05-07-2005, 07:54 AM
Take them out of seventh century
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Balbir K Punj
The Malegaon 'scandal' involving a lady Muslim lawyer and a Hindu
Magistrate that made six-column front page news in a national daily (The
Indian Express, May 5, 2005) is a presage of doom, should Islam prevail
over other parts of India. Such an incident occurring in an otherwise
predominantly Hindu State like Maharashtra makes one apprehensive about
the state of affairs in Muslim-dominated parts of Assam, West Bengal,
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, etc.
On March 7, a 24-year-old lady Muslim lawyer Noorjehan Ansari and Class
I Judicial Magistrate Balasaheb Hiralal Bharaskar-who were then
recently posted at Malegaon-were dragged out of a State rest house by four
Muslim youth who had allegedly "caught them in a compromising position".
They took them not to the Police but to the mufti (Muslim jurist or
counsel, popularly known as Qazi), Mohammed Ismail of the local madarsa for
'justice'.
Noorjehan had initially accused Magistrate Bharaskar of rape, which led
to his imprisonment and termination of service. But now the truth has
come out as the accused, driven by scruples of conscience (one assumes),
has decided to spill the beans. She now says that she had accused the
Magistrate, a complete stranger to her, under duress by the police and
the mufti. The Magistrate, far from harming her was actually trying to
help her. On that fateful day, when she was taking a walk, some young
men chased her and tried to outrage her modesty. She took shelter in the
rest house for safety. But soon four of those men barged into the rest
house and took the woman along with the Magistrate to the mufti with an
ulterior motive.
She also informed that the mufti had told Bharaskar to convert to Islam
and marry her, and only then he could be spared. The Qazi now denies
the allegation of coercion for conversion. But those familiar with
Islamic history have reason to feel otherwise. All through the Islamic era,
Kings and Qazis offered Hindu subjects guilty of offending Muslims,
absolution from offence on condition of accepting Islam. Such torment was
meted out to Guru Teg Bahadur, Bhai Mati Das, Vir Hakikat Rai before
they preferred Martyrdom.
So after all tall claims of post-modernism and progressiveness, are we
moving towards a medieval India, bedevilled by increasing aggressions
of Islam? The model nikahnamah (marriage code) released by All India
Personal Law Board was recently in news. I am not going into the
nitty-gritty of the nikahnamah which might be one and a half step forward for
those who lag by hundreds of miles. But it underlines the prominent role
of Qazis in Muslim divorce cases.
In 'secular' India, none except a Muslim can practice polygamy. A
marriage can be solemnised by a priest but can be annulled by a court of
law, in a process that is often protracted, acrimonious and expensive. But
for Muslims, not even a cleric is necessary to dissolve a marriage.
Mere utterance of the word talaq thrice would do. The model nikahnamah has
chosen to retain triple talaq as an integral part of the sharia, though
simultaneous utterance is now counselled against.
In matters of criminal law, Indian Muslims have conveniently parted
ways with the sharia and accepted being governed by the law of the land.
Otherwise, a Muslim might lose his right arm for stealing, or be
publicly stoned to death for committing a rape. Such medieval barbaric
penalties are still prevalent in some Arab countries. But they have kept
personal laws out of the purview of the state's law. When Allahabad High
Court in 1994 denounced the power of a Muslim husband to throw his wife
out by uttering talaq-talaq-talaq as contrary in spirit to the Indian
Constitution, the highly agitated ulema said that no attempt to interfere
with the sharia would be allowed. Independent India has tolerated all
these under the name of 'secularism'.
The Shah Bano Case (1985) exemplified the extent to which 'secular'
India could buckle under pressure of the ulemas. The Rajiv Gandhi
Government that enjoyed three-fourth majority in the Parliament got the Supreme
Court's order abrogated through Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986. The Supreme Court had held that a divorced Muslim
woman was entitled to get maintenance from her husband under 125 CPC.
Shah Bano's husband Mohammed Ahmed Khan had argued that marriage under the
sharia being a contract, he was not liable to give her maintenance.
I shall not dwell on the legal merit and inadequacy of the MW (PRD)
Act, 1986. But it is a fact that Congress buckled under the ulema who
deemed Supreme Court's verdict an attack on Islam. The fundamentalists'
muscle flexing was evident -there would be some direct action if the law
were to prevail in place of the sharia.
