Ditch the colonial dogma: AMU must honour the Sir Syed legacy by spearheading reform in Muslim personal laws

My comments posted on Times of India article: Ditch the colonial dogma by Ehteshan Khan:

Ghulam Muhammed•623

•

•55 mins ago

two hundred years' amu movement could not compete with deoband movement's priority to secure and consolidate islam in Muslim lives. it shunned any preparation for democratic power grab depending on the congress farce of secularism. with the coming of rss in power, however temporary, and its direct interference in Muslim religion, the deoband movement will be forced to fight another freedom struggle like the ulama did against christian British the first time. the struggle will be hard and at times as bloody as the first time. unless rss modifies its priorities.

---

Ditch the colonial dogma: AMU must honour the Sir Syed legacy by spearheading reform in Muslim personal laws

October 17, 2016, 2:00 AM IST Ahtesham Khan in TOI Edit Page | Edit Page, India | TOI

Today will be celebrated as Sir Syed Day by Aligarians across the world, to mark the 199th birth anniversary of a revolutionary man. It is important to introspect how far we have fulfilled his vision. He stood for modern education, scientific temper and reinterpreting Quran in light of modern knowledge.

For Sir Syed, the trauma of Indian Muslims after the failed 1857 uprising against the British called for education and social reforms among Muslims in India. He drew upon Islam’s rationalist tradition, and advocated a radical reinterpretation of Quran to make it compatible with post-Renaissance western humanistic and scientific ideas, and also to wean the ‘truth’ from fossilised dogma.

Aligarh Muslim University stands testimony to Sir Syed’s quest for reforms in education. It has been the fulcrum of education amongst Muslims in the subcontinent. AMU as an educational institution not only weathered the storms of Partition but also progressed from strength to strength. However, the vision of Sir Syed went beyond an institution to impart education to one which would spearhead social reforms amongst Muslims in the subcontinent. Unfortunately, AMU has been inefficacious in this role of being the incubator of social reforms.

Though the university boasts of a theology department, it functions more as a centre for management of religious life in the campus than for reformation of Islamic jurisprudence in the country. Consequently, Muslim personal laws in India are amongst the most conservative in the world.

Interestingly, many of the laws that Muslims in India are so sensitive about are actually a result of the conservative interpretations by colonial British judges. The Britishers during the period 1820-57 were at the forefront of reformation of many religious practices in the subcontinent. This included the abolition of sati and support to widow remarriages. However, this interference in religious practices was perceived to be a major reason for the revolt of 1857. As a result, post 1857, the Britishers were wary of taking up cudgels for social reforms and compromising their own position, and subsequently they sided with the conservative and orthodox sections of Indian society.

This led to a very orthodox codification of Muslim personal laws. The judgment of the Bombay high court in the case of Tajbi Abalal Desai vs Mowla Ali Khan Desai (1917) by the B Scott and Beaman bench is a quintessential case in point, as it laid the foundation for a conservative polygamy law. Orthodox codification is also exemplified in the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937.

Post-Independence, the personal laws of other religions were amended and reformed in the face of the stiff resistance from conservative sections of society. However, successive governments thought it best not to intervene in the domain of Muslim personal laws and left their interpretations in the hands of the Muslim Personal Law Board.

This has led to a situation where Muslim personal laws in many of the perceived conservative Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq, were reformed and many practices including triple talaq and polygamy were either banned or restricted; but in India these practices and the Muslim personal laws still reflect the colonial orthodox interpretation.

With successive governments keeping a safe distance from getting involved in the reformation of Muslim personal laws, under normal circumstances the onus would lie on the liberal intelligentsia. However, post-Partition such a Muslim intelligentsia was non-existent in India, as the elite among the Muslims had migrated to Pakistan. The absence of such a pressure group further contributed to the lack of a voice for social reforms among Muslims.

In this scenario, AMU had a very crucial role to play. However, AMU, grappling with its own existential questions and identity crisis could not provide the role Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had envisaged for it and ceded space to the Deoband and other more orthodox centres in the country.

Recently, issues related to polygamy have been contested in the Supreme Court and the government has contended that the validity of triple talaq and polygamy has to be seen in light of gender justice, equality and dignity of women. It is a great opportunity for Muslims in India to reimagine and reinterpret their personal laws to correctly reflect the teachings of Quran and not the blinkered interpretation of some colonial British judge. Sir Syed had stood for such a reinterpretation in the 19th century but we have failed to achieve it in two centuries.

AMU needs to step up and play a very important role, not just by providing the correct interpretations of Quran but more importantly by being the harbinger of a Muslim social revolution. The university has immense goodwill among the Muslim community in the country and by being the voice of change it can convince the Muslims of the country to embrace this reformation. The chances of Muslims consenting to any change in personal laws are much higher if AMU spearheads it.

