Collected Works sell sans Annihilation of Caste and the Riddles in Hinduism!

Who is afraid of the writings of Babasaheb Ambedkar? Both, the Modi and Phadnavis governments respectively; or so it seems.

For an average social scientist, Ambedkarite, a student of Indian freedom and inequality, when discussing Ambedkar and his most critical works, some names come immediately to mind.

These are, or are they or not, the Annihilation of Caste, or Riddles in Hinduism?  Even State and Minorities , Shudras and the Counter Revolution, Women and the Counter Revolution ?  Not for this regime(s) however. This government(s) – Centre and Maharashtra — would have us believe that the seminal or important works of this man are only his writings on the Roundtable Conference or his works related to Poona Pact, or his debates with Gandhi.

Now imagine a set of books, the official collection, copyright of which is with the Government of Maharashtra, re-branded as the (truncated) Collected Works of Bhimrao Ambedkar (CWBA) but without these seminal texts that cast a sharp and critical look at caste-ridden Hindu society.

This is exactly the farce that is being played out at India’s premier Book Fair currently on in the capital right now. The Delhi Book Fair. The Ambedkar Foundation, a Government of India body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the sole publisher of Babasaheb’s writings and speeches in Hindi, is selling the Collected Works without 11 books from the set ! Among the missing books in the Collected Works in Hindi are Anhilation of Caste and Riddles in Hinduism.

The official explanation is that the Ambedkar Foundation is in the process of publishing a new set of the Collected Works –and in the intermediate period — this truncated Collected Works is what they have to offer to the readers. But none at the Foundation (whom this writer spoke to), knows exactly when the new set of books will be published. This is the status of the Hindi edition of the CWBA.

For the English originals, the situation is more complicated. As the Foundation has not received the No Objection Certificate or the NOC from the Maharashtra Government, the copyright holder of these works, the Foundation cannot publish the English versions of the CWBA. It’s intriguing that the Maharashtra government that holds the publishing rights for the writings and speeches of Babasaheb is resisting sending this NOC to the central government affiliated Foundation!

In the meanwhile, citizens of the country have no option but to buy a truncated set of the Collected Works.  These acts of the Modi and Phadnavis  governments come at a time when the year is being celebrated, nationwide, for the 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has himself taken the lead in these celebrations. The Indian Parliament has held a two days special session to mark this occasion; a special commemorative coin has also been issued.

Is this celebration, then, just a façade for the Modi Government ? On the outside there are clever moves to appropriate Babasaheb; the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have declared him a ‘thinker’ or a ‘Guru’. But in essence, while this shallow eulogising continues, the radical social scientist and critical thinker in Babasaheb is being white-washed.

Dr. Ambedkar, while delivering his concluding speech before the Constituent Assembly, had forewarned us about the problems with hero worship. This regime, adept at ‘event management’ is simply trying to appropriate an idol. By suppressing Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s critical works, the RSS driven regime is trying to rob the revolutionary essence contained in the writings of Babasaheb.  While both the BJP and the RSS want to appropriate Babasaheb, his writings are, in a sense, too hot for them to handle. As a symbol to garner votes, Babasaheb is a welcome appropriation to the Hindutva  pantheon. But their affection for him ends there.

Why are Ambedkar himself and the Ambedkarite movement a Catch 22 for the RSS and the Sangh Parivar ?  Because, it has always faltered in its dealings with the issue of Caste. The centrality of caste in the democratic discourse of Ambedkarite stream of thought is a stumbling block for the avowed objective of the RSS in establishing upper caste Brahamanic hegemony in the country. In the Anhilation of Caste, Ambedkar actually advocates the demolishing of certain Hindu religious texts to enable Hindus to be really free. His writings are therefore extremely problematic for any organisation that seeks to re-affirm or consolidate caste hegemony.

And therein lies the rub. With Ambedkar and his legacy of radical critical thought, a searchlight is shone on aspects of the Indian (read Hindu) social and political structure that reactionary forces like the RSS and the BJP would prefer to conceal. In this year of the 125^th Birth Anniversary of Ambedkar, the choice is clear. Dr BR Ambedkar’s writings and thoughts need to be recognised in their completeness. In toto. By hollowing out his Collected Works of their seminal portions, the regimes in Delhi and Maharashtra seek to sanitise this legacy. A strong vibrant Dalit tradition will not so easily allow this mis-appropriation.

 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches

(The writer is a senior journalist, former managing editor India Today group and presently researching at the Jawaharlal Nehru Univreristy (JNU) on Media and Caste relations)

The post Who is afraid of the writings of Babasaheb Ambedkar? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

March the 23rd (2016) is the 85th anniversary of the martyrdom of three of India’s great revolutionaries, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, who were hanged at Lahore for working to overthrow the colonial, ‘firangee’ government. The British government thought that with the physical elimination of these freedom fighters their ideas and dreams of a secular and egalitarian independent India would also dissipate and disappear. The rulers were patently wrong as these revolutionaries and heir ideals continue to be an integral part of the people’s memory, their exploits sung far and wide in people’s lore.

On this 85th anniversary of their martyrdom we should remember, and not overlook the fact, that though it was the British colonial powers who hanged them, there were at the time organisations like Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Muslim League in pre-1947 India which not only remained alien to the ideals of these revolutionaries but also maintained a criminal silence on their hanging.

It is both comic, ironical and shocking therefore that, of these three communal outfits, it is the RSS — which consciously kept itself completely aloof from the anti-colonial struggle –that has, of late, laid claim to the tradition and contributions of these great revolutionaries. Literature is being produced and the discourse too seeks to appropriate them with false a-historic linkages to Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.

During the NDA I regime when its two senior swayamsewaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishan Advani ruled the country, they had made the astonishing claim that Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, founder of the RSS met Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev in 1925 and continued attending meetings with these revolutionaries and even provided shelter to Rajguru in 1927 when he was underground after killing Sanders.[i]

In 2007, for the first time in its history, the Hindi organ of the RSS, Panchjanya came out with a special issue on Bhagat Singh. In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

Madhukar Dattatreya Deoras, known as Balasahab Deoras, the third chief of the RSS, narrated an incident when Hedgewar saved him and others from following the path of Bhagat Singh and his comrades. Interestingly, this appeared in a publication of RSS itself:
“While studying in college (we) youth were generally attracted towards the ideals of revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh. Emulating Bhagat Singh we should do some or other act of bravery, this came to our mind often. We were less attracted towards Sangh (RSS) since current politics, revolution etc. that attracted the hearts of youth were generally less discussed in the Sangh. When Bhagat Singh and his companions were awarded death sentence, at that time our hearts were so excited that some friends together [we] vowed to do something directly and planned something terrible and in order to make it succeed decided to run away from homes. But to run away without informing our Doctorji [Hedgewar] will not be proper, considering it we decided to inform Doctorji about our decision. To inform this fact to Doctorji was assigned to me by the group of friends.

“We together went to Doctorji and with great courage I explained my feelings before him. After listening to our plan Doctorji took a meeting of ours for discarding this foolish plan and making us to realize the superiority of the work of Sangh. This meeting continued for seven days and in the night from ten to three. The brilliant ideas of Doctorji and his valuable leadership brought fundamental change in our ideas and ideals of life. Since that day we took leave of mindlessly made plans and our lives got new direction and our mind got stabilized in the work of Sangh.”[ii]

Moreover there is ample proof available in the documents of the RSS that establish that the RSS denounced movements led by revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekar Azad and their associates. There are passages in theBunch of Thoughts [collection of speeches and writings of Golwalkar treated as a holy book by the RSS cadres] decrying the whole tradition of martyrs:
“There is no doubt that such men who embrace martyrdom are great heroes and their philosophy too is pre-eminently manly. They are far above the average men who meekly submit to fate and remain in fear and inaction. All the same, such persons are not held up as ideals in our society. We have not looked upon their martyrdom as the highest point of greatness to which men should aspire. For, after all, they failed in achieving their ideal, and failure implies some fatal flaw in them.”[iii]
Golwalkar goes on to tell the RSS cadres that only those people should be adored who have been successful in their lives:
“It is obvious that those who were failures in life must have had some serious drawback in them. How can one, who is defeated, give light and lead others to success?”[iv]

In the whole body of pre-Partition literature of RSS we do not find even a single reference to these martyrs. In fact, RSS literature of the contemporaneous period, is full of anecdotes showing its indifference to revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

In fact, Golwalkar’s book has a chapter titled ‘Worshippers of Victory’ in which he openly commits to the fact that he and RSS worship only those who are victorious.
“Let us now see what type of great lives have been worshipped in this land. Have we ever idealised those who were a failure in achieving life’s goal? No, never. Our tradition has taught us to adore and worship only those who have proved fully successful in their life-mission. A slave of circumstances has never been our ideal. The hero who becomes the master of the situation, changes it by sheer dint of his calibre[sic] and character and wholly succeeds in achieving his life’s aspirations, has been our ideal. It is such great souls, who by their self-effulgence, lit up the dismal darkness surrounding all round, inspired confidence in frustrated hearts, breathed life into the near-dead and held aloft the living vision of success and inspiration, that our culture commands us to worship.”[v]

Golwalkar did not name Bhagat Singh but according to his philosophy of life since Bhagat Singh and his companions did not succeed in achieving their goal they did not deserve any respect. According to his formula the British rulers would and should be the natural object of worship as they were able to kill revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh.

It is difficult to find a statement more insulting and denigrating to the martyrs of the Indian Freedom Movement than this.

It will be shocking for any Indian who loves and respects the martyrs of the Freedom Movement to know what Dr. Hedgewar and the RSS felt about the revolutionaries fighting against the British. According to his biography published by the RSS, “Patriotism is not only going to prison. It is not correct to be carried away by such superficial patriotism. He used to urge that while remaining prepared to die for the country when the time came, it is very necessary to have a desire to live while organizing for the freedom of the country.”[vi]

‘Shameful’ is too mild a word to describe the attitude of the RSS towards these young freedom fighters, who had sacrificed their all in the struggle against the British colonial powers. The last Mughal ruler of India, Bahadurshah Zafar, had emerged as the rallying point and symbol of the Great War of Independence of 1857. Golwalkar while making fun of him said:
“In 1857, the so-called last emperor of India had given the clarion call—Ghazio mein bu rahegi jub talak eeman ki/Takhte London tak chalegi tegh Hindustan ki (As long as there remains the least trace of love of faith in the hearts of our heroes, so long, the sword of Hindustan will reach the throne of London.) But ultimately what happened? Everybody knows that.”[vii]

What Golwalkar thought of the people sacrificing their lot for the country is obvious from the following statement as well. He had the temerity to ask the great revolutionaries who wished to lay down their lives for the freedom of the motherland the following question (as if he was representing the British masters):
“But one should think whether complete national interest is accomplished by that? Sacrifice does not lead to increase in the thinking of the society of giving all for the interest of the nation. It is borne by the experience up to now that this fire in the heart is unbearable to the common people.”[viii]

Perhaps this was the reason that RSS produced no freedom fighter, not to mention no martyr in the movement against the colonial rule. Unfortunately, there is not a single line challenging, exposing, criticising or confronting the inhuman rule of the British masters in the entire literature of the RSS from 1925 to 1947. Those who are familiar with the glorious Freedom Struggle of India and sacrifices of martyrs like Bhagat Singh must challenge this evil appropriation of our heroes by the Hindutva camp which betrayed the liberation struggle. We should not allow these communal stooges of the British rulers to kill Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev once again.

(The author taught political science at the University of Delhi. He is a well known writer and columnist)

The post Bhagat Singh, the Tradition of Martrydom and Hindutva appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Supply Sodium Cynanide and a Rope to every Dalit student-Rohit to the VC a month before he took his life

This letter, dated December 18, 2015 has not been so widely quoted nor has it gone viral. It is a comment on all of us, especially those of us in the media, that we failed to read the warnings or feel the anguish.  After all it is since August 2015 that the social boycott and ostracizing of Dalit students, including Rohith was systematically afoot. That is close to five months ago.

Nearly a month to the day that he tragically gave up the struggle to live and took his own life, on December 18, 2015, a hand-written letter from Rohith Vemula to Vice Chancellor Appa Rao says it all. Taunting and tragic, the note will now be read as a precursor of what was to come. In a hand-written scrawl that hints at acute desperation, he says, “Your Excellency (addressed to the Vice Chancellor Appa Rao) “make preparations for the EUTHANASIA for students like me from the Ambedkarite movement…and may your campus rest in peace forever.”