In days of the British rule, a counsel of the Muslim offender who
killed a Hindu (Kafir) used to argue that the accused had done no wrong
according to the precepts of the sharia. Lawyers as eminent as Asif Ali had
reasoned so. The British judges who had established the modern legal
system in India, of course rejected such arguments. Today we hear of
Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind openly raising the demand for establishment of sharia
courts throughout the country.
While there is dishonesty in the Indian establishment's approach, the
AIMPLB modus operandi smells of conspiracy. Population control, for the
umpteenth time now, has been repudiated as counter-Islamic. Maulana
Rabey Hasni Nadwi, Chairman, AIMPLB had categorically declared so after
Census 2001 became public. How is it that several self-assured Muslim
countries in the world have long done away with polygamy, Wakf, whilst
also implementing family planning? Family planning seems Islamic when a
Muslim is the absolute master and Islam prevails. But it seems
blasphemous in a Dar-ul-Harb (enemy territory or non-Islamic land) which is yet
to be converted into a Dar-ul-Islam (land of Islam). In a democracy
where each individual has just one vote, the most effective strategy to
gain back India as Dar-ul-Islam is to procreate more.
It is naive of 'secularists' to argue that the desire for reform must
come from within the society. Sadly, they display no interest to
understand Islam, the only religion that has defied any change for the last
1400 years. There can be no reformer in Islam since Allah says in the
Qur'an, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My
favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (sura-5
ayat-3). So there can be innovation in religion. Its latest craze is to
take the world back to seventh century Arabia. Indeed there are some
moderate and progressive Muslim countries that were influenced by the
West in the 19th and 20th century. But things are regressing now.
The Indian 'welfare state', in the name of 'secularism', has allowed
two sets of laws, education system and women's rights to exist. This has
kept mullah-bound Muslims poor, unhygienic, uneducated and
unemancipated. Mullahs only concern is to spread the sway of Islam, without really
improving the daily lives of its folks. This 'secularism' has now
become a nuisance widening the chasms between Muslims and the remaining
society. A society bereft of reforms becomes ntolerant and aggressive.
India will paradoxically do the biggest disservice to its pluralist ethos
if it allows such orthodoxy to flourish and impinge upon others' lives.
We cannot prove our love for Muslims by feigning a predilection for its
orthodoxy. To love the patient is not to love his disease.
(The writer, a Rajya Sabha MP and Convener of BJP's Think Tank can be
contacted at bpunj@email.com)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Balbir K Punj
The Malegaon 'scandal' involving a lady Muslim lawyer and a Hindu
Magistrate that made six-column front page news in a national daily (The
Indian Express, May 5, 2005) is a presage of doom, should Islam prevail
over other parts of India. Such an incident occurring in an otherwise
predominantly Hindu State like Maharashtra makes one apprehensive about
the state of affairs in Muslim-dominated parts of Assam, West Bengal,
Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, etc.
On March 7, a 24-year-old lady Muslim lawyer Noorjehan Ansari and Class
I Judicial Magistrate Balasaheb Hiralal Bharaskar-who were then
recently posted at Malegaon-were dragged out of a State rest house by four
Muslim youth who had allegedly "caught them in a compromising position".
They took them not to the Police but to the mufti (Muslim jurist or
counsel, popularly known as Qazi), Mohammed Ismail of the local madarsa for
'justice'.
Noorjehan had initially accused Magistrate Bharaskar of rape, which led
to his imprisonment and termination of service. But now the truth has
come out as the accused, driven by scruples of conscience (one assumes),
has decided to spill the beans. She now says that she had accused the
Magistrate, a complete stranger to her, under duress by the police and
the mufti. The Magistrate, far from harming her was actually trying to
help her. On that fateful day, when she was taking a walk, some young
men chased her and tried to outrage her modesty. She took shelter in the
rest house for safety. But soon four of those men barged into the rest
house and took the woman along with the Magistrate to the mufti with an
ulterior motive.
She also informed that the mufti had told Bharaskar to convert to Islam
and marry her, and only then he could be spared. The Qazi now denies
the allegation of coercion for conversion. But those familiar with
Islamic history have reason to feel otherwise. All through the Islamic era,
Kings and Qazis offered Hindu subjects guilty of offending Muslims,
absolution from offence on condition of accepting Islam. Such torment was
meted out to Guru Teg Bahadur, Bhai Mati Das, Vir Hakikat Rai before
they preferred Martyrdom.
So after all tall claims of post-modernism and progressiveness, are we
moving towards a medieval India, bedevilled by increasing aggressions
of Islam? The model nikahnamah (marriage code) released by All India
Personal Law Board was recently in news. I am not going into the
nitty-gritty of the nikahnamah which might be one and a half step forward for
those who lag by hundreds of miles. But it underlines the prominent role
of Qazis in Muslim divorce cases.
