Of Khap Diktat's and Deobandi Fatwa's – some thoughts

The recent developments in Haryana involving the disturbing rise of Khaps or caste based community networks and their kangaroo courts have been noticed with much anxiety across the social and political spectrum. The main argument which emerged amidst the cacophony was the role of the state and civil society in negotiating and reconciling between the individual rights and group rights.

While what could have been an interesting exercise for various social science thinkers, policy framers and analyst, the cold blooded and dastardly killing of couples has sullied any meaning intellectual skulduggery.

This crisis also witnessed certain sections of the society who strongly feel the need to revisit the existing nomenclature governing Hindu marriage Acts and incorporate the demands of the aggrieved groups in wake of eroding community rights and demands. Madhu Kishwar in her recent article (A Question of Balance, Times of India, 18 May 2010, Page - 18) very rightly questions the outburst and attempts to brush aside demands from social groups to incorporate changes in consonance to their customs and tradition. At the same time this doesn’t mean endorsing killings of any kind orchestrated by Khaps in Haryana, but an application of law that is all encompassing and takes note of prevailing customs and traditions.

Kishwar confronts the present discourse fanned by ‘modernizers’ and ‘progressive groups’ about the inherent contradictions that have percolated from top down in the Indian state and its poor track record in addressing few but grave anomalies in the application of secularism and laws concerning individual rights. The Indian Constitution had envisaged that the state shall impose a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), but the deliberate attempts of earlier regimes not only has ensure continued subjugation of women but has led to evolution of a convoluted form of secularism in a heterogeneous country.

So by this logic women irrespective of their location in the society and primordial identity are subjected to a secondary position due to the endorsement of an oppressive and exploitative patriarchical order. Icons like Shah Bano or Banwari Devi have been very swiftly relegated to the dustbin of history while the ‘activists’ of the ivory tower deeply enmeshed in their upper class prejudices debate about landmark judgments and on attack on pub going by fringe groups. It is understandable that justice for late Priyanka Mattoo or Jessica Lall must be delivered but what is baffling is the utter indifference of these armchair gender rights enthusiasts towards the large scale violence and oppression of women in the countryside. As Kishwar contends that ‘when one community seeks constitutional guidelines to protect what they consider as their personal laws, how can others not be extended the same benefits’?

This may be disturbing and sound repulsive for a section of the society who are part of the new class of the rising global Indians, who have utilized moderns tools and technology and are well integrated into the globalized world order through personal, social and professional links. They would like to believe that such traditional identities and institutions are redundant in an age where people like them chose their partners in a shopping mall, multiplex, universities, work place or surfing through the digital networks.

These developments call for a debate as to who should represent "what" and what norms should be adhered to in dealing with cultural norms in a heterogeneous society. While this is not to deride legitimate grievances of some social groups about the alleged misrepresentations of their faith and values, the Indian state also envisages provision of marriage under the Special Marriage Act exists to legalize marriages of those who wish to not toe their community’s line nor adhere to customary practices. This is a significant feature since there are innumerable couples tying the knot cutting across caste, religion, sects or linguistic affiliations. Moreover custom concerning matrimony varies every hundred miles in India, for example cross cousin marriages in the south would be considered an anathema in the north.

Similar concerns emerged when the Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband fatwa regarding women working in the proximity of men without the veil. Earlier similar fatwas were issues on a range of issues like donning the purdah or photo identity cards for voters, based on interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. The standard argument which is extended is that in an age of globalization members of various socio-cultural groups are losing their moorings and hence there is a need to build bridges with those whom they deem as drifters/cultural vagabonds in order to bring them back to their faith.

The conventional justification to such acts are that there is a need for spiritual and religious anchor and such diktats are seen as enlightening the present generation of Muslims. It is needless to state that the role of activists and media are frowned upon on the grounds of their role in alleged biases and alleged support to the Eurocentric discourses on Islam.

In this context kishwar also contends the role of the Indian state and its intervention to force its citizens to discard practices and kinship values simply because they are traditional and rather urges restraint as long as they are not imposed through force, threats or violence.

It may be noted that local politics should not be seen in isolation from national politics and that symbolic mocking at the assertions of nondescript Khap leaders or Fatwas of Maulanas may have become a norm in the television studios. At the same time India's anglicized middle class who usually complain about the politics of assuaging the ‘sensitivities’ of the electorate continue to display an inexplicable silence towards the need to implement the Uniform Civil code. Perhaps this also explains the prevailing ambiguity and anxiety in negotiating with sanskritization, westernization and modernity of tradition.

Hence while every group has the legitimate right for self preservation, they must ensure that they display adequate social tolerance towards its members who want to go the other way and at the exercise moral persuasion and not subject them to violence and social censorship.

Acknowledgment
1 - Image of Khap - IBN
2 - Image of the Deoband Conclave - The Outlook Magazine

Blogger Bachchan and Political Feudalism

Amitabh Bachchan, a living legend of the Indian silver screen seems to have emerged as an outcast wherein his actions and personal space are being encroached, if they are found to be not in ‘consonance’ with the likes of the ruling establishment.

The recent diatribe by certain disgruntled and nondescript politicians bemoaning over Big B being a guest of honor during the inauguration of Bandra-Worli Sea Link at Mumbai on flimsy grounds is a matter of concern. The outburst by some of the lower rung politicians, who didn’t find mention in the guest list, had upped their ante against their government in Maharashtra by the seeking the removal of the Chief Minister over the presence of Amitabh Bachchan at the event.