The letter traces the officially sanctioned “social boycott” of Dalit students after they took on a member of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for his derogatory remarks to the Dalit students. “Donald Trump will be a Lilliput in front of you,” Rohith tells Appa Rao then offering a piece of chilling advice. “Please serve 10 miligram of Sodium Azide to all the Dalit students at the time of admission…Supply a nice rope to the rooms of all Dalits students..”The text of the letter can be read here and a scanned hand written copy seen here.

Now we know, and fret over the fact that his Rs 25,000 per month stipend (as of all his other suspended colleagues) was stopped after suspension and he had to borrow money, even from home, to survive the struggle. Now that he is dead we listen to the plight and anguish of his family. Why did we not listen before? As the isolation and anguish built up to make Rohith take a step so final that it signalled no return? Yes, we are all to blame.

“After the stipend was stopped, his family was struggling to support him. He borrowed Rs 40,000 from a friend and was living frugally. Almost every day, he used to say that his money was stuck,’’ said Velmula Sankanna, a fellow PhD scholar and one of the other five students who were suspended. “In December, Rohith wrote an angry letter to the V-C, sarcastically asking him to provide euthanasia facilities for Dalit students. Since then, he was scared to go to the administration building and ask about his stipend. He became silent and withdrawn. He said that he was falling into depression because he was being defeated by the system at every turn. He blamed himself, his caste, and the circumstances around him. He did not take much interest in anything except studies,’’ added Sankanna, a close friend.

We did not rise to feel, see or appreciate the seriousness implicit in the warnings. In August 2015, a questionable mode of ‘suspension’ of five singled out students of the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) followed by the arbitrary stopping of their scholarship stipend, further followed by their being locked out of their rooms from January 4, 2016. Yet they fought on, sleeping out near the shopping complex in the cold. Awaiting fair hearing, democratic space for protest(s) and justice.

From the night of January 4, 2016 until today the sleep out protests continue.

After the tragic and unnecessary loss of the life of a budding science scholar, a proud Ambedkarite, will justice and fair hearing happen? Yesterday in a fully articulated representation to PL Punia, Chairperson of the National Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Commission, the Joint Action Committee for Social Justice, University of Hyderabad (UoH) has demanded:

• Punish the Culprits under the SC/ST Atrocities Act:
• Banadaru Dattareya, Union Cabinet Minister of State for Labour and Employment
• P Appa Rao, Vice Chancellor
• Professor Alok Pandey, Chief Proctor
• Susheel Kumar, ABVP President
• Ramchandra Rao, MLC
• Remove P Appa Rao from the post of Vice Chancellor
• Employ a family member of Rohith Vemula at the University of Hyderabad and give his family Rs 50 lahs in compensation
• Drop the fabricated cases against five Dalit Research Scholars immediately and unconditionally
• Revoke the suspension of Students immediately and unconditionally

The Anger Spreads; Demands for resignation of Vice Chancellor Appa Rao

Anger and grief are potent combinations and both were visible in plenty at the mortuary of the Osmania Hospital on Monday, January 18 where Rohith Velumal lay, a day after he tragically ended his own life. His mother’s anguished cry says it all, ““I used to proudly tell everyone in my village that my son was doing PhD at Hyderabad University. Today, I have come to collect his dead body.’’ The family is from Gurazala near Guntur, his mother a tailor and father, Manikumar a security guard at the Hyderabad University. Rohith has two siblings, an elder sister and a younger brother.

Over 1200 students of the University of Hyderabad (UoH) participated in a rally on Monday evening and have resolved to protest on Tuesday, January 19 and not allow the university to function until the current Vice Chancellor, Appa Rao steps down. Before the rally, his close friends and colleagues, along with his family were present at the cremation of Rohith in Hyderabad. (see Image story)

Simultaneous and spontaneous protests continued through the day yesterday at Hyderabad, Vishakhapatnam, Mumbai and Delhi. The road outside Shastri Bhavan, the office of Smriti Irani, the Ministry for Human Resources Development (MHRD) was cordoned off akin to a war zone (see pictures). In Hyderabad, a visit from the chairperson of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Commission allayed feelings somewhat.

Though it is Rohith is the one who has made the most recent and most tragic sacrifice, the question is whether it will still open India’s eyes and hearts?

We read every other day not just of the social boycott of Dalit children in the mid day meal schemes. In ‘Dravidian’ politics ruled Tamil Nadu colour bands on Dalit students brand them with their caste. There is little political, social or cultural outrage. The television channels, packed as they are with ‘journalists’ most of whom sport a myopic caste consciousness of the elite Indian that simply excludes any mention of discrimination or exclusion while badgering home ‘the banner of tolerance’, rarely flag anti-Dalit atrocities as an institutional ill to be faced squarely then remedied.
In ‘progressive’ west India the discrimination takes similar forms, and examples abound. In Phugana, three young Dalit children, one a baby was burnt alive in a burst of Rajput rage.

Just like the Blacks fought (and have barely won) the Civil Rights battle in the West – last year’s incidents at Fergusson are evidence of how thinly layered this success is –it is privileged India, caste Hindus who need to hang their heads in acknowledgement, first, and the, shame.

We need to internalize what Dalit students experience when they enter schools, colleges and universities and break the glass ceiling and enter India’s famed institutions of higher learning, the IITs, the IIMs and Universities.

Not only is the percentage of Dalit students who enter higher educational institutions small. They are subject to insidious caste practices and exclusion that batters the hard earned self-esteem. A dangerous argument of ‘meritocracy’ cloaks well organized money and caste induced privilege.

This everyday institutional and societal exclusion and othering needs to be acknowledged squarely by each and one of us.

It is time we ask difficult ourselves some hard and uncomfortable questions.

What kind of history do we teach? Who are our heroines and heroes?
How many Dalits are there in the media, print and television?
How many Dalits in Institutions of power and governance?

The Dalit experience says that entering the corridors of elite educational institutions like Indian Institute of Technologies (IIT) and Indian Institute of Managements and Central Universities for scores of Dalit students is like walking into a living hell, where the fear of being shamed and humiliated hangs heavy on the heart and soul of every student.

Before Rohit, we lost Senthil Kumar and Nagaralu Koppalas, also in the Central University of Hyderabad. Have these earlier losses, deaths of young men in their prime been internalized and taught the UoH any lessons worth learning? The recent and continuing unfair suspension of Dalit scholars would appear to suggest that no lessons have yet been learned.

Is India willing ready and able to accept her Not So Hidden Apartheid?

The post Rohith’s death: We are all to blame appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A disconcerting trend emerging has been noticed in conservative religious groups across India as they give a call against the celebration of New Year and Christmas, citing cultural heritage and religious traditions. This phenomenon is particularly evident in India, where the fear of Hindutva propaganda influencing Indian-origin communities abroad has sparked concerns. Instances of Hinduphobia and attacks on Hindu temples and Sikh Gurdwaras are on the rise in several countries, suggesting a potential “action-reaction” dynamic at play. This has also been seen by Muslim religious figures who have given similar calls to their followers to not partake in these celebrations given that they may have ‘pagan’ and ‘western’ origins.

Thus, the changing landscape of India and the world, with a shifting political and cultural climate, has given rise to a peculiar form of intolerance. Communities that once happily celebrated events like New Years and Christmases together are now witnessing a surge in misinformation campaigns against these very celebrations, as seen in a tweet from the Jaipur Dialogues. Furthermore, they are deterred from participating in these festivals which may include people from all religious groups and thus may be a site for potential cross-community interaction.

However, these moves by conservative and right-wing groups are not new. For instance, another notable example of this trend is the Hindu Dharma Parirakshana Trust of the Andhra Pradesh Endowments department in 2017 issued a notice advising temple authorities to refrain from New Year celebrations, welcome banners, and floral decorations on January 1. The department justified its stance by claiming that celebrating the Western New Year is not in accordance with Hindu traditions, thereby urging temples to focus on festivities during Ugadi, the Telugu New Year.

Similarly, in Aligarh in 2017, schools were warned against celebrating Christmas, with concerns raised by the Hindu Jagran Manch, a right-wing Hindutva group affiliated with Yogi Adityanath’s Hindu Yuva Vahini. The group suggested that Christmas celebrations might lead to ‘forced conversion’ of Hindu students, showcasing a fear-driven narrative against religious minorities. The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, another conservative group, had appealed to Hindus nationwide to celebrate the New Year only on Chaitra Shuddha Pratipada (Gudhipadwa), rejecting the celebration on January 1 due to its perceived lack of historical, natural, and spiritual significance. Further, in December 2023, a school in Madhya Pradesh specified that students need written permission from their parents before they could participate in Christmas Day celebrations in school.

In late November 2023, the Janajati Dharma Sanskriti Suraksha Manch (JSM) had plans to organise a rally on December 25 in Agartala, the capital of Tripura in northeast India, as reported by UCA News.

Functioning as an affiliate of the pro-Hindutva and supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the JSM advocates for the exclusion of Christianity and Islam, which it deems as “foreign-origin religions.” The organisation argues that indigenous tribal individuals who have converted to these faiths should be omitted from the official Scheduled Tribes list. This exclusion would result in the denial of educational and employment quotas, along with other welfare benefits, as part of India’s affirmative action programs.

In 2022, notorious for reportedly engaging in hate speech against religious minorities in India, Suresh Chavhanke stated that Christmas is an “imposition of the 2 % over the 98%.” The Sudarshan News Editor-in-Chief was speaking at an event held by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti in Jalgaon, Maharashtra on December 25. Furthermore, expressing anxiety about the prospect of “mass Hindu conversions,” he stated, Christianity has ruined “our intellect,” and further stated that, “The Hindus are so gullible that they are putting up Christmas trees in hotels, malls, airports. Is there any relation of Christmas trees and India? (Crowd echoes a ‘No’) But we were made into fools. From December 25 to January 5, we will not see anything else. Our children will grow up looking at Christmas tree and they will think is ours and that is why Sudarshan (his news channel) since the past 10-12 years has started worshipping the tulsi plant instead of worshipping the Christmas tree.”

Similar sentiments were echoed by Hindutva outfits over the celebration of Eid, as elaborated in a detailed piece by Sabrang India, which detailed the “anxiety ‘ Hindutva has with regards to celebration of Eid. The article details several instances where people celebrating Eid were disrupted, including one celebration in a school which was disrupted by Hindutva supporters. The article also notes that the police was seen chatting in an amicable manner at the scene of crime in the school with the attackers from the Hindutva outfits had disrupted the programme.

Other religious groups such as Muslims too have raised concerns about celebrating festivals that are not from their own religion. For instance, in December 2023, a Sunni cleric named Sadiq Ali from Kerala wrote a Facebook post decrying the celebration of Christmas by Muslims. This post came after members of the IUML (Indian Union Muslim League) engaged in Christmas celebrations. He further sought to cement his claims and argued, “It is wrong to take part in certain celebrations. Participating in certain other festivals would lead you out of Islam. This is clearly stated in the books on Islamic jurisprudence.” However, he further added, “Islam teaches us to be tolerant and to establish good relationships with people of other faiths. Islam teaches that if a goat is slaughtered in your house, the first share should be given to the neighbouring Jew.” Furthermore, these incidents raise questions about the broader implications for communal harmony and diversity by arbiters and advocates of religious conservatism.

This growing intolerance is not limited to India alone. Similar instances of conservative religious groups opposing New Year and Christmas celebrations can be found globally. In Saudi Arabia, religious kingdoms have successfully employed such tactics to maintain control and foster religious homogeneity. The underlying narrative appears to be one of religious fanaticism seeking reasons to polarise citizens, with calls for boycotting Christmas or condemning New Year seen as forms of hatred towards minority communities, especially Christians. Such incidents reflect a worrying trend where personal choices to celebrate certain occasions are not only discouraged but actively degraded.

Related:

Assam: After taking an oath to uphold Ambedkar’s Constitution, the BJP CM invoked the Gita to promote caste-based occupation 

‘Curly Tales’ Kamiya Jani, faces BJP flak on “beef-eating” claims after a visit to Puri’s Jagannath temple

Madhya Pradesh: District after district polices Christmas celebrations, children can’t dress like Santa Claus without “parent permission”

What is the truth behind the ‘Chota Pakistan’ video?

The post Growing intolerance across religion: Conservatives, Hindutva and some Islamic groups oppose New Year and Christmas celebrations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First published on: November 2009

Delivering judgement in a 1984 anti-Sikh communal massacre case, a Delhi trial court observed, “After the assassination of late Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984, anti-Sikh riots broke out in different areas of the capital, killing thousands of Sikhs. [The] law and order machinery was completely paralysed because of inaction/connivance of the police… In the name of investigation a farce was carried out… It seems the prosecution expected that the trial will be equally a farce and cases would be summarily disposed of thereby drawing a curtain on the legal drama.”1

Today we are confronted with a peculiar schism where the truth of who are the perpetrators and masterminds of the communal pogrom of 1984 is part of public knowledge but it invariably fails to translate into proof beyond reasonable doubt in courts of law.

