by A. Hanaa Mariam, III B.A. English
‘Taking Firm Steps to Emancipation’ is an opinion piece very eloquently written by former Supreme Court judge, Mr Markandey Katju. The one thing that strikes the aware reader is the sheer ignorance and condescension that the author has managed to convey in his vitriolic article.
Mr Katju, in his piece, suggests that the Muslim community in India is ‘poor and backward’ and that they have been taken advantage of in the past by both religious and political leaders. He then very assuredly goes on to add that the present BJP government is a ‘blessing in disguise’ to us. Say that to all the people who have been forced to chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’ over the past two months. So, Mr Katju’s solution to our problem is in giving us three pieces of unsolicited advice which he calls ‘radical steps’. Ha.
The three things he wants us to do can be read here.
To his unsolicited advice, I have a few responses to ideas that I think he has got completely wrong. The first and foremost is Mr Katju’s statement 'It [Sharia law] permits talaq (verbal) only to Muslim men, not women'. Here, no doubt Mr Katju is referring to the un-Islamic practice of the rightfully scorned ‘triple talaq’. I say un-Islamic because in the actual Sharia, the triple talaq does not exist and so it is not a valid divorce. Therefore if a man were to say talaq (divorce) three times, he’d still not find himself legally (as in, Sharia legally) divorced from his wife. A point to note here is the fact that the Indian Sharia (Application) law recognises triple talaq as an Islamic form of divorce. This goes against the Sharia law as mentioned above.
Personally, I think that the triple talaq in India is a result of a decision taken by misogynistic men who had no idea about the laws of their own religion and therefore, for their own convenience, invented something. It’s as simple as that. Mr Katju is also unaware of the fact that Islam grants divorce rights to women and that this is called ‘khula’. Furthermore, if a man wants to divorce his wife then he should have a valid reason; a woman is not expected to state her reason for divorce. Hence, Mr Katju’s claims on triple talaq and only men in Islam having divorce rights have been rendered null and void.
Secondly, Mr Katju is calling for a ban on burqas and stating that letting a Muslim woman decide on wearing a burqa is giving her ‘negative freedom’ and is a ‘backward feudal practice’. Giving a woman the choice to decide for herself is obviously a POSITIVE freedom. So Mr Katju is proposing to take away her choice, telling her not to wear the burqa and harassing her into believing that she is liberated. Now that? That is NEGATIVE freedom. Also, I fail to understand how a burqa – an item of clothing – will ‘suppress the progress’ of our country. Burqa-wearing women! You are hindering the elimination of corruption, the growth of our economy, and other areas in which India is currently and chronically failing to 'progress' in.
Mr Katju ends his ranting session (and so will I) by calling on the Muslim youth to 'rise and demand' the abolition of 'feudal reactionary practices which are the biggest cause of backwardness in the community.' Excuse me, Mr Katju but I find your call completely and utterly patronising. Excuse me if I also find your call to the 'emancipation' of my community exactly what you so heavily criticised – a vote bank policy.