Two centuries is a very long time. Sir Syed must be turning in his grave (located in the AMU campus itself) that what he stood for is still only being read as the ‘Aligarh Movement’. If we are able to reform the laws related to triple talaq and polygamy and bring them in consonance with the laws in liberal Muslim countries before next year’s bicentennial celebrations of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, it will be the greatest tribute to the man.

The writer is an IRS officer and AMU alumnus. Views are personal

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

---

Om Parkash•31 mins ago

very comprehensive and enlightening article.

0 0 •Reply•Flag

Ghulam Muhammed•623

•

•1 hour ago

two hundred years' amu movement could not compete with deoband movement's priority to secure and consolidate islam in muslim lives. it shunned any preparation for democratic power grab depending on the congress farce of secularism. with the coming of rss in power, however temporary and its direct interferences in muslim religion, the deoband movement will be forced to fight another freedom struggle like the ulama did against christian british the first time. the struggle will be hard and at times as bloody as the first time. unless rss modifies its priorities.

0 0 •Reply•Flag

Krishna Kumar Sinha•291

•

•patna•1 hour ago

very enlightening article,indeed a ray of hope that reforms will be given the much needed legitimacy from the amu brass,and shall be widely acceptable to common people in india.just remember the tough resistance from the conservative forces which was faced by the likes of raja rammohun roy,and yet they continued in their endeavour. it is a fact that religious etiquette and rituals have to be in sync with the contemporary times and values of liberty equality and fraternity,which includes gender justice as we;; kudos to ehtesham

0 0 •Reply•Flag

Girdhar Joshi•2311

•

•Unknown•1 hour ago

excellent beginnings by an amu scholar. let the entire community follow this.

0 0 •Reply•Flag

RCH Ram•19090

•

•Unknown•3 hours ago

in the southern states, muslim jehaadists have escalated their violence to sheer brutality and have gone on a mad stabbing and hacking spree. they have now assassinated many hindu leaders and yet the southern hindus do not retaliate. had this kind of violence been orchestrated with the hindus of harayana... these jehaadists would have become mincemeat. and hence these animals do not raise their ugly heads in these places.

0 0 •Reply•Flag

Heera Lal•121

•

•Lucknow•8 hours ago

worth reading and sharing

1 0 •Reply•Flag

Jagdip Vaishnav•30211

•

•Mumbai•9 hours ago

why only amu, entire muslim community is requested to consider triple talaq is humiliating , discarding muslim women. islam do not permit killings of innocent persons, then why such ati human activities are being allowed ?

2 0 •Reply•Flag

Datta Tembhekar•77

•

•9 hours ago

point correctly made. amu and similar institutions must lead from front. educational institutes have sphearheaded many such movements and changes in past and it is rightly the turn and chance of amu. instead of worrying about minority status, it should rise up and do pathbreaking work for muslim community.

1 0 •Reply•Flag

ashok lal•2133

•

•Bombay•14 hours ago

it is true that many educated and affluent muslims migrated to pakistan but, in the intervening period, a solid middle class has emerged. it could be at the forefront of reform movements within the community. there should be no feeling that something is being imposed externally. the status of amu and the special place it occupies in the affections of the community could also be cherished.

"India slams Pak over BRICS wall" - The Indian Express, Mumbai

Saffron light - Editorial - The Telegraph, Calcutta, India

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1161013/jsp/opinion/story_113071.jsp The Telegraph, Calcutta, India Saffron light The term, "anti-national", has become an ever-expanding hold-all. All that the government and its promoters, stretching from Nagpur to other parts of India, do not like or approve of is branded as anti-national. It is an ineradicable stigma and the saffron parivar's worst form of abuse. Any criticism of the government, its motives, policies and actions, is open to this branding. It is an instrument for isolating individuals and groups and then to direct official wrath or non-official violence against them. Nothing whets the Indian appetite for vengeance more than patriotism. The most telling and appalling display of this has been in the wake of the "surgical strike" by the Indian army against some terrorist camps deep inside Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. It has become impossible even to ask for more details of this action, let alone query its motives and its necessity. To do either of these would be to invite the stigma of being "anti-national". Even the free flow of information is being regulated by the tap of nationalism. Who defines what is national or its opposite? The people in power, of course.  Nationalism has become the monopoly of the government, and from this entirely unfounded premise the next step is that the army is above question and criticism. To the Hindu pantheon a new holy cow has now been added. Very recently, the prime minister's principal cup-bearer, Amit Shah, has complimented the Indian media for being patriotic.  Sections of the media might lap this up as praise but in reality there could be nothing more patronizing and therefore humiliating. Why should the media be patriotic or otherwise?  The responsibility of the media is to bring information and fact-based analysis before the public without fear or prejudice. If some facts or perspectives do not fit into the cosy boxes of patriotism or nationalism that should not daunt the media. But such is the government's power to manufacture consensus that one well-known television channel has unashamedly announced that it will not show anything that can remotely be construed as being against the armed forces or branded as anti-national. The rest of the media have not been quite so craven but there is a noticeable decline in the number of stories and comments that are critical of the government and of the ideology it represents. The government of Narendra Modi, even though it professes commitment to the process of liberalization, has significantly enhanced the purview of the State. It has done so directly and implicitly. By remaining silent on various forms of vigilantism - from what people should eat or sell to attacks on minorities and Dalits - Mr Modi has given his tacit consent to various forms of Hindu fundamentalism. He and his supporters have brought into play a most insidious kind of majoritarianism that is slowly strangling dissent. India has entered, without fanfare, an era of undeclared emergency.