In the aftermath of the anti-Sikh pogrom, victims have approached the criminal justice system, seeking punishment for the guilty. The consequent judicial verdicts demonstrate that wanton killings and looting in communal pogroms invariably end in acquittals, barring a few rare convictions.

Why this pattern of impunity

Beyond the lament of injustice, it is important to discern and identify the reasons why both the law and the judiciary fail to deliver justice to the victims of communal carnage. The present legal system has failed to award penalty for communal crimes, for these events overturn some fundamental premises on which the criminal justice system is based. The rubric of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Indian Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not designed to adjudicate and punish the perpetrators of a communal pogrom.

The violence unleashed against the Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and Christians in Orissa in 2008 is usually labelled ‘riots’. The term ‘riot’ as defined in Section 146 of the IPC or the commonly used phrase, ‘communal riot’, implies a violent clash between members of different religious communities, causing loss of life, limb and property to both. This phrase is inaccurate to describe the communal violence under discussion, which was a premeditated and organised targeting of the minority community, carried out with the explicit and/or implicit sanction and support of the state, its representatives and functionaries. The term ‘pogrom’ is more appropriate to describe the events of 1984.2

A corollary would be that the list of accused persons to be prosecuted must include not only those whose hands killed, sexually assaulted, looted and burnt but also the minds that planned, incited, abetted, conspired and provided financial and other resources as well as those who abandoned their constitutional duty to protect the people caught in the vortex of communal violence.

A successful prosecution hinges on professional investigation by the police. The Kusum Mittal report indicted 72 and recommended summary dismissal of six senior Delhi police officers for their culpability in the 1984 carnage. The executive exonerated them all. After the massacre, for the police the registration of crimes and investigation of offences are a matter of political expediency. In a case of 1984, a Delhi trial court stated, “After the rioters had done their job, the rest of the job to frustrate the investigation was done by the police.”3 The shoddy and partisan investigation conducted by the police undermines the very foundation of the prosecution.

The absence of an independent and effective investigating agency is felt most acutely when victims and survivors have to beseech the very police force that through myriad acts of omission and commission was complicit in the communal crimes. The directive of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh judgement is a beginning in the direction of a professional investigating agency but much more remains to be done.

Experiences from across the country indicate that the malaise runs much deeper. The police as a force have displayed an institutional bias against religious minority communities. A communalised police force, enjoying de facto and de jure immunity and subject to weak mechanisms of accountability, will only reinforce the already etched patterns of impunity for communal crimes. This deep sectarian institutional bias displayed by the police force against minority communities is further aggravated by the de facto and de jure immunity enjoyed by them. A serious hurdle in punishing public servants is the shield of legal immunity provided by Section 197 of the CrPC, which must be repealed.

The underlying premise, of the state as the parent and protector, stands completely distorted when the political executive dons the mantle of the mastermind and becomes an accomplice in communal crimes. The present legal apparatus requires the executive, which stands deeply implicated, to discharge the onerous task of prosecuting itself and its henchmen. In such a scenario, the filing of closure reports by the CBI against Congress leaders, or the Tehelka sting operation showing public prosecutors in Gujarat scheming to derail trials, should come as no surprise. For the prosecution of communal crimes, the law must grant the public prosecutor a measure of institutional autonomy and functional discretion.

Although the IPC defines murder, rioting, rape, it is insufficient for convicting either the mobs or the masterminds. The criminal provisions of conspiracy and abetment are also inadequate to nail the sponsors of communal crimes. Sections of the IPC simply list and describe the acts that are labelled crimes. The IPC does not envisage mass crimes where an entire community is systematically targeted by reason of their religious identity and this attack is carried out with the direct and/or indirect complicity of state institutions and agents. For the guilty to be nailed, the law will have to be amended to adopt a distinct typology of crimes akin to the ‘crimes of genocide’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ as codified in the statute of the International Criminal Court.

The CrPC prescribes the procedure for purposes of investigation and trial notwithstanding that during the pogrom the investigators and prosecutors were themselves complicit in the crimes and later obliterated traces of the same. The Indian Evidence Act too demands the same kind and degree of proof for communal crimes as otherwise. For instance, delay in lodging the FIR by a survivor, or absence of corroborative material evidence, or non-mention of names of accused in the statements recorded by the police, or absence of a medical report can lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the victim without taking cognisance of the difficult circumstances prevailing at the time. It is therefore critical to formulate new rules of procedure and evidence, sensitive to the context of communal violence.

Women whose bodies become sites of contestation and community ‘honour’ rarely get redress. The failure of the present law to even provide a definitional description of the brutality and scale of sexual violence suffered by women emboldens its denial.

The weakness of the law is most glaring in its abject and recurring failure to punish those who sponsor and profit from the carnage. To extend criminal liability beyond the actual perpetrator and affix culpability of political leaders and persons in positions of social, administrative, civil or military authority, the principle of command/superior responsibility must be incorporated. This would make the leaders criminally responsible for failing to take reasonable measures to prevent crimes committed by subordinates under their effective control and about which they can reasonably be presumed to have had knowledge. Thus the escape route deployed by political leaders, of ignorance and inaction, while their party men kill and burn, could be plugged. It is time to shift the burden of responsibility from the victim witness to those at the helm.

Clearly, the jurisprudential yardstick of ‘normal times’ cannot be indiscriminately applied to decide trials marked by an extraordinary collusion of state agencies and institutions. This challenge must be met not by whittling down the guarantees and rights of the accused but rather by exacting greater accountability from the state and empowering the victim.

As the home minister sagely advises us to ‘let the law take its own course’, it is pertinent to point out that the delay in punishing the guilty of 1984 for 25 years indicates an urgent need to forge new legal tools to alter this pattern of continuing injustice and rampant impunity. The UPA government has yet to fulfil its promise of introducing a comprehensive legislation against communal violence. A flawed beginning in this respect has been made by the government through the introduction of a bill that has been rejected outright by citizens’ groups. Criticising the same, a public statement stated, “What we have before us today is a dangerous piece of legislation called the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, which will not only fail to secure justice for communal crimes but will actually strengthen the shield of protection enjoyed by the state, its political leaders and its officials for their acts of omission and commission in these crimes. It is a bill which conceives of communal violence as a ‘one-time’ event rather than as a long-term politically motivated process and seeks to prevent it only by giving greater powers to (often communally tainted) state governments. Further, it continues to perpetuate the silence around gender-based crimes.”4

Notes

1 ASJ OP Dwivedi, State vs Kishori & Ors, Karkardooma, Delhi, SC No. 53/95, FIR No. 426/84. p. 1.

2 Jyoti Grewal argues that the 1984 anti-Sikh violence was a pogrom in Betrayed by the State: The Anti-Sikh Pogrom of 1984, Penguin Books India, 2007, pp. 14.

3 ASJ SN Dhingra, State vs Kishori & Ors, Karkardooma, Delhi, SC No. 42/95, FIR No. 426/84, p. 9.

4 Public statement released at the National Consultation on the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005, June 16, 2007, New Delhi.

Archived from Communalism Combat, November 2009  Year 16    No.145, Cover Story 5

The post Regimes of impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dear Rama, Karuna Nidhi, merciful Lord,

I decided to write to you again. I refuse to succumb to hopelessness. My resolve is to resist and challenge it, for within our hearts lies a flame of hope and courage. As long as there is love, these brittle structures of hate machinery will collapse.

Lord, your disciples address you as “Dheeraj Shobhit”, meaning someone who is “adorned with patience”. We must find “dheeraj” (patience) to remain undeterred from the path of compassion.

There is a lovely story about You asking Hanuman to find the ring that falls into a hole on the Earth. Hanuman does so, not surprisingly, making his way through this tiny hole and discovering the netherworld or land of spirit (bhuta), and when Hanuman says to the King of spirits,

“Rama ‘s ring fell into a hole and I come to fetch it”, 

The King of Spirits shows him a platter with thousand rings and says, 

“There are as many Ramas as many rings in the plate, and you pick up the one that belongs to your Rama and take it.”

We all seek a different ring of yours, Lord. Yet, it is the same;

In search of Rama’s rings,

Roams the disciple Hanuman in us.

Unlike Tolkien’s “One Ring” to reign,

This story of Hanuman frees us from chains.

Each ring will bear our devotion,

Love and compassion set in motion.  

You were the royal family’s beloved; your brothers looked up to you; it had been announced that you would succeed King Dasarth after his death. You had fallen in love with Sita, and in a grand ceremony, you married King Janak’s daughter, and they say it was a match made in heaven.

You, Prince of Ayodhya, are also called Sarvabhavana (beloved of all). Queen Kaikeyi, often considered the favourite wife of King Dasharatha, used a boon to demand that Lord Rama (you) to relinquish the throne in favour of Bharata, leave the city of Ayodhya for a period of exile. Queen Kaikeyi, who had always adored and pampered you, in a way, had betrayed you. When Kaikeyi sought a boon to secure her son’s throne, You and Sita were forced into exile. Even so, Lord Rama, You accepted the decision with equanimity and prepared yourself for the journey without protest.

It always amazes me how You were able to do that. I was once unceremoniously side-lined from something I had built. Anguish turned into anger, and I was bitter.

However, when I read about you, I see You accepted your duty without complaint. In the story, Kaikeyi and Bharata stop you at the city’s exit. Kaikeyi asks for your forgiveness and even calls herself a “blot on mothers” (Ku-mata). Your rightful throne is offered back to you by Bharata, but you refuse. Instead, you embrace him and wish him luck. Kaikeyi did not make you angry. It is said that Kaikeyi waited for you after you returned from the vanvas, and you embraced her when you returned.

Yet when I see that there is a Sena in your name, a Ram-Sene (Sena), that does not negotiate or discuss. They use violence and sometimes derogatory terms to describe women. In 2009 they attacked women in the pub and claimed that these women do not uphold Indian values.

My Lord Ram, you are often called “Mridu” or “Saumya” due to your gentle and compassionate nature. However, it is disheartening to Ram Sena to ignore your teachings. They fail to recognise the contradictions in their actions. If only I could remind them of your journey, of the moments when you demonstrated love by spending time with Sabari, sought reconciliation by sending Hanuman, showed compassion by holding Vali in his final moments, and shed tears as Jatayu passed away before your eyes.

In the Jaina Tradition, your story upholds the principle of non-violence and does not even entertain the idea of killing Ravana, you embody the values of truth and love while advocating for non-violence as the way forward.

As a Nation, especially as a Hindu community and as believers of Ram, we must ask, If Ram Sena represents Ram, does it reflect our collective conscious or our imagination of the King as brave and benevolent as you? If Ram Sena cannot embrace compassion and respect, they do not possess the Ring of the Ram. They and the society which offers them legitimacy must introspect.

Dear Ram, You are called “Sarva Bhuteshu“, one who sees all living beings equally. When our nation was created, the forefathers dreamt of equality, and the idea of equality must come with solidarity and compassion. At these times, I worry that we have lost out the ability to imagine; hate is blinding us. That’s why I’m speaking to you.

Like Hanuman, we must rediscover the rings of Ram for ourselves. That can only be undertaken through acts of love and compassion, a path you taught us through your life.

Seeker for your Ring

Venkat Srinivasan

(The writer is a financial professional, also passionate about the arts, academia, and social issues related to development and human rights)

The post To Lord Ram, I write again for Hope appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Musalmans and a United Nation-India

Today, November 11 is the 128^th Birth Anniversary of Maulana Azad. In 1992 he was posthumously awarded India’s highest civilian award, the Bharat Ratna. He was 70 years when he passed away on February 22, 1958.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was twice elected President of the Indian National Congress, in 1923 and again in 1940. This excerpt from his historic address made at the Ramgarh Session of the grand old party are soul searching on the observations on the minorities and the syncretic fusion of religions on the sub-continent. The rest of the address may be read here.
 
“In 1923 you elected me President of this National Assembly. For the second time, after seventeen years, you have once again conferred upon me the same honour. Seventeen years is not a long period in the history of national struggles. But now the pace of events and world change is so rapid that our old standards no longer apply. During these last seventeen years we have passed through many stages, one after another. We had a long journey before us, and it was inevitable that we should pass through several stages.

