Pakistan's Conversion Circus: Missing the woods for the tree

Sunil on his way to Abdullah

Pakistani society has one more reason to get agitated. A Hindu boy has converted to Islam in front of a live television audience. Sunil became Muhammad Abdullah.

I’d like to take up the editorial in Dawn to show just how this limited concern works.

"In yet another example of how the industry's commercial goals trump ethics, open-mindedness and common sense, on Tuesday a television show broadcast an imam leading a Hindu boy through a live conversion to Islam carried out in the studio as part of the show, complete with the audience joining in to suggest Muslim names for the new convert.

"There is no reason to think the boy was not converting of his own free will, but the whole event had the distinct air of being carried out to give viewers something new and different to watch, even if that meant dragging an intensely personal and spiritual experience into public view.”

This is like suggesting that it is quite nice to carve your meat at a fine dining table, but don’t let us see the butcher’s shop. There is as much ethics in what the paper says as the bleeding rites of passage. I have always maintained my anti-conversion stand, and in this case I might be interested to know a couple of things if ethics is an issue:

1. This is reality TV. Participants on such shows are paid. Was the boy paid to appear on the show or to convert?
2. If he was doing it of his own free will, then the question is not about conversion but about the involvement of imams, who object to entertainment programmes. 
3. Is it not the job of the media to investigate about the motives of the boy – where is he from, what are his reasons, instead of replaying clips?

Sitting on a high horse has become part of the media culture. Editorials are passing judgments and trying to ‘convert’ people into thinking in ways they deem fit all the time, taking political sides, writing treacly pieces on leaders.

Maya Khan in an earlier stint

The host of the ARY show is Maya Khan, who is seen as an Islamist. It is interesting that actress Veena Malik was supposed to host a Ramzan programme and it was vetoed by the mullahs in Pakistan. Did anyone among the liberals question the ethics of someone like the controversial lady hosting such a show? Was it not to grab eyeballs? Would it not be as bad as mullahs looking beady-eyed over a conversion? What are the ethics about having such shows at all in a country that is constantly discussing religious resurgence and its ill-effects?

Who is to decide what form of religion should be portrayed? If you want a Veena Malik type show, then someone else might find a Maya Khan entertaining. Did not Ms. Malik become the hero of a section of the nation when she took on some mullahs on a channel a couple of years ago for her right to expose her body and perform live canoodle scenes? She suddenly became the ambassador of the nation, of liberal Islam, of a fight for modernity.

These are all circus acts, and one does not expect better from reality television and that includes news channels. Part of the hot air is possibly because this is a competitive game, where ethics are the flakes of pistachio on the phirni, not an ingredient. This is borne out by the fact that the editorial is worried about how just to spice things up “religion is now fair game too”.

Talat Hussain, who hosts a political show on private television channel Dawn News, said:

“Think about how Muslims would feel if Buddhists in Burma show a Muslim being converted on a live TV show.”

If this is not spicy and sensational, then what is?

Religion always has been fair game. Why get pedantic about it in a country that relays every religious detail, and “spiritualism” is sold at shrines, as CDs? And just for the information of those who do not know, conversion is not a private matter. The decision to convert might be, but the individual has to perform certain rituals to show that s/he belongs. The whole reason behind it is often social acceptability or pressure.

Question that. But it would not get as much attention, does not give those expressing anger a primetime slot.

It is surprising to read this:

"more disturbingly, what the channel obviously didn't stop to consider is the message this broadcast would send to the country's minorities…The joy with which the conversion was greeted, and the congratulations that followed, sent a clear signal that other religions don't enjoy the same status in Pakistan as Islam does. In a country where minorities are already treated as second-class citizens in many ways, this served to marginalise them even further”

Who has made a noise about this? Where are the minority groups? It is not about the message a television show sends out. Pakistanis do not live in and off studios. The country’s laws discriminate against minorities.

Can anyone file a petition against the channel? Will it change anything? How many Pakistanis have the courage to flaunt their agnosticism/atheism, if that is their proclivity?

