What do women get at dargahs?

Haji Ali Dargah as we see it from outside

Everybody seems to have been to or wants to visit dargahs. All it takes is a fatwa for the excitement to peak. So, when news came in that women will not be permitted in the Haji Ali dargah, there was no pause for thought. First, a bit from the Rediff report quoting Rizwan Merchant, trustee of the Haji Ali Dargah Trust:

“Women are not allowed inside the sanctum sanctorum of the dargah. If Islamic scholars have issued a fatwa, in accordance with the Islamic law of Sharia, and have demanded that women not be allowed in dargahs, we have only made a correction. They can read their prayers, do namaz and offer shawls and flowers. All that we are requesting to our sisters is not to enter inside the dargah.”

Why have they issued this edict now? Or, was it already in existence, and nobody noticed because either women did not enter or when disallowed did not think it important enough to oppose?

If the Sharia is being invoked, then what is the role of dargahs, which is worship of a saint? According to Islam, such worship is wrong. Besides, graves are not supposed to be in a confined space and most certainly not have a fancy tombstone to which people bow their heads. Therefore, why was there silence on this matter earlier?

There is a suggestion that dargahs follow a Sufi tradition, which is moderate. I don’t see how and why people have to start asserting such moderate behaviour when the prayers offered are verses from the Quran; the namaaz is sanctioned in the Quran as one of the pillars of Islam.  Except for the qawwalis, there is nothing specifically Sufi about dargahs.

The above-mentioned argument is highlighted to posit it against the stringent form of Islam. This is point scoring, and nothing else. In mosques, women are barred from public prayers. I would like to know how many of the women who are fighting against the patriarchal attitude of the dargah Trust have fought for their right to pray at mosques or to even lead the prayers?  

According to some sources, women cannot visit cemeteries and graves. This is dependent on which sect you belong to, and the only thing I can vouch for is that they do not participate in the final rites.

Further more, the report states:

But the decision to restrict women from entering the innermost part of the shrine has not gone down with a women's group, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan. "The shrine trustees told us the restrictions were imposed after a woman came inappropriately dressed last year," said Noorjehan Safia Niaz, founder, BMMA, calling the decision unIslamic.

The tomb

I doubt if this is the sole reason. But I also do not see how demanding the right to visit some grave becomes a case of Islamic misogyny. How many women saints have shrines dedicated to them? Will the Sufis stand up and explain this, please?

Having said this, I have visited a few dargahs and admit it was less reverence and more curiosity or to please someone. I have not been able to ask for anything, which is what dargahs thrive on – using a pir as an intermediary to god.

Some people do find peace and, in the heightened atmosphere of incense, flowers and low sobbing, one could experience a spiritual or cathartic moment.

But, these places have become celebrity hangouts. The appropriateness of dress of the famous, even if questioned, does not make the place restricted territory for them. Then, there is avarice. The munjawars (caretakers) will rush you through the motions and their boys will follow you till you add to the donation box.

At Nizamuddin, in what was the ladies’ areas, a man came in, thrust a register before me, showed me several foreign-sounding visitors for some strange reason, and gave me a litany of complaints about the money needed. He was like a retail store that places the pricier wares closer to the entrance. Here, I was seeing these big ticket donors. I would have liked to make some offering anyway, but his attitude put me off. Yet, I did pay much more than I would have and it was not in any donation box. He took it saying it would be deposited on my behalf.  

Worse, the man selling agarbattis way out of the dargah area ticked me off for not covering my head. The visit was unplanned, so over my respectable kurta I had a thick flannel poncho, it being winter. He said, “Khuda ke darbar mein aakar itna bhi nahin maalum ibaadat ke bare mein?” (Coming to the house of god, don’t you know how to express faith?) I was really angry. I didn’t wish to nitpick that this was not the house of god, unless one refers to god’s omnipotence. But I did tell him, “Sar par dupatta odhne se ibaadat badhti nahin hai.” (By covering my head with a scarf, faith does not increase)

My uncovered head was not intended as a slight. I would have done so on my own. Since I was not going to let the experience go waste, I pulled up my poncho from the back and over my head, the tassels like a fringe on my forehead. I sat against a pillar in the women’s wing, and wept because I felt ridiculous, I was upset, and I did not know what to pray.  