“We rested at many a point no doubt, but never stopped. We surveyed and examined every prospect; but we were not ensnared by it, and passed on. We faced many ups and downs, but always our faces were turned towards the goal. The world may have doubted nur intentions and determination, but we never had a moment’s doubt. Our path was full of difficulties, and at every step we were faced with great obstacles. It may be that we did not proceed as rapidly as we desired, but we did not flinch from marching forward.

“If we look back upon the period between 1923 and 1940, 1923 will appear to us a faded landmark in the distance. In 1923 we desired to reach our goal; but the goal was so distant then that even the milestones were hidden from our eyes. Raise your eyes today and look ahead. Not only do you see the milestones clearly, but the goal itself is not distant. But this is evident: that nearer we get to the goal, the more intense does our struggle become. Although the rapid march of events has taken us farther from our old landmark and brought us nearer our goal, yet it has created new troubles and difficulties for us. Today our caravan is passing a very critical stage. The essential difficulty of such a critical period lies in its conflicting possibilities. It is very probable that a correct step may bring us very near our goal; and on the other hand, a false step may land us in fresh troubles and difficulties.

“At such a critical juncture you have elected me President, and thus demonstrated the great confidence you have in one of your co-workers. It is a great honour and a great responsibility. I am grateful for the honour, and crave your support in shouldering the responsibility. I am confident that the fulness of your confidence in me will be a measure of the fulness of the support that I shall continue to receive. 
 
“I am a Musalman and am proud of that fact. Islam’s splendid traditions of thirteen hundred years are my inheritance. I am unwilling to lose even the smallest part of this inheritance. The teaching and history of Islam, its arts and letters and civilisation, are my wealth and my fortune. It is my duty to protect them.

“As a Musalman I have a special interest in Islamic religion and culture, and I cannot tolerate any interference with them. But in addition to these sentiments, I have others also which the realities and conditions of my life have forced upon me. The spirit of Islam does not come in the way of these sentiments; it guides and helps me forward.

“I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice, and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim.

“It was India’s historic destiny that many human races and cultures and religions should flow to her, finding a home in her hospitable soil, and that many a caravan should find rest here. Even before the dawn of history, these caravans trekked into India, and wave after wave of newcomers followed. This vast and fertile land gave welcome to all, and took them to her bosom. One of the last of these caravans, following the footsteps of its predecessors, was that of the followers of Islam. This came here and settled here for good.

“This led to a meeting of the culture-currents of two different races. Like the Ganga and Jumna, they flowed for a while through separate courses, but nature’s immutable law brought them together and joined them in a sangam. This fusion was a notable event in history. Since then, destiny, in her own hidden way, began to fashion a new India in place of the old. We brought our treasures with us, and India too was full of the riches of her own precious heritage. We gave our wealth to her, and she unlocked the doors of her own treasures to us. We gave her what she needed most, the most precious of gifts from Islam’s treasury, the message of democracy and human equality.

“Full eleven centuries have passed by since then. Islam has now as great a claim on the soil of India as Hinduism. If Hinduism has been the religion of the people here for several thousands. of years, Islam also has been their religion for a thousand years. Just as a Hindu can say with pride that he is an Indian and follows Hinduism, so also we can say with equal pride that we are Indians and follow Islam. I shall enlarge this orbit still further. The Indian Christian is equally entitled to say with pride that he is an Indian and is following a religion of India, namely Christianity.

“Eleven hundred years of common history have enriched India with our common achievement. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no aspect of our life which has escaped this stamp. Our languages were different, but we grew to use a common language; our manners and customs were dissimilar, but they acted and reacted on each other, and thus produced a new synthesis. Our old dress may be seen only in ancient pictures of bygone days; no one wears it today.

“This joint wealth is the heritage of our common nationality, and we do not want to leave it and go back to the times when this joint life had not begun. If there are any Hindus amongst us who desire to bring back the Hindu life of a thousand years ago and more, they dream, and such dreams are vain fantasies. So also if there are any Muslims who wish to revive their past civilization and culture, which they brought a thousand years ago from Iran and Central Asia, they dream also, and the sooner they wake up the better. These are unnatural fancies which cannot take root in the soil of reality. I am one of those who believe that revival may be a necessity in a religion but in social matters it is a denial of progress.

“This thousand years of our joint life has moulded us into a common nationality. This cannot be done artificially. Nature does her fashioning through her hidden processes in the course of centuries. The cast has now been moulded and destiny has set her seal upon it. Whether we like it or not, we have now become an Indian nation, united and indivisible. No fantasy or artificial scheming to separate and divide can break this unity. We must accept the logic of fact and history, and engage ourselves in the fashioning of our future destiny. 

Conclusion
“I shall not take any more of your time. My address must end now. But before I do so, permit me to remind you that our success depends upon three factors: unity, discipline, and full confidence in Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership. The glorious past record of our movement was due to his great leadership, and it is only under his leadership that we can look forward to a future of successful achievement.
The time of our trial is upon us. We have already focussed the world’s attention. Let us endeavour to prove ourselves worthy. “
 
(Source: Congress Presidential Addresses, Volume Five: 1940-1985, ed. by A. M. Zaidi (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Applied Political Research, 1985), pp. 17-38)

The post Eid Mubarak: Mussalmans & a United Nation- India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One witnesses a forceful return of religions’ political hold, which corners our diasporas into a mix of ethnic-cultural-religious syncretic identity, and traps us, as if we were under ‘house arrest’, into our presumed religion or culture. In fact, this is an ahistorical fantasy, which denies us any access to freedom of thought and universal rights.

In these dire circumstances, we welcome the translation into French, the publication and the wide distribution of Bhagat Singh’s 1930 pamphlet “Why I am an atheist” as particularly timely.

As feminists, we already faced the identity sledgehammer argument in our countries of origin: “Feminism is Western; you are traitors to your own country, to your culture, to your origins; you have sold out to the West, to capitalism, to Western imperialism” etc…

However, a research undertaken by feminist activists in the ’90s in so-called Muslim countries shows that women, since the inception of Islam, already demanded the right to education, to freedom of movement, to political representation, to financial autonomy, to celibacy or to the right to chose one’s partner after thorough agreements had been designed in order to draft a contract which was satisfactory to both parties, etc…

From that time onwards, women took action to guarantee all these rights (1) We had to fight hard to get back the ownership of our long lived feminist history, by challenging the Sirens’ song of reactionary identity politics – and as well, one must emphasise here, the Sirens’ song of patriarchy happily covering up in the midst of our Left forces, in our countries.

As revolutionaries as well, we had to confront the identity argument: “Marxism is a Western way of thinking, alien to our culture; you are traitors to the nation; sold out to the West, etc…”

And now once more, we must reclaim and own back our revolutionary history, by bringing together the stories and analysis of the many agnostics, atheists and secularists in our countries. For, as Bhagat Singh says, “All religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion. “

In order to reclaim our historical right to atheism, to ground ourselves into our long secular tradition, we must today confront on the ground the Hindutva as well as Daesh (ISIS) and many other – intolerant Buddhists, orthodox Jews, Opus Dei, etc… religious extreme-rights, which, when they are in power, claim their gods granted them the right and duty to physically eliminate all the Untermensch. “Divine Repression”, as Bhagat Singh would say… Be it in India, in Bangladesh, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Nigeria, or … in Paris and Brussels, many lost their lives, including recently, for having claimed this universal right: to live as a freethinker and to mock the official representatives of established creeds.

Let us pay tribute here to the Bangladeshi and Saudi bloggers, to the Indian writers, to the Pakistani activists struggling against the Blasphemy Law, to the French cartoonists, etc … who fought for our freedom.

Clearly, it is an illusion to hope that the West will be spared by the rise of religious extreme-rights and that their sphere of influence will be limited to the African and Asian countries we came from. In Europe and North America, societies are increasingly dividing themselves along the lines of ethnic or religious antagonistic ‘communities’ which want to be ruled by their own religious laws (“Do not say that it is His law!”, exclaims Bhagat Singh) and their own customs. In the process, they get rid of democracy and universal rights, in the name of an ‘identity’ which only keeps from the past the most conservatives elements – especially regarding women’s rights.

Even in France, the very principle of secularism is now under threat – whether because it is gradually abandoned by political forces, formerly on the Left, who made secularism happen, or whether it is sidetracked by political forces, on the extreme-right.

In these troubled times, translating and publishing in the French language this book by Bhagat Singh reminds all those who, right here, deny us our libertarian history – in the name of an identity they believe is necessarily grounded in religion – and who grant a growing political power to religions’ official representatives, that “The morbid alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power” constitutes a mortal danger.

The writer is Algerian sociologist, founder and former international coordinator of the Women Living Under Muslim Laws international solidarity network (wluml.org), founder and present international coordinator of the international network, Secularism Is A Women’s Issue (siawi.org).

This article was published in French by Editions de l’Asymétrie, as a forward to Bhagat Singh’s “Why I am an atheist”. The author has translated it into English.

The post Remembering Bhagat Singh, Reclaiming the Right to be A Free Thinker appeared first on SabrangIndia.

First published on:  28 Sep 2016

“The communists’ ideologues conveniently ignore the truth that the roots of Bhagat Singh’s ideology lie in the very concept of Hindu Rashtra,” claimed an article by Dipin Damodharan, published on the birth anniversary of Bhagat Singh, September 28, 2010.

Damodharan, as introduced at the end of the article, is a student pursuing Masters in Communication and Journalism (MCJ) at the Calicut University of Kerala. He argues: “To my knowledge, he sacrificed his precious life for a noble cause, for the liberation of Bharat from the invaders, for nationalism. Undoubtedly Bhagat’s legacy belongs to every Bharati. But for the communists (experts in transforming sheep to dog), he died for communism and not for nationalism. They are incessantly advocating Bhagat as their poster boy, for several years they have been using Goebbelsian tricks to claim Bhagat’s legacy.”

The author further argues, “They are injecting fake stories about Bhagat into the blood of youth who are ignorant about Bharat’s history. Discarding the historical facts, the communists become angry with the Sangh inspired organizations for propagating Bhagat’s ideals”.

To justify his claims, the author cites examples like Bhagat Singh was born in a family who were staunch followers of the Arya Samaj, was educated at Dayanad Anglo Vedic (DAV) School and National College of Lahore, was inspired by the sagas of two great patriots Chatrapati Shivaji and Maharana Pratap and finally, they link at his association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Of course, without any reference! To any of us who has read Bhagat’s writings, it is nothing but absurd or, if we go by Damodharan’s own definition — it is an attempt to transform sheep in to a dog.

Bhagat Singh himself, in his most famous writing, ‘Why I Am An Atheist’ clarifies the above absurdities.

Bhagat Singh wrote, “I deny the very existence of that Almighty Supreme being… My grandfather under whose influence I was brought up as an orthodox Arya Samajist. An Arya Samajist is anything but an atheist. After finishing my primary education I joined the DAV. School of Lahore and stayed in its Boarding House for one full year… Later on, I joined the revolutionary party… My previous faith and convictions underwent a remarkable modification… I had become a pronounced atheist.”

Dismissing Dipin Damodharan’s remarks as absurd and ignoring them is not what we should do, as these attempts are not abrupt. They are pre-planned and occupy various forms of mass communication. Communal forces are not letting go of any chance to misuse these heroes for furthering their communal agendas.

Last year (2010), a month before the Ayodhya verdict, the ‘Bhagwa Brigade’ (saffron brigade) gave a public call to recruit 10,000 Hindu youth from Madhya Pradesh (MP) for the mission to establish a Hindu Rasthra.

To do so, they issued a poster and pasted copies of it all over the state of Madhya Pradesh. Notably in the poster, with Sawarkar, Shivaji and others, one finds pictures of Bhagat Singh, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose, being portrayed as Hindu revolutionaries! One might not have any objection in portraying Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, Jhansi ki Rani and Chandra Sekhar Azad as Hindu icons, but portrayal of Bhagat Singh, Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Subhas Chandra Bose in the same vein is really objectionable and very disturbing, because of their known commitment to secularism and for being non communal.

Like Bhagat Singh, it was very clear to Subhas Chandra Bose of who he was and what he wanted. In 1929, while delivering a speech at Lahore Students’ Conference, Lahore, he famously said, If we are to bring about a revolution of ideas, we have first to hold up before us, an ideal which will galvanise our whole life. That ideal is Freedom. But freedom is a word which has a varied connotation and even in our country, the conception of freedom has undergone a process of evolution. By freedom I mean all-round freedom i.e., freedom for the individual as well as for society, freedom for man as well as for woman, freedom for the rich as well as for the poor, freedom for all individuals and for all classes. This freedom implies not only emancipation from political bondage but also equal distribution of wealth, abolition of caste barriers and social iniquities and destruction of communalism and religious intolerance. This is an ideal which may appear Utopian to hard-headed men and women — but this ideal alone can appease the hunger of the soul.”

