A socially emancipated Kerala has come out in total unity against the highly conservative move by some prominent Muslim organisations in the State to approach the Supreme Court seeking exemption for marriage of under-18 Muslim girls from the provisions of the law that prohibits child marriages in the country.
Even certain Muslim outfits, otherwise known for taking hard-line views often, have opposed the move. However, Muslim league, the second largest constituent of the ruling UDF and a party which describes itself as secular, is yet to remove the ambiguity in its stand with regard to the issue whereas its students’ outfit, the MSF, has termed it an atrocious move.
State BJP president V Muraleedharan described the Muslim outfits’ move as an attempt to bring Talibanism into Kerala. “Religion is a matter of a person’s individual beliefs. It should not be against the Constitution. To say that a law accepted nationwide cannot be accepted in Kerala is wrong. It is a move to implement Talibanism in Kerala,” Muraleedharan said in Kottayam.
The controversy erupted after ten Muslim organisations in Kerala decided at a meeting held the other day to approach the Supreme Court challenging the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006 which fixed the marriageable age for girls of any religion as 18 so that Muslim girls’ marriage could be held even if the girl had not attained 18.
The justifications given by the organisations for this were that the Muslim Personal law (Sharia) had not fixed any age for girls for marriage, that any laws that went against this were an infringement upon the fundamental rights of the Muslims and that such laws were against the Muslim Personal law (Sharia) Application Act of 1937.
“Sharia does not prescribe any restrictions on the age for marriage of Muslim girls. Though the Sharia Application Act was passed during the British rule, it has been serving as the foundation of such matters,” said Sunni leader Kottumala Bappu Musliar, chairperson of Muslim Personal law Protection Committee formed for carrying out legal battle.
According to those who want under-age Muslim girls’ marriage to be legalised, this is necessary in cases where under-18 girls are “compelled” to get married due to unavoidable circumstances but they are unable to spell out what these “unavoidable circumstances” are. They also expressed concern over the alleged “trend of enmity” towards moves to protect Muslim religious interests.
Apart from the MSF, Jamaa’t-e-Islami and Muslim Educational Society made it clear that they did not support the line committee had taken. Jama’at-e-Islami leaders said the organisation had indeed been represented at meeting but there had been no consensus on a move to approach the court against the law that abolished child marriages.
“I think we are about to witness a tragedy. It is absurd to say that these people are not prepared to recognise laws that are made for the well-being of the people and which are not in any way contrary to their religious beliefs. Do they want the Muslim girls to become old at 25 and grandmas at 30IJ” asked O Abdullah, a former editor of Jama’at newspaper Madhyamam.
Young Congress legislator VT Balaram came out strongly against the Muslim organisations’ move saying that it would take the community back to the days of priesthood that prevailed before the renaissance. State CPI secretary Pannyan Raveendran termed the move as a crime against the women in the Muslim community.