A friend who was accompanying me had disappeared. Later, I was surprised to find him escorted right into the mosque and even asked to join in the prayers. He is a Christian. Without even trying, he passed off as a Muslim. He wasn’t too helpful when, upon hearing about my experience, he told me, “You probably don’t look like you belong here.” He meant it literally. I realise I don’t. In so many ways. In so many places. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Million Dollar Men: Asif Ali Zardari and Hafiz Saeed

The Ajmer Sharif Dargah in north India has become for politics what the Wagah border is for peace activists.  It is just so much melting wax and withering flowers.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari is to pay a visit to the shrine on what has been touted as a “personal” trip. Given his position, it is quite natural that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would ask him to join him for lunch. Now, when these two countries meet for any meal, there is a slow fire burning and a pot boiling in the background. You can see what is cooking, but the people at the table do not seem to have a clue.

We are still at the stage where the sophomoric question is: who should make the first move? Many moves have been made, in wars, by insurgents, through signed pieces of paper, with hugs, blasts, dialogues. These seem to have fallen on the head without anyone making the first move. Instead, the friendly country far from the neighbourhood has decided to do something about it.

The United States of America has put Hafiz Saeed, the leader of Jama'at-ud-Da'wah that was declared a terrorist organisation by the United Nations in December 2008, up there as the big dish. A little problem here. You don’t get him. He is just an item on the menu. You have to hand him over to the great master chef, Barack Obama, and in return take away the $10 million bounty offered by the U.S. for any information on him. No one quite knows what Mr. Zardari plans to pray for at the dargah, but it certainly isn’t a huge amount of money this time. As for Dr. Singh, he is a clean man with clean thoughts and, anyway, he does not have Hafiz Saeed. He can demand that he be handed over, is the chorus. Pages and pages have been exchanged over the Mumbai attacks of November 2008.

We need to look at this a bit carefully. India and Pakistan do not perceive Saeed in the same manner, and the simple reason is that they cannot. They are two countries with different compulsions. Saeed has been the mastermind behind those blasts. Ajmal Kasab, the hit man and the last guy standing, became the fall guy. In terms of a criminal act with the evidence he would be culpable. How does one gauge the extent of input by a mastermind? Osama bin Laden did not go out and attack anyone, yet he was the hunted. If we go by this logic, then the U.S. President must take responsibility for the killings of all the civilians in unprovoked wars.

The reason for bringing this up is the crucial element of American convenience. It would be facile to believe for a moment that the US is concerned about India, even though Obama said it has not forgotten the Mumbai attacks. It remembers at an opportune time. The present Zardari-Singh meeting is not terribly important, except to discuss the same old things. I also do not believe that the US bounty will suddenly make terrorism an issue. It has always been an issue.

The American establishment is only making sure it gets a sneak preview. While peace between the two countries is whimsical, the state of unrest has helped outsiders a great deal. This bane has been a boon for them, for a huge world population can be managed, if not colonised, by the simple expedient of posing as a saviour figure.  It simply does not understand that terrorism in these parts is feeding off angst. It is playing on sentiment.

To put it simplistically, for the West the Mumbai attacks showed India as a rich country and Pakistan as a few men in dinghy. Good old David Headley, Hafiz Saeed’s video maker and map drawer, managed to get a visa to India and do his recce trips as a US citizen. They have him there. Do the two countries have the courage to ask America what exactly it is doing with him?