An archive photograph of Bhagat Singh in jail in Lahore. Image: The Hindu

Ambedkar converted to Buddhism  in protest of the jati-varna system of Hinduism, and was very clear about what he stood for. He repeatedly opposed the system of Hinduism let alone the ideology of Hindutva. He had asked his followers to stop the Hindu Rashtra from becoming a reality at all costs.

But again, Hindu communal political parties like the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), spread deliberate confusion about him by misquoting him and depicting him as ‘their’ leader. Last year (2010), on the eve of 6th December (anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition), on the walls on Jamia Nagar, a new kind of poster was seen.

The poster was put up by Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha (BJYM), the youth wing of BJP, and read thus, ‘Yugh Purush Baba Saheb Ambedker ke nirvana divas par Dr. Bheem Rao Ambeker Cricket Tournament-10’, with a relatively larger picture of Baba Saheb (as compared to) other leaders of BJYM, who were shown promoting the event.

The event which was scheduled to take place in Malviya Nagar had absolutely no connection with Jamia Nagar, except that both finish on the same last name! While seeing the poster, one wonders what it has to do with Jamia Nagar. At the same time, the same or any other poster about the event was not seen in neighbouring Jullena or Sukhdev Vihar, which have a dominant non-Muslim population, let alone other areas of Delhi. But of course, it was put up for diverting the attention of the Muslims from the anniversary of demolition of Babri Masjid. Moreover, to my understanding, it was meant to convey a message to the ordinary resident of Jamia nagar (read Muslim) that either, Ambedkar was a leader of the BJP, or at least somebody who sympathised with its ideology and those of its allies, which is absolutely wrong and ridiculous, to say the least.     

Hindutva-waadis are hell bent on distorting facts and influencing the common sense through the medium of mass communication.

On the eve of Valentine’s Day, these forces spread a rumor that on  February 14, 1931, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru & Sukhdev were hanged till death by British government and we celebrate this day as Valentine day! Isn’t it surprising & painful? I am told by a journalist friend of mine from south India that, this is the standard question you have to counter if you say what is wrong with celebrating Valentine’s Day! This, when it is a well-established historical fact that Bhagat Singh, along with Sukhdev and Rajguru were martyred on March 23, 1931 and not on February 14.

The zealots don’t stop there. They have even tried spreading misinformation through Wikipedia, the preferable web dictionary for the net savvy, to know who is who and what is what.

According to a news report that had appeared in The Hindu, ‘the Wikipedia page on Bhagat Singh underwent many editing changes on February 13 and 14, Valentine’s day ’. The date of Bhagat Singh’s hanging had been changed from  March 23 to February 14, 1931. And it was due to such propaganda that an international news website, reported, “While the whole world observes 14th February as Valentine’s Day, not many Indians remember that the day was also when the Indian freedom fighters Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged to death by the Britishers in Lahore, Pakistan”. Similarly, this  February 13, (2011) Twitter was on fire with talk of the February 14 as Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom day next day, and even the editor of a Hindi news channel mourned that everyone was looking forward only to Valentine’s Day. He was shamed into apologising the next day.

We will have many days every year to remember Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Ashfaqullah Khan, Baba Saheb Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and others, on their martyrdom, death, and birth anniversaries. This puts greater responsibility on us—the responsibility of not believing in distorted facts, but to keep alive the belief of what these revolutionaries had lived and died for.

In order to pay our real tribute to the makers of modern India, we should counter the propaganda of communal forces at various levels. The choice is ours, whether we want to contest such vandalism or let it go uncontested until such time as the common masses have no option but to believe, A for Ambedkar – A for Advani, B for Bhagat Singh, B for Bhagwa, S for Subhas Chandra Bose, S for Savarkar…

Are we ready for that?

(Mahtab Alam is an activist and writer. He tweets @MahtabNama . This article was first published in Kafila.org on  March 23, 2011)

The post Freedom from Communalism & Religious Intolerance was Bhagat Singh’s Ideal, Never Hindu Rashtra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Artwork by Lalla Essaydi. Source: Flickr
 

In these pages, I propose to put forward my ideas on the rights of women which I have held for long. Although many of my other ideas have changed over time, I have had no reason to change or alter any of my ideas in this regard. If anything, I find myself holding on to them even more firmly with the passage of time. I hope that the articulation of these ideas and acting on them will bring about much- needed reform that will pull my community out of its current state of decline and despair.

I am well aware that I will be charged with aping the British and worse. And that many of my fierce opponents will go into overdrive to contradict, ridicule me. Abuses too will be hurled. But those to who sincerely believe in the majesty and grandeur of Shariah laws, those whose notions of dignity, self-worth and self-respect will not deter them from taking inspiration from the life and times of Prophet Mohammed and his family and the values they promoted, will have no hesitation in responding positively. Nor will they be discouraged by the criticisms of individuals and organizations, or the scorn and ridicule that they too would be subjected to by the ignorant and the rogues.

If this humble effort of mine results in the protection of the rights of even a single old woman in the entire country I would consider my effort to have been worthwhile.

Male Supremacy Myth

Men and women are both part of the human species. Neither is superior to the other but in each there are some distinctive qualities which makes them different from the other. These distinctive characteristics call for a corresponding set of different responsibilities and duties for men and women but beyond that there must be no differentiation between the two sexes. Apart from the distinctions based on their innate, God-created differences, any attempt to widen the divide or to prove the superiority of one over the other is nothing but personal prejudice and gender bias. It is but obvious that these differences are merely circumstantial, ephemeral and non-durable, the product of different environments, age and cultural background. We will show that the differences that are sought to explain and justify the differing status and rights of men and women go way beyond what is explicable or justified on the basis of the inherent differences between them. These are based on nothing but the presumptions, prejudices and ignorance of men. The consequences of such aberrant modes of thinking and being are the decline of culture, the ruination of the world and the continuance of the barbarism of ancient times in the name of Islam.

Most of our cultural constructs are rooted in the false notion that men are sovereign and women are their subjects, in the belief that women have been created with the sole purpose of placing herself in the service of men. Because of such a belief, men assert their rights over women just as they claim ownership rights over other forms of property and claim that women cannot have rights equal to that of men. If such false and baseless notions were merely the product of male prejudice and self-centeredness and there was no attempt to justify their claims with logic, reason and religious belief it would have been one thing. But the tragedy is that the claims of male supremacy are sought to be premised on sound reason, lofty principles and divine edict. The purpose of writing this piece is to expose the hollowness of their claim and the shamefulness of their conduct.

To the best of our knowledge the arguments which are forwarded to prove male supremacy are the following:

1. God has given men more physical strength than women. Therefore men claim full rights over all that is gained with the use of superior strength and hard labour. That is why the right to rule or govern, which includes the use of force, is both natural and divine right of men.

2. In addition to physical prowess men also have a superior mental capacity. That is why in every age and in every country women have been considered to be of low intellect, inherently gullible, ill-informed, lacking in conceptual ability, unreliable, treacherous.

3. Just as sovereignty over others is the most prestigious thing in worldly affairs, being bestowed with the mantle of a prophet or messenger is the greatest gift from God. Throughout human history Allah, has bestowed prophethood only on men. No woman has ever been sent to preach the divine message.

4. Theologically speaking, the Quranic verse, “al rejala qawwamoona alan nisa” is frequently quoted in support of men’s superiority. The verse is taken to mean that men are rulers over women.

5. Another bogus argument presented is that Allah first created Adam and Eve was created subsequently only for his benefit. Therefore, it is the divine intent that women remain servile to men and be a source of his happiness and well-being.

6. In the Quran, the evidence of two women is treated as equal to that of one man. This and the fact that in inheritance the share of a woman has been stipulated as half that of a man is also proof of men’s superiority.

7. The fact that men are permitted to marry four wives while the reverse is prohibited further proves that God has given man a more elevated status.

8. Virtuous men have been promised beautiful wives in paradise while even virtuous women have been given no such promise.

Call them fanciful, philosophical, logical or theological: such is the evidence and the proofs we are offered on the basis of which half the world is kept under subjugation, forced to live like slaves of men and even worse. Thus is the better half of God’s finest creation forced to satisfy the lust of the basest among men, cater to every demand of the even the most worthless and vile among self-serving men.

We will now examine these claims one by one and see whether they stand the test of logical scrutiny or whether they are false and baseless views manufactured by self-centered men. Anyone who is capable of shedding his cultural prejudices, prepared to examine arguments on merit, not consumed by anxiety about the implications of embracing a new idea for their own future conduct, will see that all the male supremacy arguments are baseless and worthless. What’s more, these are gross violation of God’s edicts and Shariah laws.

Physically Superior?

The first claim about men’s greater physical prowess is a mere assertion pretending to being a logical argument. Admitted, men are physically stronger than women. So what? How does this prove that physical strength is a legitimate basis for the claim that men are superior to women? It is but obvious that those who are physically stronger are expected to undertake more difficult, arduous and hazardous tasks than those who are less strong. Whoever said that men should not be asked to handle tasks that require greater strength, are more arduous or hazardous? Men are most welcome to them: breaking boulders, chopping trees, slitting throats and all such jobs that are hard to do or which only the heartless can do. But the question remains: how does their physical ability to do such tasks makes them superior or more cultured? How is superior to be defined and where is the argument or evidence for that?

The absurdity of this argument will be immediately apparent if instead of comparing men with women, we compare men with four-legged animals. Suppose we argued that because God has given greater physical strength to them than men, animals are superior and sovereign over men? If you stick to your warped logic, how can you run away from our claim? Are we not being true to the logical method? If men are superior (your definition) over women, by that very logic if follows that donkeys are superior to men. If the fact that a donkey can carry a far greater load than a man does not establish the former’s supremacy over the latter, how does a man become superior to a woman merely owing because he is capable of withstanding greater physical hardship?

To simplify the point further and to nail the bogus claim, let us analyze the basis on which men are women are/ought to be compared? There is no doubt that men and women are a part of the animal world. Surely this animalism is not what constitutes their identity but it is their human qualities and capacities which qualify both as being humans. A human being is a special animal endowed with common sense, logic and wisdom. It is these qualities and the evolutionary possibilities inherent in them that elevate a mere animal to the lofty level of humanity. Therefore, any comparison between them will make sense only if we examine the extent to which they have evolved from their animal existence.

But all that the superiority argument tells us is that men are of a heavier build, their bones are stronger, their legs more powerful. These characteristics are not part of that special quality that elevates the status of humans over animals. As it happens, all the traits referred to are related to animalism and a comparison between man and woman on that basis is nonsensical. Everyone knows that men and women are from the animal species. God in his infinite wisdom and power reduced the bestial qualities in human beings by diminishing their ferocity, predatory instincts and brutality and added some angelic qualities to create a new species: humans. Therefore, the comparison between man and woman ought to be based on these angelic qualities, as opposed to animal traits. Establishing man’s superiority or development on the basis of bestial qualities is, in effect, to prove their baseness.

Apart from what has been said above, even if we were to agree that men are superior to women owing to physical strength, it should be evident that this is the result of social evolution and not the result of divine intent. As far as perceptible causes are concerned, it seems that the excess or lack of physical strength in men and women are not inherent. Instead, various cultures and societies have over countless centuries brought about gender differences similar to the difference between men and men generated over time across nations. Why is it that the Afridis of Kabul are burly and strong, while the Babus of Kolkata are lean and puny in appearance? Why are the Sikhs of Punjab referred to as the lions of Punjab, while the Baniyas of Hindustan are said to be meek? It should not be difficult to understand that what explains the Sikhs of Punjab being physically stronger than the Bengalis and Baniyas also explains men being stronger than women. The only difference is that the historical process that culminated in the different physical capacities of the two sexes started eons before than it did in case of Bengalis and Baniyas.

That more or less physical strength in men and women is not inherent but the result of socially governed causes can be demonstrated in another way too. Even though women in different parts of the world live under more or less similar conditions and do comparable work, due to cultural and other differences their physique and strength are different. If you compare the build of women living in Ghazni and Herat with the genteel ladies of Delhi and Lucknow you will come to know that the difference is not innate or God-given. This only means that the reason why women are physically less strong than men is because they were forced to live in a manner that their corporal capacity gradually diminished through underuse.

