit certain types of marriages. However, a marriage of a man with another woman even while his divorced wife is in iddat is permitted. This is extremely unjust to the divorced woman and should not be permitted. In any case, instructions to maulvis cannot and should not form part of the nikahnama, which is between the husband and wife. If found necessary, the instructions to the maulvis can be issued separately.

In the section ‘Instructions for the bride and bridegroom’:

We are glad that the MPLB has addressed the issue of violence. However, the phrasing that "the wife should be treated justly" and that "violence should be avoided" is again far too vague. It could be interpreted to mean that violence is permissible but better avoided. There should be a categorical instruction against violence.

Shockingly, the right of a wife to a divorce is not even mentioned. Even ‘khula’ is omitted in the draft. It would have been better if you had included the right of talaq-e-tafwid for the wife so that she could demand a divorce if the husband violated the conditions laid down by her, e.g. fails to maintain her and their children, takes another wife, etc. There must be a section on the rights of a wife including the right to divorce. A section on the rights of divorced women and children, their right to residence, to maintenance, education and inheritance rights of children should also be included.

In the sections ‘Rights of the husband and wife on each other’:
This section has a series of instructions for the wife – i.e. she cannot visit anyone without her husband’s permission; she must safeguard her modesty and look after the children. Even the visits of the wife to her own family are circumscribed by what is considered "necessary". The wife’s freedom of movement is curtailed while there are no such restrictions on the husband’s movements. These sections are heavily weighted against the wife and need to be rewritten entirely. One of the increasing problems is that of alcoholism and gambling among men. These should be specifically mentioned and disapproved.

It is mentioned that mehr should be paid at the time of the nikah in part or in full. If it is paid later then it should be paid in silver or gold. This again does not guarantee payment of mehr to the wife as it should but, in fact, provides a loophole for the husband. It should be made clear that it is incumbent for the husband to pay the full mehr at the time of marriage.

Conclusion:

Sir, these are a few of the objections and suggestions we have on the MPLB draft. We would like to point out that in the given situation of the various levels of discrimination that Muslim women face including being made the targets of communal forces, it is extremely important for the rights of Muslim women within the community to be strengthened. It is our belief based on experience that fundamentalists of all communities misuse religion and so-called religious sanction to protect their own sectarian and hidebound views which in fact have no religious sanction and in fact militate against the Constitution of India. The need for reform in Muslim Personal Law is apparent and much delayed. You are also aware that when there is little hope within the community for reform, individual Muslim women have been approaching various courts of law for redressal of their grievances. We believe that personal law reform that is initiated from within the community has a lasting effect. We hope that you will not delay the processes of justice to Muslim women any further. The framing of a model nikahnama provides you with the opportunity to send a strong message for personal law reform to the community. We hope you will consider our views based on the experience we have with working with Muslim women from all sections across the country and redraft the nikahnama accordingly.

Yours,

Anwara Mirza
Zarina Khursheed
Maimoona Mollah
Rehana Sayeed
Mariam Dhawale
PK Zainaba
aidwa@ndb.vsnl.net.in

The post Faulty model appeared first on SabrangIndia.