Obsession of Muslim leaders with an exclusive identity hasn’t helped the minority community progress
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav recently guarded his Muslim vote-bank by cancelling the talk on organising the Kumbh Mela, scheduled at Harvard University. He made matters worse by boycotting the reception organised by the Indian Consulate. The apparent provocation was State Minister Azam Khan's detention by airport authorities at Boston in the US. So, why mar India's imageIJ This conforms to the Congress-led ruling coalition's policy of minorityism.
The Government is currently mulling over a controversial new law that seems to have been influenced by advocacy groups, sustained by Western donors. Marriage laws (Amendment) Bill proposes giving the former wife, in the event of divorce, in addition to an equal share in the husband's residential property, equal share in inherited/inheritable property. If inherited property cannot be divided because other members have a share, then the wife will have to be given monetary compensation. Media reports do not identify the communities that are targeted, but presumably, it is the majority Hindus and minority Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, who come within the ambit of Hindu laws and secular jurisprudence.
It clearly will not apply to the Muslims, the largest minority segment, constituting 13.4 per cent of the population, as per the 2011 census. Under Islamic law, a woman divorced by her husband gets only mehr, an amount guaranteed before marriage by the groom. Nor is she entitled to alimony. However, Hindus and other communities are increasingly governed by Western norms in relation to marriage, divorce and inheritance. Despite free India becoming a secular democracy, and creation of Pakistan meant to enshrine the ideal of an Islamic State, the Constitution at the very outset assured application of Sharia’h to Muslims in personal matters. This was a great blunder and completely unjustified since State-run courts subscribe to modern laws. The seeds of perpetual discord were thus sown.
The stratagem served to underline their distinct identity as a people apart from the mainstream, comprising a nation within a nation. It also deliberately perpetuated the mischievous ploy of turning them into a sizeable vote-bank that could be relied upon by political parties that kow-towed to them for support; and, most important, for stalling indefinitely the directive to implement a uniform civil code, hinging on modern secular jurisprudence. Even as the ruling regime pushes legislation selectively, Mumbai has set up its first Dar-ul-Qaza or Shariat court. The Constitution, while allowing every religious denomination to manage its own affairs, permits Muslims to set up Dar-ul-Qaza or Nizam-e-Qaza. Such courts are already functioning in Hyderabad, Patna, Malegaon and elsewhere.
If Shariat courts can be approved, there is no reason why much reviled khap panchayats in north India cannot intercede in village and family matters. Both pronounce draconian verdicts, out of sync with modern times. But the intelligentsia's ire is directed against khap panchayats alone, with the media playing up honour killings, occurring at the behest of khap dictates, and demanding a ban on such panchayats. The fact that Sharia’h courts, subscribing to mores that sprouted in alien soil in a much earlier age, are far more dangerous in that they seek to foist a set of rules that are contrary to the laws prevailing in State-run courts, is completely ignored.
The Shariat court in Mumbai has been set up by All India Muslim Personal law Board, founded in 1973 to ensure the implementation of personal law. Board Secretary Maulana Wali Rahmani avers that the court will arbitrate speedy solutions to personal disputes. So do khap panchayats actually. Since Muslims are doubly privileged because they can also approach civil courts, this may trigger confusion if one party appeals in the Shariat court, and the other goes to the civil court. Whose dictate would prevailIJ Board legal cell head Yusuf Muchalla claims that many Shariat court verdicts have been upheld by district and High Courts in Bengal, Odisha, Jharkhand and Bihar. Further, to resolve a dispute via Sharia’h, all parties would need to approach the Shariat court.
Mr Muchalla refers to the newly set up court as “significant alternative dispute settlement mechanism”, which will reduce the load of civil courts. Patna harbours the headquarters of Imarat-e-Sharia’h or the House of Shariah. What is surprising is that eminent Muslims from among Mumbai's glitterati and literati are silent on the issue. Some of them have been vocal about upholding the secular ideal, though their understanding of the issue seems largely confined to recalling the Babri Masjid demolition as a grave transgression, and eulogising the syncretic evolution of Indian culture.
The question that they must address is, whether true secularism precludes common laws. It is of utmost importance as Muslims in India number over 180 million. Of paramount concern is their continuing isolation from the mainstream. Their leaders' obsession with nurturing an exclusive identity, hinging on special rights and privileges, has not helped the community progress. Instead, many express grievances against the process of enforced modernity by aiding secessionist operations.