The second part, or a corollary, of the first claim about brawn-power based superiority of men is even more pathetic and utterly baseless. In the early period of human civilization, when barbarism and ignorance was rife and rights and the principles of society had not been defined, every controversial and contentious issue was resolved on the basis of the “Might is Right” principle. However, even then no single person was powerful enough to grab whatever he wanted without the active support of allies. By the time people evolved even the most rudimentary form of rule or governance, they had left far behind the ancient mode of life and progressed to a level where systems were in place and laws were laid down for their self-preservation. In other words, people had come to appreciate the importance of laying down customs, norms and laws and begun compelling others to abide by them. The head of state did not depend solely on his corporal might to govern, but rather on the support of his loyal friends and devoted allies. To this day, all kinds of governments are run on these principles.

Now no form of government can exclude women entirely and forever. Men have always been conscious of their superiority and have denied women opportunity and rights. Despite this, they have not managed to evolve any form of government that excluded women entirely. Hence, in all states and nations, at some time or another, the reign of government fell in the hands of women. And some of them ruled so skillfully that it is difficult to find a sovereign of their caliber in the ranks of men. In Hindustan, though the reign of Razia Begum was very brief, with regard to peace and posterity, it was better than the rule of many an emperor. The era of Jahangir saw Noor Jehan Begum as the power behind the throne. For its unparalleled peace, posterity and organization of state affairs, this period will always shine through the history of Hindustan as its golden age. Consider the present age and see how efficiently Her Majesty, the sovereign of the British Empire is governing, ensuring law and order, dispensing justice.

Can it still be said that sovereignty by right is for men only? The continuing belief that government is the result of sheer power is entirely erroneous. The progress of knowledge, promotion of culture and British rule over our country has made it clear that knowledge and learning are the greatest force in the world. Today, only the more educated and the knowledgeable can lay legitimate claim to superiority over others. So we hope that in future, men taking pride in their heavy build and big bones will not claim superiority over women but look elsewhere to buttress their bogus claim.

Intellectually Superior?

The second assertion is again a mere claim without proof. Scientists of the present time have established a marginal difference in the structure of male and female bodies and have described some bones in the female body as being delicate compared to male bones. Yet, to this day no clear distinction has ever been detected in the brain and in the development of those sections of the brain that determine various nuances of intellectual potency. Despite the fact that cultural norms have made women’s corporal strength lesser than that of men – so much so that a difference in the makeup of their bones can now be established – their mental capacity is by no means lesser than that of men. If anything, this shows that if traditional norms had allowed women equal opportunity for physical development, maybe, in fact undoubtedly, their mental faculties would have been more sophisticated than those of men.

As in the first case, a big flaw in this second assertion is that the difference resulting from prevalent social norms is considered to be inherent. In fact, even if the brainpower of women were in future to be found to be somewhat lower than that of men, why should it not be seen as the obvious result of women’s present cultural state, where their physical health is greatly neglected which so affects their nervous system that there is always a risk of diminished mental abilities, of making them what is described as impatient, impulsive, unpredictable, petulant, and dim-witted beings?

Since men and women have not been treated as equals, since they have been denied a level playing field in the pursuit of knowledge and development of their mental faculty, how can men claim their own relative advancement as a result of some innate quality? Using such logic, since at present the Zulus are deep in the throes of barbarism and ignorance while in the field of knowledge the British have left the intellectuals of Greece behind, would it be justified to deduce that there is some innate difference between the mental abilities of the British and the Zulus?

Thus, even if some difference were to be found in the mental prowess of men and women, it cannot be a verdict against the latter. In fact, there is no doubt that despite centuries of neglect in the intellectual development of women, despite the minds of countless generations of women being kept inactive, we still do not find them lacking in anything when compared to men. If anything, this clearly shows that the mental abilities of women are inherently superior to that of men.

All prophets were male?

The third proof of the superiority of men is based on the claim that no woman has ever been blessed with the mantle of a prophet. This is questionable on three grounds. Firstly, Muslims believe that through the ages God has sent 1,24,000 messengers or prophets to the world for the guidance of human beings. In all our holy books we find accounts of only 10 to 15 of these prophets, while all the other prophets from the ancient times probably do not exceed 30. This means that we know nothing of the lives of 123,970 prophets. Therefore, it cannot be said with any certainty whether they were all men, all women or that some were men and some women. To arrive at a verdict or to make jibes at half of humanity on the basis of limited information is nonsensical. Until we know about all the prophets, it is not appropriate to discourse on the basis of mere assumption.

Secondly, the nature of a woman’s creation demands that she should not be assigned any task that requires long years of continuous struggle and hard work, which also necessitates complete separation from home and family. Keeping women free of such demanding activity, if anything, indicates God’s concern for her well-being. This should remind men that just as they derive serenity and comfort from women, so do women from men. They should also know that the well-being of women is of greater concern to God.

Thirdly, we most definitely do not believe in the equality of all men and all women even as we affirm that there is no intrinsic difference between man and woman. It is on account of circumstances that at times some women gain superiority over other women, some men gain superiority over other men and some men leave other women behind, while at other times, women prevail over men in the pursuit of excellence. Hence, the success of a handful of people over others is no proof of the superiority of one gender over another.

Of course, the superiority of some men who were ordained prophets over all men and women is evident. But this in itself does not prove any difference between the vast majority of men and women who are not prophets; this is no evidence of the superiority of the entire breed of men over women. Can any other woman lay claim to the eminence and respect enjoyed by Hazrat Amina who gave birth to Prophet Muhammad or mothers of other prophets? Absolutely not! It was an honor that God had reserved since the beginning of time for these fortunate ladies, and hence, they became its beneficiaries. So what if all the women in the world belong to the same gender as them? Likewise, would it be proper to assume that all the men of the world possess some part of the God-given esteem that prophets have only because they are part of the same gender?

Scriptural Claims Men rulers over women?

After the above-mentioned logical assertions and claims, we come to the scripture-based claims. But these are equally erroneous as they are based on a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the Quran. The foremost proof that they derive from the Holy Quran comes from the Quranic verse which is generally translated as: Men are qawwamun (the protectors and maintainers) of/over (ala) women because God has faddala (preferred) some of them over some others and because they support them from their means. The theologians explaining this verse expound that men have been endowed with two types of higher qualities. One is the capacity to think and act and the other is the fact that men provide for the various needs of women, like food, clothing, shelter, etc.

I do not agree with this explanation because, first of all, translating qawwamun literally as “master” is in my opinion not correct. In fact, except for Maulana Shah Abdul Qadir no one else has translated it as such. Shah Rafi-ud-Din has translated qawwamun as “someone who is ready to move or is on the go,” while his father, Shah Wali Ullah, translated it as “counsel, manager.” In another Persian translation, known as the Sheikh Sa’adi Translation, qawwamun has been translated as a “manager”, “in-charge.” Maulana Qadir does not clarify what according to him is the meaning of “some have been ranked superior over some others” in the verse. If the first “some” stands for some men and the second for some women, how does it establish the superiority of all men over all women? If on the other hand in both instances “some” refers to men, then how does saying that some men are superior to other men prove all men’s superiority over all women? And if the verse is addressing all human beings, even if the first “some” implies all men and the second “some” implies all women it still does not establish the inherent natural or God-given superiority of all men over all women.

Besides, it is not at all clear from the verse in what sense superiority is implied. If one were to assume that in the first part of the verse what is being referred to is men’s superior capacity for thought and action while the latter refers to the superiority arising owing to the fact that men pay for the maintenance of women it can be argued that the latter distinction does not arise from any God-given difference between men and women. That is why we cannot accept this as an argument for superiority. Men’s superiority over women that may be achieved through pursuit of knowledge, excellence of character or other qualities that are an outcome of education and good upbringing is quite a different thing from the claim that men are superior to women by the mere fact of being men. The first is self-acquired or self-created while the second is intrinsic. There are many women who possess these self-acquired qualities of intellect and conduct more than men and in such cases they would obviously be superior to men.

Can anybody claim that Abu Jehal’s (uncle of Prophet Mohammed who remained opposed to Islam throughout his life) ability to think and act was superior to that of Hazrat Khadija (first wife of the prophet? Or that Abu Laheb (another uncle, who was similarly opposed to Islam) was superior to Hazrat Fatima (daughter of the prophet)? Or that all men or a majority of them have more knowledge and love of God than Hazrat Rabia Basry (a renowned female sufi saint from Basra, Iraq)? A father also spends money on his children and pays wages to his servants. Can one conclude from this that the master is intrinsically superior to the servant? Absolutely not! If due to some quirk of fate the master-servant relation gets reversed won’t the superior-inferior relation also get reversed, even though this contradicts the notion of inherent superiority?

Thus this much-quoted verse cannot in any way be considered proof of the superiority of men over women. In fact, the meaning of the verse is straightforward and obvious. The word qawwamun here is used as a form of hyperbole and must not be taken literally. A person who does not find much time to sit and rest due to his hectic schedule and business, a person who is on the go most of the time, is referred to as qawwam. Since men have to travel to far off lands to earn a living and provide for his family, men have been declared qawwam or managers and caretakers of women. Since the world is full of all types of people, rich or poor, weak or strong, generous or miserly, God states that He has granted distinction to one over the other. Men are being asked to take care, look after their wives in keeping with their status, position and economic condition. This verse does not talk of sovereignty and servility. If at all it does, even a cursory reflection shows that men need to be careful as they have a religious duty towards women.

Unequal: Testimony and Shares?

The second spurious logic is based on the fact that the Quran has declared the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man and a woman’s share in inheritance has been pronounced as half that of a man. But even this does not prove any real or inherent superiority. We need to consider several aspects here. Firstly, the cultural condition under which women have been kept leaves them ignorant, illiterate and inexperienced. Given the consequent difference of understanding and experience, if the testimony of men and women were treated on par in all manner of issues and trials, it could result in miscarriage of justice.

The Quranic verse in which the testimony of two women is declared equal to that of one man concerns loan agreements. In traditional societies, women are given little opportunity to engage in data gathering, documentation, account-keeping and court matters. Lack of education, awareness and experience in such matters are outside the realm of women’s everyday experience. Men on the other hand routinely deal with such matters and therefore have no such handicap. That is why, instead of one woman, the testimony of two women is considered necessary, so that, in case, one woman forgets the details of the case, the other woman can help her recall. This in fact is the rationale given by the Quran itself: “Two women should be present, so that if one woman forgets, the other may help her recall.” If the Quran cites this difference arising out of social circumstance as the rationale for two women being present during a testimony and does not say that women’s testimony is worth half that of a man, who are petty theologians with fanciful notions and faulty logic to pass such judgment against half of humankind?

Secondly, the decree of the Quran regarding such testimony is an enabling provision, the observance of which has not been declared obligatory on Muslims. Latching on to an enabling provision elevating it to the status of an obligatory edict and feeding that into the male supremacy argument shows the insularity and sterility of the male mind. Thirdly, as we have stated earlier, the reason for the testimony of two women equaling that of one man is due to social circumstances and not because of the superiority or inferiority of men and women. It is not difficult to appreciate this for apart from the context of loans-related disputes, in matters familiar to women such as nikah (marriage), talaq (divorce), hudood-o-qisas (crime and punishment), where too testimony is involved, God makes no distinction between men and women.

Fourthly, there is an account from the life of the Prophet which actually establishes preference to a single woman’s testimony over others. Sahi Bukhari (the collection of sayings of the Prophet considered to be among the most authentic) narrates the account of Aqba bin Haris, who had married some girl. A woman later objected to this wedding saying that the marriage was not legitimate as she had breastfed both the bride and the groom. Aqba told the woman he did not believe her since she had never before mentioned breast feeding him. He later asked his in-laws and they too said that to the best of their knowledge, the woman had never breastfed their daughter either. Eventually, Aqba went to the Prophet and narrated the story. The testimony of just one woman was enough for the Prophet to nullify the nikah thus terminating the marriage.

Now, can the learned fuqha (jurists) quote even a single example where such a verdict was given on the basis of a single man’s testimony? Yet, it is well known that every now and then, however reluctantly, the fuqha are compelled to rely on the testimony of a single woman to give their ruling. Fifthly, it is possible that the primary reason behind recognizing two women’s testimony as equal to that of one man is that women sometimes are unable to appear before the court due to physical constraints. In such a situation, the advantage of having two women present is that if one is invalid, the other woman would be able to testify. If anything, granting women the option of being able to have her testimony placed on record by another woman affirms the primacy rather the diminishing of women’s rights.