Their main grouse in the present controversy is that the senior Bachchan had chosen to be the brand ambassador for the state of Gujarat, which is governed by their arch rival the BJP with whom, they are locked in a running battle over the communal riots of 2002. Hence, they argue that Bachchan by not taking a clear stand on the riots and not condemning the role of Narendra Modi government doesn’t qualify to be invited for official functions in Congress governed states.

Bachchan has clarified time and again that by accepting the offer to become brand ambassador of any Indian state he is merely promoting tourism and in no way endorsing the politics of the ruling party in the state. Earlier he had been the brand ambassador for the state of Uttar Pradesh during the rule of Samajwadi Party. Ironically, the government of Kerala which was very keen to have Bachchan for promoting tourism in gods own country, retreated after their central leadership vetoed on similar grounds.

Since some years it is etched in popular memory that Bachchan is being treated as a persona non grata by the Congress regime at the centre, which is attributed to the gradual slump in his relations with the Gandhi family. A trusted aide and a childhood friend of Rajiv Gandhi, Bachchan also took a plunge into politics at the behest of the former and went on to defeat HM Bhahuguna in the Allahabad polls in 1984. The Bofors scandal broke that bonhomie and Bachchan chose to return to his celluloid world and renounced active political life by resigning from the parliament. There has been a systematic move to sideline him in state sponsored functions concerned with film industry with the establishment picking second line stars and sometimes insignificant stars to grace such functions. Moreover his son Abhishek Bachchan’s posters and his video message for Earth Hour 2010 were removed hours before the event.

In an age of ambivalent media and paid news Bachchan has been very categorical through his blog informing the masses about his responsibility as a citizen and his contribution as a conscious member of the society in promoting social causes. In a recent interview to NDTV, Bachchan has been very categorical about his responsibility as a citizen and his contribution as a conscious member of the society in promoting social causes. He has also endorsed NDTV’s save the Tiger campaign, ironically without evoking any controversy.

He also responded to this controversy by stating that people taking umbrage at his association with Gujarat had never battled an eyelid on business icons like Ratan Tata or Mukesh Ambani investing in the state and running successful ventures from there. Bachchan has skillfully responded to the controversy in the public sphere by soliciting readers views on him attending such programmes after uploading invitations received from different ministers on his blog.

The move intended to browbeat a ‘political rival’ ended up in targeting a celebrity, which boomeranged with the action hero meticulously getting back at the political khap panchayats through his blog addressing his enraged fans.

Of an artist’s freedom and artistic freedom - MF Husain and citizenship

--> --> -->

The recent news of Qatari citizenship being offered to renowned Indian painter MF Husain had generated cacophony among a section of the society. There have been prolonged debates and obituaries written about liberal Indians being relegated to the list of endangered species and that liberal arts are under grave threat from a rising section of intolerant Indians.

This is certainly an issue which evoked lot of concern in the print and visual media. There has been a considerable amount of prime time devoted to mourn the ‘death of the liberal Indian’ with intellectuals, artistes of all hues, cultural guardian angels composing requiems and taking part in the funeral orations to mark the ‘demise’ of the liberal Indian.

Some years back India also had witnessed some groups announcing cash awards to blacken Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen’s face at the Kolkatta book fair and also to humiliate Salman Rushdie during his visit to Mumbai for their alleged blasphemous writings. There has been a spurt in activities by fringe groups seeking to intimidate artists and scholars and writers and it has been noticed that sometime government meekly gave in to their unjust demands.

There have been several instances when the state chose to be ambivalent on some issues and shied away from addressing core issues concerning freedom of expression and used to resort to ban. The Rajiv Gandhi government went ahead and banned Salman Rushdie’s novel ‘The Satanic Verses’ following pressure by some sections of the Muslims. The Hollywood film ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ met with a similar fate for allegedly being blasphemous and hurting religious sentiments.

This is not to deride legitimate grievances of certain sections of the society who do question misrepresentations of their faith and values. What has rather turned the entire issue concerning MF Husain accepting Qatari citizenship is the manner in which an individual’s right and choice’s concerning commercial interests have been projected.

Firstly agreement between Husain and the Emirate is purely of commercial nature running into millions and not a litmus test for the Indian state or society. Husain was certainly harassed by various cases but the Supreme Court had ensured by its earlier judgment that any kind of frivolous cases are not filed against him. Husain in other words has let down many of his liberal supporters and has chosen to defend his right to freedom and expression.

Secondly Indian polity and society remains an arena of contending politics, interests and as well as victimhood. So in terms of arts and creativity it is the individual who might be targeted and not his/her creed. Hence the claim of Husain or his supporters that India does not need him or is indifferent towards him remains a hallow claim. So are the publicity stunts by certain arm chair cultural activists about the prevalence of an alleged Indian version of ‘McCarthyism’.

The recent violence in Karnataka had claimed two lives and resulted in damage of public property worth crores over republication of an article allegedly written by Taslima Nasreen. Incidentally few years ago the progressive Left Front government of West Bengal chose to ban Taslima Nasreen’s book Dwikhandito, which is a cause of concern and calls for an urgent need to check social censorship, and save shrinking space for a civil way to resolve competitive discourses.

Taslima’s life is under severe threat and is not being ‘hounded’ by litigations but by the religious chauvinist male driven social order. This is something which a rational liberal has to confront if citizenship of a theocratic state accepted by MF Husain offers better creative environs and artistic freedom than a democratic nation with a heterogeneous identity.

While the Indian polity has the potential to get surcharged given the vote politics practiced by party politics, but it doesn’t prevent the liberal Indians from defending the right of expression and also promote the resolution of differences in a democracy having pluralist ethos.