PM Modi at Preliminary Session of BRICS-BIMSTEC Outreach Summit in Goa, ...

Why Hindutva wants Uniform Civil Code - By Aakar Patel - The Asian Age

Does BJP deliberately wants trouble as author suggests, or its Muslim baiting is either election strategy and/or diversion from Kashmir problem.

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/why-hindutva-wants-uniform-civil-code-599

Why Hindutva wants Uniform Civil Code

Aakar Patel

The Uniform Civil Code is gathering momentum and this is happening in two phases. The first is action against ‘triple talaq’. The second issue is the matter of polygamy, which is where the real interest of Hindutva lies.

India is today under a party with an ideology, which is called Hindutva. This ideology has three demands: The abolishing of Article 370 of India’s Constitution, the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple at Ayodhya and the enforcement of a Uniform Civil Code.

All the three issues require something from the minority communities. Article 370 requires Kashmir’s Muslim majority to give up their constitutional autonomy, the temple requires Muslims to give up their mosque, and the Uniform Civil Code requires them to give up their personal law.

For this reason it is possible to view these demands as being negative and the product of a majoritarian impulse, rather than positive. I mean that they appear to be not as well-intended as those demanding the changes make it appear. This is validated by what happened to the temple movement once the mosque had been torn down by Hindutva. The movement collapsed because it was more negative, meaning against the mosque, than positive, meaning in favour of the temple.

In the matter of Article 370 there are many legal issues that prevent full integration of Jammu and Kashmir, but the intent of the ruling ideology can perhaps be glimpsed at by the state of Kashmir today. The current episode of national pride over action against Pakistan has dominated events in the Valley. But sooner of later we will be forced to take a look at how to manage the situation there.

The Uniform Civil Code is currently gathering momentum and this is happening in two phases. The first is action against “triple talaq”, which the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, dominated by men, wants to retain. Triple talaq is a quick divorce option for men which many Muslim nations, including Pakistan, do not permit. The government wants to make it illegal and the courts are on its side.

Should this happen, we should get ready for a number of arrests. The second issue is the matter of polygamy, which is where the real interest of Hindutva lies. It is felt that polygamy is the instrument through which Muslims reproduce faster than Hindus and at some point will become a majority. The incidence of polygamy is actually higher among Hindus than Muslims according to the data, but the perception is powerful enough to drive this demand for the Uniform Civil Code.

The historian Ramachandra Guha wrote a few days ago about why liberals and leftists (I think he meant communists but I could be wrong) should support the Uniform Civil Code and oppose polygamy. He classified their opposition to the Hindutva demand as being one of these seven things:

The reforms of Hindu personal law in the 1950s were not as progressive as they are made out to be.

The customary laws and practices of the Hindus today are often very reactionary, as for example in the khap panchayats.

The unreformed Muslim personal laws are not as reactionary as made out to be, and sometimes or often give women reasonable rights.

The customary practices of Muslims are also not as bad as claimed; thus Muslim polygamy does not discriminate against second or third wives in the manner that Hindu polygamy does or did.

The demand for a uniform civil code is motivated by the political agenda of the BJP.

Article 44 of the Constitution, asking for a Uniform Civil Code, clashes with Article 25, assuring the freedom to propagate religion.

There are many other Articles of the Constitution that remain unfulfilled; why then harp on this one?

In my opinion, Guha misses out one thing, in my opinion the major one, why some liberals (meaning those who push for the rights of individuals) oppose this reform. That is the right of the woman, or the man, to become a second wife or a second husband (polyandry is practised in some communities in India). It is true that a poll shows that 90 per cent of Muslim women oppose polygamy but then 90 per cent of Muslim women also live in monogamous marriages. It would be interesting to see the data on how those inside polygamous marriages view the practice.

Guha says polygamy is an “abhorrent practice”, which must be “abolished at once”. 

This is in my opinion a moral judgment. The Indian law and successive governments have said the same thing about homosexuality. But the liberal will stand for the individual’s rights in that instance also. My guess is, having said all this, that the momentum has shifted on the issue. Triple talaq and polygamy are likely to be the next ground on which Hindutva will assert itself. And, as with other issues where this has happened, we must anticipate trouble.

Aakar Patel is a writer, columnist and executive director of Amnesty International (India)

Press Conference: Episode 58: They are all working for ISI, says Tarek F...