As for share in inheritance, declaring unequal share for men and women does not prove the superiority of men at all. The burden of looking after all of a woman’s financial needs lie entirely on the man, while women bear the easier task of housework. Since a man was charged with the responsibility of providing not only for himself but also his wife and children, how would it be appropriate to grant a woman – who receives wedding-time gifts from her parents, mehr from the husband, is entitled to be adequately taken care of by her husband alimony on divorce, and unlike man has no obligation to spend what is hers on anyone else – a share equal to that of the man in the distribution of inheritance?

This in itself should be a clear and indisputable proof that God is more compassionate and generous towards women. How else can one explain the fact that in spite of being fully entitled to her due share in her husband’s income, she is also entitled to receive a separate share from her father’s inheritance, and has the right to alimony? Hence, in the distribution of inheritance, her share in accordance with Islamic laws does not establish the superiority of men. In fact, it validates the primacy of women.

Adam came first?

The male supremacy claim based on the fact that Adam was created first is nothing but childish. To begin with, we are tempted to assert that this is so because it was not acceptable to God that a woman is left without a companion for even a second. Therefore, it is for her sake that He created Adam first. But as a matter of fact, the belief that Adam was created first and then came Eve is part of the Christian and Jewish faith. This is not at all part of the Islamic creed. There is no mention in the Quran about who was created first, Adam or Eve.

Men allowed multiple wives?

The permission to men to marry four women at a time while women are prohibited from marrying more than one man is a false claim. The problem is that people are literalists who look for the meaning of words in isolation instead of striving to grasp their real meaning and thus unraveling the divine intent. Men gloat over the fact that a Quranic verse clearly entitles men to marry more than one wife: “You may marry two or three or four women whom you choose”. But a little reflection will show that there is no such clear-cut license in the Quran. In fact, having more than one wife at a time is virtually forbidden and those who violate it could be guilty of adultery.

Firstly, some effort is needed to understand this verse in its true perspective. It is not at all clear whether the divine injunction permits a man to have four wives at the same time or whether all that is being said is that a man is permitted to marry sequentially up to four wives. Is it God’s command that on the death of the first wife a man is permitted to remarry and so on, but only one wife at a time is permitted and no marriage fifth time is permitted. Or is it being said that if for some health reasons the first wife is unable to meet her marital obligations, a man is permitted a second wife, even a third or fourth wife for similar reasons? Or are men being told that a man may remarry after divorcing his first wife, and similarly remarry following a second, third and fourth divorce but never after that? Or is it the divine command that no marriage after the first is permitted except with the permission of his current wife or her relations?

Since the verse under consideration is not such whose meaning is clear and unambiguous, we consider it to be among the non-explicit verses of the Quran which theologically speaking cannot be used to assert the veracity of a particular interpretation. For this reason this verse cannot be a basis for Shariah law.

Whether the ulema agree or not, the most likely interpretation in my view is that the permission for subsequent marriage is strictly subject to the willing consent of the first wife or her family members. Our conviction is based on the life of none other than Prophet Mohammed. According to a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Hazrat Ali intended to marry Abu Jehal’s daughter who had converted to Islam even though he was already married to Hazrat Fatima. Hence the relatives of the prospective bride requested permission from the Holy Prophet. On hearing this, the Holy Prophet became very angry. Ascending the pulpit to deliver a sermon he announced: these people are asking for my permission as father to allow them to marry off their daughter to Ali even when my daughter is already married to him. But I will not allow it, I will not allow it, I will not allow it. If Ali really wants to do this, then he must divorce my daughter and only then take another wife. Fatima is very close to my heart, whosoever does her wrong, does me wrong and whosoever hurts her, hurts me.

This Hadith supports the interpretation of the Quranic verse under discussion that permission is a must for the second marriage. The unequivocal opposition from the Prophet proves that it is up to the current wife and her relatives to give or refuse permission. If contracting the second marriage had been permitted by God without consent of the first wife or her relatives, then the Prophet’s conduct would be considered against the will of God, something that is inconceivable for a Muslim.

As we will discuss in the section on marriage (this is a separate chapter in Huqooq Niswan which is not reproduced here) that our ulema and religious leaders have given women the right to stipulate at the time of nikah itself that the husband will not contract a second marriage. Making this condition part of the marriage contract also shows that the second marriage depends on the permission of the first wife. If this consent was not mandatory, placing a condition in this regard at the time of nikah would not have been considered legal and neither would it be religiously binding afterwards. In other words, contrary to widespread perception, there is no blanket permission in the Quran for men to marry up to four vies.

Thirdly, and most importantly, in the verse under discussion, there is a clear-cut directive and an almost impossible-to-meet pre-condition for bigamy. A husband is permitted more than one wife on the strict condition that he ensures justice to all. It is further stipulated that if you are afraid that you will not be able to ensure this, stick to one wife. Now the question is: what are the requirements for justice? Is it possible for the average man to be able to observe it in practice? Most ulema contend that in a marriage, meeting the wife’s daily expenditures, paying her maintenance allowance, providing housing, spending time with the wife and discharging of conjugal duties as a husband are the various requirements of justice. However, we believe that true love and companionship are the paramount consideration in marriage and therefore the essential criteria for fair play and just treatment. And we firmly believe that in a bigamous or polygamous situation, this condition is virtually impossible for a man to meet.

Our adversaries’ object saying there is no point in contemplating something that is practically impossible. If there is nothing to be gained by such discourse, God’s directive is rendered devoid of any practical implication, they say. Our answer to this proposition is that we believe that the real purpose of marriage is to find a lifelong companion, friend and comrade who shares with the spouse the ups and downs of life, is the source of solace and comfort at the end of the daily grind. When referring to the creation of Eve and commendation of marriage God says, “We have placed the love of women in your hearts so that you receive comfort and solace from them.” Therefore, if this aspect is excluded from the marital bond, the relationship gets limited to the satisfaction of male lust.

At another place in the Quran, God asserts, “You will not be able to do justice to your women (wives) even if you strive for it.” It is a basic axiom in Quranic elucidation that for internal consistency and coherence, to the extent possible you search for, unravel the meaning of any verse through other verses. The meaning of justice, for example, must remain uniform throughout the Quran. Now if the justice-to-all command in the verse quoted above is limited to what the ulema who oppose us claim it to be, then the same meaning of justice must apply to the second verse above. Why then does God proclaim that it is impossible for you to treat your wives justly? Why is God categorically and unambiguously asserting that you will not be able to render equal justice to your wives? God Almighty firmly states that you will never be able to do justice but the ulema who support polygamy assert: No, we can do justice! If this is not daring God what is?

However, one might legitimately ask: if God knows that man cannot do justice and says so in plain words in the Quran, why grant permission for up to four wives? Does this impossible to meet criteria not render the permission meaningless? To this we reiterate that, firstly, whatever the Quran says is simple and clear as we have already explained. You ask God what the use of this meaningless permission is. For our part, to the extent that we are able to comprehend the Holy Book, we do not find any difficulty understanding it. Clearly, the way God has granted permission for more than one wife is virtually impossible to achieve. In our view, the granting of permission in this circuitous manner is in fact a severe admonition to desist from misogyny. If a person consumed by greed is told that if he finds the phoenix he will also be able to achieve alchemy, it does not imply a belief on anyone’s part in the actual existence of the phoenix. Or a belief on the addressee’s part that he is quite hopeful of its possession and that the day he finds the phoenix alchemy is sure to follow.

Another good example in this regard could be presented from a Quranic verse in Surah Aaraaf. It reads: “No infidel will enter Paradise until such time as a camel passes through the eye of a needle.” To conclude from this that there will indeed come a time when a camel will pass through the eye of a needle is to present a distorted picture of divine intent. Interestingly, under cover of poetic license a poet taking this statement on face value presents a very comical thought: “Had the miseries which befell me fallen on the camel, infidels would enter paradise.” What the poet means to say is that the camel would become so lean due to grief that it would be able to pass through the eye of the needle. And since their entry in paradise was subject to this condition, infidels would then gain easy access to paradise! God’s edict concerning the taking of more than one wife is similar, when He warns that with multiple wives there is great danger of injustice.

Of course, if there exists a man who is confident that he would never do any injustice, then he may marry as many women as he likes: two, three, or four. In fact, it is only a figure of speech to say marry as many women as you want: there is no special sanctity to the number four. Trying to establish divine permission for multiple wives from this verse is no different from the above mentioned poetic imagination concerning the admission of infidels in paradise.

Keeping Fiqh and Tafseer principles in mind, this verse should be deliberated upon from another angle which has not been done sufficiently hitherto. In my opinion, deriving an edict concerning nikah from this verse is in itself a big mistake. The fact is that this verse is concerned with only a certain form of marriage. During the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (jahiliyah), Arab men used to indulge in an extremely vile and heartless practice. They would adopt orphan girls, bring them up, and when they matured, they would marry them with devious intent. Since the orphans had no family, the men would seize all the property of the orphans after marriage. The sole reason for adopting and later marrying these girls was to grab their possessions, just like even nowadays some men marry dance girls only with the intention of getting access to their riches. There are others who despite being married to a good woman are forever on the lookout for some wealthy woman to marry.

The obvious message of this verse is God’s warning to men against the then prevalent deceitful practice. The Quran forbids cruelty towards these orphan girls, commanding men to be judicious as to the rights of orphans. It is also made very clear that if you have any doubt about your ability to do justice, fear that if you marry such helpless orphans you will commit some wrong, by no means must you marry such girls. Instead marry other women with parents or guardians who can hold you accountable for your treatment of them. But even then justice remains a non-negotiable requirement, for that is the true principle behind marriage. If you can do justice, then you can contract up to four marriages; if not, limit yourself to only one wife.

It should be abundantly clear from what has been said above that the verse in question was not a general decree on marriage. Rather it was aimed at warning against the fraudulent dispossession of helpless orphan girls. So even today if there are such people who are guardians of orphan girls they must not marry them if they have any misgivings of unjust conduct on their own part later. Apart from the context of orphans, the Quran is silent on nikah. Perhaps, the issue has been left to both parties intending to marry according to their social status, cultural circumstances and preferences. Consequently, this verse in the Quran is no evidence of a blanket license to men to marry up to four women. And that is why this edict can be no argument in support of men’s superiority.

Male right to divorce

As for divorce, the right of divorce that men have been granted is such that they should be extremely cautious about exercising it. In fact the only way men can lay claim to be decent and civilized is by not exercising this right outside exceptional circumstances. Divorce is such a sour medicine that the only ailment it should be administered for is that which has no other cure. Husband-wife relations are so delicate and private that going to courts and divulging them before others can only add to their grief and sorrow. It is true that nikah is an agreement like any other civil contract. After the covenant is signed, each party reserves the right to force his/her partner who is bent on violating the contract to abide by it and not strain the relationship. But it is also the case that only broken hearts think of terminating the contract. And when that stage is reached even if one is forced to continue with the contract, it can only be under duress. The relationship then will be a sham rather than the product of mutual love and respect.

The marital contract is after all premised on a meeting of hearts and when that no longer holds true what is left is a spiritless, physical proximity. In such circumstances both parties need to consider the worth of continuing such a relationship merely on the strength of a court decree although emotionally they are already distant from each other. Under such circumstances it is best that they part ways by mutual consent.

As to the question: who has been/should be given this right? In my opinion, if hostility between husband and wife is the reason for divorce, no matter who is bestowed with the right the result will be the same. It is not generally the case that a man says to his wife that he does not want her any longer, but the wife is still full of love for the husband and reluctant to end the relationship. We are of the opinion that in such a situation they should part ways irrespective of whether the man demands it or the woman.

No one can deny the fact that women are imbued with greater modesty, decency and desire to protect their dignity and honor as compared to men. It seems as if modesty and decorum are part of their genetic makeup and all those elements that bring out the gentleness which nature has conferred upon women, are apparent in abundant measure. Kindness, compassion, God-fear, empathy and love are innate qualities in women. A separation through divorce no matter how genuine the reasons would understandably be far more painful for one whose basic nature is constituted of love and kindness. Divorce for women – the personification of love – who’s every fiber is imbued with sincerity, would obviously be a most undesirable thing.

That is why God has protected women against precipitating an act. The Prophet declared divorce as being the worst act amongst all acts acceptable to God. Protect women, he preached to his followers. What an irony that something which has been termed the worst practice by God is touted as an argument for male superiority. In any case, we need to examine whether in fact men alone have the right to divorce. It is quite possible that men having lost interest in their wives refuse to divorce with the sole purpose of torturing them. In such situations, women have been given the right to unilaterally seek divorce through a court of law. This right of the women is called ‘khula’. In this way, she has the right to initiative separation proceedings. But even in such situations God protects her from any blame because on the face of it she is merely asking the court for justice.