Hafiz Saeed is roaming free. His December 2011 rally against NATO killings turned out to be bigger than that of most politicians. This was not in some small town, but in Lahore, where he turned the ‘war on terror’ on it head by urging the Pakistani authorities to revoke its cooperation. Whether anybody likes it or not, there are many Pakistanis who support his organisation, Difa-e-Pakistan. Political pragmatism would make it imperative to be on his side, because at least with regard to NATO he is expressing the prevalent sentiment: “In 10 years of war that US has fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan actually lost more than the invaded country.”

 

Afghanistan has been a sore point with mainstream Pakistani politicians from the time of the influx of refugees during the Afghan war to the Taliban entering the plains and attacking just about every group of people. The splitting of hairs over ‘good Taliban’ and ‘bad Taliban’ has in fact blurred the lines. In the popular imagination, the U.S. is to blame for it. The audacious move to assign ‘guardian angels’, troops to watch over their sleeping comrades “against possible attacks by rogue Afghans” after an American soldier Sergeant Robert Bales killed sleeping Afghans, amounts to playing victim.

Pakistan is caught between these two victim-aggressors. It is willing to risk drone attacks, but the authorities probably believe that the rightwing within might come in handy. The view that Pakistan wishes to create communal tensions in India works symbolically to the benefit of Pakistan and India should disabuse such notions actively. If Pakistan wishes to destabilise India by hitting out at its totems of economic progress, then why would it want to do trade with India and why should the Indian government encourage it?

If India believes that the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is behind it all, then does it make any sense to ask Pakistan to hand over Hafiz Saeed or to even try him? More importantly, if India believes that all acts of terror emanate from Pakistan, then is there any purpose in pursuing peace? Peace does not merely mean no war. It conveys a sense of confidence and trust. Neither country trusts the other.

This leaves a large opening for America, and it never fails to appear. The farce of a $10 million bounty will be played out in salons rather than in Islamabad or New Delhi. This is a huge bait for Pakistani liberals and expats to fill the U.S. coffers during the run-up to the elections. The money will be in trust, without it being spoken of in such clear terms, and the well-wisher Pakistani lobbyists will buy peace. America knows this only too well.

The obvious question would be: Aren’t there more prominent Indians in that country? Rich Indian immigrants are keener on being American; they do not have to prove their innocence, unlike Pakistanis. This is a major difference.

What has this got to do with President Zardari meeting Dr. Singh? If one is to understand some of the ‘peace’ proponents, then India is doing a subtle America without the bluster. The lead opinion piece in The Times of India had this gem:

“Clearly, Zardari has stolen an imaginative moment from the bitter-sullen history of India-Pakistan, by asking to come to pay his respects to a cherished and much-beloved saint across the Indian subcontinent. It shows what we, despite the horrendous Mumbai attacks of 2008, are still capable of. Perhaps the Pakistani president will seek forgiveness for those attacks and pray that both countries can move on by jointly erasing the scourge of terrorism. God knows, there are more people killed in Allah’s name in Pakistan today than elsewhere in the region.”

This is so full of Pat Robertson type evangelism, with its penance and forgiveness tone, that one wishes that all SAARC meetings are held at the shrine. In fact, such ‘private’ visits only reinforce the belief that we in South Asia will always mix religion with politics.

Taking such peace talks further is a piece in The Hindu jointly written by former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan Humayun Khan and former Foreign Secretary of India Salman Haidar:

“Peace within the region is an essential requirement for India to continue on its upward path. It must make renewed efforts to convince its neighbours that it poses no threat to them. It still has to fully convince them that it is ready to honour their independence and separate personality.”

How can such a thing be proved? India is fighting movements within almost as much as Pakistan is, with probably fewer casualties. The emphasis on economic progress, in fact, diverts attention away from political instability. There is no doubt that India being the larger nation has to respect other nations, but their sovereignty depends on how they manage contradictions within. Bilateral peace has little to do with this.

“To further allay apprehensions, discussions could be initiated on relocation of forces along the border and on regular meetings between chiefs of the armed forces and of intelligence agencies. The need for better understanding between the two militaries cannot be over-emphasised, because the security syndrome in Pakistan is the major obstacle in the way of progress.”