In 'secular' India, none except a Muslim can practice polygamy. A
marriage can be solemnised by a priest but can be annulled by a court of
law, in a process that is often protracted, acrimonious and expensive. But
for Muslims, not even a cleric is necessary to dissolve a marriage.
Mere utterance of the word talaq thrice would do. The model nikahnamah has
chosen to retain triple talaq as an integral part of the sharia, though
simultaneous utterance is now counselled against.
In matters of criminal law, Indian Muslims have conveniently parted
ways with the sharia and accepted being governed by the law of the land.
Otherwise, a Muslim might lose his right arm for stealing, or be
publicly stoned to death for committing a rape. Such medieval barbaric
penalties are still prevalent in some Arab countries. But they have kept
personal laws out of the purview of the state's law. When Allahabad High
Court in 1994 denounced the power of a Muslim husband to throw his wife
out by uttering talaq-talaq-talaq as contrary in spirit to the Indian
Constitution, the highly agitated ulema said that no attempt to interfere
with the sharia would be allowed. Independent India has tolerated all
these under the name of 'secularism'.
The Shah Bano Case (1985) exemplified the extent to which 'secular'
India could buckle under pressure of the ulemas. The Rajiv Gandhi
Government that enjoyed three-fourth majority in the Parliament got the Supreme
Court's order abrogated through Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986. The Supreme Court had held that a divorced Muslim
woman was entitled to get maintenance from her husband under 125 CPC.
Shah Bano's husband Mohammed Ahmed Khan had argued that marriage under the
sharia being a contract, he was not liable to give her maintenance.
I shall not dwell on the legal merit and inadequacy of the MW (PRD)
Act, 1986. But it is a fact that Congress buckled under the ulema who
deemed Supreme Court's verdict an attack on Islam. The fundamentalists'
muscle flexing was evident -there would be some direct action if the law
were to prevail in place of the sharia.
In days of the British rule, a counsel of the Muslim offender who
killed a Hindu (Kafir) used to argue that the accused had done no wrong
according to the precepts of the sharia. Lawyers as eminent as Asif Ali had
reasoned so. The British judges who had established the modern legal
system in India, of course rejected such arguments. Today we hear of
Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind openly raising the demand for establishment of sharia
courts throughout the country.
While there is dishonesty in the Indian establishment's approach, the
AIMPLB modus operandi smells of conspiracy. Population control, for the
umpteenth time now, has been repudiated as counter-Islamic. Maulana
Rabey Hasni Nadwi, Chairman, AIMPLB had categorically declared so after
Census 2001 became public. How is it that several self-assured Muslim
countries in the world have long done away with polygamy, Wakf, whilst
also implementing family planning? Family planning seems Islamic when a
Muslim is the absolute master and Islam prevails. But it seems
blasphemous in a Dar-ul-Harb (enemy territory or non-Islamic land) which is yet
to be converted into a Dar-ul-Islam (land of Islam). In a democracy
where each individual has just one vote, the most effective strategy to
gain back India as Dar-ul-Islam is to procreate more.
It is naive of 'secularists' to argue that the desire for reform must
come from within the society. Sadly, they display no interest to
understand Islam, the only religion that has defied any change for the last
1400 years. There can be no reformer in Islam since Allah says in the
Qur'an, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My
favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." (sura-5
ayat-3). So there can be innovation in religion. Its latest craze is to
take the world back to seventh century Arabia. Indeed there are some
moderate and progressive Muslim countries that were influenced by the
West in the 19th and 20th century. But things are regressing now.
The Indian 'welfare state', in the name of 'secularism', has allowed
two sets of laws, education system and women's rights to exist. This has
kept mullah-bound Muslims poor, unhygienic, uneducated and
unemancipated. Mullahs only concern is to spread the sway of Islam, without really
improving the daily lives of its folks. This 'secularism' has now
become a nuisance widening the chasms between Muslims and the remaining
society. A society bereft of reforms becomes ntolerant and aggressive.
India will paradoxically do the biggest disservice to its pluralist ethos
if it allows such orthodoxy to flourish and impinge upon others' lives.
We cannot prove our love for Muslims by feigning a predilection for its
orthodoxy. To love the patient is not to love his disease.
(The writer, a Rajya Sabha MP and Convener of BJP's Think Tank can be
contacted at bpunj@email.com)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->