Women can choose to terminate a marriage for other reasons too. It is reported in Akhbar-e-Sahiha that a very beautiful woman, Hafza binte Sahal, lived in Medina during the time of the Prophet. Her husband who was ugly loved his wife very much but the woman hated him. They would quarrel every day. At last, Hafza told the Prophet that she hated her husband very much and feared that she might be held accountable by God for not fulfilling her responsibilities as a wife. Therefore, she requested the Prophet to separate her from her husband. The Prophet tried to convince the woman but when he saw that harmony between the two was difficult, he asked the man to divorce her.

The husband told the Prophet that he had gifted precious land to his wife. Since she now wanted a divorce for no fault of his, his land should be returned to him. Hafza said he was welcome to the estate and anything else he may want as long as he let her go. In the end, the Prophet asked the land to be returned and ended their marriage.

What better right could be granted to women to protect them from the excesses of their husbands than the rights which have already been given to them under the Islamic law?

For men, houris in paradise

When all worldly logic fails to prove man’s superiority over women, he turns to the Hereafter to establish his case. It is claimed that men have been promised very beautiful women — houris — in paradise. But this claim is as shameful and worthless as are the rest of them. The words of the Quran on which this imaginary superiority is based are: “Walahum feeha azwaaj motaharra” (“For them there will be virtuous partners in paradise”). They conclude from this verse that “hum” which is a masculine pronoun means men and azwaaj refers to the virgin maidens of paradise. However, this interpretation of the verse shows total ignorance of the special Quranic style of discourse.

The Quran has a distinctive style. Wherever the reference is to humanity at large, the masculine gender is used to convey its message. Look at the very first surah (chapter of the Quran) of the Quran, where God says: “Hudayyil muttaqeenallazina youmenoona bil ghaibe wa yaqeemun al salawath”) (“Believers who have faith in the Day of Judgment and the unseen and who establish prayers”). Here only the masculine pronoun has been used but that surely does not mean that the Quran is only for the guidance of those pious men who have faith in the unseen and who pray regularly. Obviously women too are being addressed. In hundreds of places, the Quran refers to “aqueemul salwatah wa utu al zakaah” (those who pray regularly and pay the religious tax) using the masculine pronoun. Would it be right then to believe that the edict regarding prayers and payment of the obligatory tax is only for men while women have been exempted from these obligations? Certainly not!

Similarly, the Quranic edict concerning prayers and fasting, “mun shahada minkum al shahada faleesummha”, read literally means: “Those (men) among you who have cited the moon must start fasting”. Were we to believe that here women are excluded from fasting during Ramzaan, women will be altogether free of this obligation since we do not find any separate mention of this obligation for women elsewhere in the Quran. To repeat, in numerous places in the Quran though the masculine pronoun is used, the reference is obviously to both men and women. Incidentally, such usage is not uncommon in Urdu. For example, Bura karnay wale ka anjaam bura hota hai (“those who commit evil deeds will be meet their just ends”). As we all know, “wale” is masculine and walee feminine. Obviously it does not mean that “bura karne walee” women have nothing to worry about.

Similarly, it is not correct to take the word zouj to mean ‘a woman’. In Arabic, zouj means “partner”. A woman is zouj of a man while a man is zouj of a woman. The expression “huqooq zoujain” (“the rights of partners”) well illustrates the point of gender equality. Thus, the verse simply means that those who carry out righteous deeds will enter paradise and will have virtuous partners for companionship. That is, for men there will be women and for women there will be men.

This interpretation might seem surprising and elicit the question: we know, men will have houris, but who will be women’s partners? This confusion arises only because to pamper their own egos, men have decided to read certain passages of the Quran in a way that suits them and have convinced themselves that they have the right interpretation. Though they seem to accept the right interpretation when it is pointed out to them and claim to have jettisoned their earlier understanding, the fact is that they unconsciously stick to old ideas which linger in the mind. Old habits die hard and they find it difficult to internalize the new understanding even after apparently having come around to accepting them.

Muslim men have for long held the firm conviction that come the Day of Reckoning and there will be houris lying in wait for them in paradise. We explain to them that this is a mistaken view, so dislodge it from your mind and understand the real meaning of the Quran. Alright, they say, we accept what you say. But tell us: men will have houris as partners, but who will be women’s partners? Clearly with the thought of houris still has a strong hold on their imagination. They have not really accepted what they claim to have and this is a big folly.

The fact is that there is not a single verse in the Quran to indicate that the houris of paradise are a separate creation intended as reward for pious men. In the Arabic language all fair-complexioned woman with black eyes are called “hoor” (houri). The Quran clearly states that on the day of reckoning all human beings will be resurrected, all young in age. There is no further detail concerning men. But about women God specifically states that when resurrected all women be virgin and of marriageable age just like the resurrected men.

It is these very women who are variously described in the Quran as “houris” (black-eyed), “qaaserat ul fitrat” (of modest disposition), “khairaat” (good wives), “azwaaj” (wives). Referring to certain verses in the Quran and sayings of the Prophet, some of his Companions (Ibn Abbas for example,) have clearly taken the view that all the words in the Quran which are taken to imply that houris are a species apart from human beings in fact refer to none other than the women inhabitants of planet earth. When it is said that they are virgins it only means that this is so since their resurrection.

It is clear then that the beautiful women who are being referred to in the Quran are the very wives who once inhabited the earth but who will be resurrected as very beautiful and loving companions. In paradise where no one will ever age the pious women will provide companionship forever to their pious husbands. In Surah Hadd, Allah says that those who are rewarded with life eternal in paradise will get to meet their near and dear ones: parents, wives, children. In Surah Toor also it is mentioned that Allah will bring together in paradise those who are virtuous and whose children too are virtuous. In Surah Zakhraf it is stated: enter paradise with your wives and roam about freely. There are several other verses where it is reiterated that the virtuous who enter paradise will meet their virtuous relations there.

From all that has been said above it should be evident that it is neither the case that men have special mental faculties nor has the Quran given any elevated status to men because of which they should be considered superior. A close study of Shariah clearly establishes that men and women have equal rights. Surah Nisa, the one that contains many verses concerning women begins as follows: “O people, fear your Creator who has created you all of the same kind and created your partners from the same”. The surah spells out the rights of heirs, orphans and women and anyone who might do injustice towards them is dealt a severe warning. It is asserted that men and women are created from a single nafs (self), with similar thoughts and feelings. Be it men or women, anyone who is oppressed or victimized feels pain just like you would in their place because you have all been made alike. So fear Allah and beware of committing any injustice against anyone.

In this surah, even though the husband has been given the responsibility of looking after all his wife’s needs, she has been granted a share in her father’s property equal to half of the man’s share. What’s more, in certain situations a woman’s share has been made the same as that of man’s. For example, if the deceased leaves behind parents and children, each parent is entitled to a sixth of the total property, that is, the mother and the father get the same amount. In a situation where the deceased leaves behind neither parents nor children but only brothers and sisters, the share of the sisters are to be equal to that of the brothers.

In addition to the above, the wife is entitled to mehr (dower) from the husband at the time of marriage. In the event of divorce, however large the amount, the husband is not entitled to demand the return of even a penny. Before Islam there was a cruel practice in Arabia whereby when a husband lost interest in the wife he would mistreat her to the point that she would ask for divorce and return the dower amount. Declaring this to be an evil practice, Allah has warned Muslim men from misbehaving with their wives with the intent of recovering the dower amount from her.

At the same time, men have been commanded to behave decently with their wives. The Quran goes on to say that even if you dislike your wife for some reason you must still treat her well for it is possible that Allah may intend some good for you from the very thing you dislike. The principle of gender parity is reiterated, saying that men have a right to a portion of what they earn and women have a right to a portion of what they earn. In other words, both are equal, neither is superior to the other. To each there is a reward for his or her good deeds.

The woman’s right to divorce through the khula system has been stated as follows: “If a woman fears misbehavior on the part of her husband, there is no harm if the two of them resolved matters amicably. But if they decide to separate, Allah will be equally generous with both”. In the event of domestic conflict, the way prescribed for attempting resolution is equally gender just: If there is a misunderstanding between husband and wife, appoint two arbitrators, one from the man’s family, the other from the woman’s. No doubt, the more you reflect on the verses of the Quran, the more you will realize that the gender justice principle comes through clear and consistent.

The only difference between men and women has to do with their reproductive organs and there is no physical or mental prowess involved here. That woman are the “weaker sex” has only one implication: women give birth to children and bring them up, so men should perform arduous tasks and earn for the upkeep of the entire family.

Some medical experts claim to have recently detected a small disparity in the brain capacity of men and women. It is claimed that men have the capacity for totalizing, comprehensive thought, for analyzing things in intricate detail while women find it difficult to move conceptually from the particular to the general. Firstly, this proposition appears to be hypothetical and whimsical, and the same has yet to be established scientifically. If per chance, it were to be conclusively proved in the future, it would at best mean that men have a capacity that women lack relatively speaking and vice versa. For the moment the fact remains that until the present there has never arisen an issue, problem or challenge in the intellectual domain which men are able to address or comprehend but not women.

In fact, as far as some of my friends’ and my own experience are concerned, we find that compared to boys girls are sharper, more intelligent, more conscientious. I have been very pleasantly surprised to learn of many girls who never got to attend a madrasa and yet have learnt to read and write on their own. In most cases, they neither had access to formal education, nor to anyone at home who assumed the responsibility of tutoring them. They simply picked up some words from a sister, some from a brother, a few things now and then from the mother. They learnt to write by simply watching their siblings do the same. Gradually, through such self-learning they became educated enough to start teaching their younger brothers. But we have yet to come across a single example of a boy who is self-taught in similar fashion. Parents or elder brothers, who have taught a boy and a girl of the same age, would know that boys are relatively speaking dense and dim-witted, a dead loss as compared to girls.

As far as moral values are concerned, women are by far in the lead. Modesty, humility and decency are virtues you find in abundance in women; you won’t find even a tenth of the same in men. Some men are so prejudiced against women that if a widow opts for a second marriage after the death of her husband, it becomes a proof of their supposed treachery. But the same men have no qualms practicing polygamy and ignoring their obligations towards any of the wives – both contrary to the teachings of Islam. They remarry no sooner than the death of the wife, with not a moment’s thought on how the step-mother will behave with the children from the earlier marriage. None of this ever invokes the betrayal charge against men while poor helpless, God-fearing widows who, to escape their desperate circumstances, look for succor through remarriage in keeping with the teachings of Allah and his prophet are immediately rendered unfaithful.

If remarriage per se is proof of treachery why are men, who practice polygamy merely to satisfy their lust, who violate Shariah laws, who sow thorns in the path of their children not declared the worst betrayers the most untrustworthy of all? Should not such hypocrites who pour scorn over widows who remarry have some shame?

It is not a practice among Muslims but consider the extraordinary devotion and commitment of Hindu women to their husbands. Granted, the sati system a repugnant practice. But think of what it involves and ask yourself honestly: is there an example anywhere in the world, from men of any race or religion, that could come even remotely close to such an example, of men are prepared to unhesitatingly sacrifice their life for the love of their wives?

Apart from all that has been said above which goes to show that women are superior beings, it is also worth noting that though God has no visage or features, yet for believers from all spiritual traditions Beauty is among His attributes. Muslims believe that God is the bestower of beauty and all beauty is dear to Him. Who can doubt that He has blessed women with a greater share of this divine attribute, that in every nation and country women are more beautiful than men? Does this not indicate that God is more well-disposed towards women?

Quite understandably, women blessed with this radiant gift, this amazing magnetic quality are more than able to hold their own against the most powerful, the mightiest and the most sagely amongst men. Who does not know that the most lion-hearted among men who never yielded before the world’s greatest misfortunes or calamities, who never cowered before the deadliest of weapons get mesmerized by one darting glance from a beautiful woman? Which is that lightning power whose single spark can ignite the senses of the bravest and the self-control of the most sagely amongst the hermits? Who does not know that one alluring feminine look is sufficient to melt the resolve of many a sage, or bring the iron-willed to their knees?

Who can deny that the beauty that so entrances is but a speck of divine splendor, a spark of the sun that illuminates the world? Why then should women not proclaim with pride:

“Garche khurdeem nisbate sat buzurg

zarra aftaab ta baaneem“

(A speck of dust Sire, to you may be

The sun is where I am coming from).

(See edit on page 3 for more on the writer. )

(Translated for Urdu by Javed Anand).

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 2009 Year 16    No.144, The Superiority Myth, Cover Story 1

The post The Supremacy Myth appeared first on SabrangIndia.