Do the armed forces act independently? They don’t. Besides, there is a difference between armed conflict and terrorism. Terrorism does not take the regular route. While Pakistan has to deal with the army as possible government, India has to handle the politicisation within the army. How they talk to each other matters little when compared with how they operate inside their own countries.

Dr. Manmohan Singh does not have to worry about the Indian armed forces posing a threat to his position. Asif Ali Zardari has to every minute of the day. A little prayer at the dargah will not change that. What he might get by way of benediction is a new eureka motivation: blame the existence of Hafiz Saeed on newbie willing to sup with Islamists Imran Khan for the moment. Wasn’t seize the day an all-American novel?

(c)Farzana Versey

Published in Counterpunch, April 4

- - -

Image of Asif Ali Zardari and Dr Manmohan Singh courtesy Open magazine

Half Muslims and non-Muslims

Half Muslims and non-Muslims
by Farzana Versey

Born in the Ismaili faith, I have been quite accustomed to the ‘aadha Mussalman’ (half Muslim) tag. Members of the community are none the worse for it. However, I cannot understand the attitude towards Ahmadis in Pakistan. Ismailis have a living Imam, yet they are not considered a minority.

Why is this so? Is it because the Aga Khan Foundations help many people in developing countries? So does the Red Cross. Is it because the Ismailis are more interested in trade than the Taliban? This could be said of most people in any society.

If anything, the believers of the Aga Khan can be deemed more esoteric and are considerably distinct in the many countries they have chosen to make their homes in, mainly because allegiance to the nation is emphasised as part of the religious doctrine. Talk of mixing religion and politics!

Politics uses religion as much as religion is being politicised. What happened in Lahore were extremist attacks. Don’t blame the Taliban. They do not discriminate. They get no special points for killing Ahmadis; discrimination against them is built in the Constitution. How many people have made the government answerable for this? How difficult is it to change laws?

Ahmadis have been declared heretics. If they wish to perform the Haj they have to provide a written declaration stating that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of their sect, is a “cunning person and an imposter”. How will this make Islam better? It is true that the leader declared himself to be the promised messiah and this would be seen as blasphemy in a monotheistic belief system that will not accept such a major departure even if no one disputes the oneness of god.

Ismailis often have to traverse two completely contradictory viewpoints – that of being the ‘nicer Muslim’ and of being ‘half Muslim’. The first honorific is given by people from other faiths who have a stereotyped image and are surprised to find the unveiled, clean-shaven ones; the other comes from true-blue Muslims who find it difficult to not only accept that Ismailis believe in a continual line of Imams but that they have their own secular rules.

When there was some semantic jugglery regarding how the media cannot refer to the Ahmadi place of worship as a mosque, it struck me that the Ismailis call their place of worship a jamaat khana. They have a separate set of duas and namaaz is not offered on a regular basis. Men cannot have more than one wife at a time or they will be ex-communicated. There have been people who have left the fold to join the ‘pure’ Muslims and written books about the ‘half ones’, and they ought to be thankful for the education they received as Ismailis which taught them about the possibility of dissent.

It is ironical, then, for them to brand some offshoots of Islam as cults. What about dargahs where you pay obeisance to dead saints? Muslims do not consider it heresy to place flowers on tombstones, light incense sticks and let the caretaker run a peacock feather over their heads as blessing; no one baulks at the fact that donation boxes rake in money to keep these places rich. Is this Islam?

The Ahmadis were promised a return to the pristine form of Islam. Who can have a problem with that? Not the religious fundamentalists if they think about the ‘essence’. Acts of violence should be condemned for their own sake. Let people remember that the Taliban is not making rules. Pull up those who are. Minorities are supposed to be protected. If nothing else, such tragedies should at least lead to introspection and proactive action from concerned citizens instead of ruing it as one more bad haywire day.

- - -
(c) Farzana Versey
- - -

This column that was pulled out by Express Tribune was later published by Countercurrents