In a moment of perfect coordination, it would appear – and that showcases the hypocrisy – President Asif Ali Zardari has formally invited PM Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan:

Zardari suggested that if Singh’s visit coincided with Guru Nanak's birth anniversary in November, it would be well received by the Pakistani people and reinforce the desire of both countries to promote inter-religious harmony.

Is this not misuse of religion? Do India and Pakistan need to promote inter-religious harmony? At least, India does not need Pakistan for that. And this is being hailed by the same media that has been frothing at the mouth over a conversion. Weren’t Sikhs beheaded in that country not too long ago?

India has enough of its own problems with different religions and sects and castes. But I dread to think what would happen if we had an Ahmadi Prime Minister. Would President Zardari extend an invitation to celebrate anything and promote inter-religious harmony, when the community is ostracised socially and politically?

Perhaps one of the ‘ethical’ people of Pakistan might like to convert to the Ahmadiya faith on public television and send out a strong message?

If you cannot do that, then a coat of varnish is not going to change the shakiness of the walls.

(c) Farzana Versey

Converted Kashmiris and Secularists

All Saints Church, Srinagar

Reverend Chander Mani Khanna of All Saints’ Church in Srinagar was arrested following protests in the city against trying to convert a few Kashmiris. While he should be fully represented in court, it is a bit hasty to use this episode to flash liberal credentials just yet. The people have protested for various ills committed by the Establishment. At such times, we are ready to give these same protestors the benefit of doubt. So, where is the need to score secular brownie points now?

How many Christians are there in Jammu and Kashmir? How many Kashmiri pandits or Sikhs have been converted to Islam? Had there been such conversions, there would have been the standard outcry against Islamisation. There is brainwashing of people in the state by other groups as well. It would not be unusual for some missionaries to use this opportunity; it has been done in other parts of the country and there have been protests, and people have even been killed for it.

Rev Khanna had stated:

“The Kashmiri youths were coming to the Church since past one year. They wanted to participate in the Holy Communion like rest of the Christians. I explained they are not allowed to do without undergoing water baptism. They insisted me to baptise them. I am a priest and I cannot deny them this right. Someone later recorded the baptism ritual through a mobile and published it on the YouTube. This was done with a provocative intention to create religious violence.”

If such conversions happen willingly and the pastor has been with the church for seven years, then in a state that is already riddled with violence why would there be a need for such provocation? Had these people been planted? Why did it take them one year to participate in the Holy Communion?

The head of the Amritsar Diocese, Bishop PK Samantaroy, said:

“The law and order situation can change any time in the Valley. The Sharia Court has no locus standi practically, but they are the ones who rule. We have to be very careful. The issue has also put at risk the lives of other local Christians in the state.”

This is an alarmist comment. What other verdicts have been pronounced by these courts? Why make it seem as though they are mandated by the State government or even many separatist outfits? They are not. So, why did the bishop appear before Mufti Mohammed Bashiruddin of the Sharia court that has no locus standi? Why did he and the church authorities not approach the government before things got out of hand? Is the government acting at the behest of the Mufti or to circumvent the situation?

Javed Anand, in his Indian Express piece that begins with the sentence “Eating your cake and having it too may be a tempting thought,” asks, “What’s Islamic law and a sharia court doing in a secular democratic polity?”

Let us jog Mr. Anand’s memory. He was an agreeable party to a fatwa, even if it was ‘secular’, that made a huge song and dance about fighting terrorism. Here is the snapshot:

“Mehmood Asad Madni, the Jamiatul-ulema-e-Hind’s general secretary and prime mover behind the ongoing nationwide campaign against terrorism thought it fit to engage with Javed Anand general secretary MSD (Muslims for Secular Democracy) and his friend and communications expert Alyque Padamsee in strategizing for the May 31 rally of the Jamiat in New Delhi. The New Delhi-based Maulana Madni made three trips to Mumbai in early May where, together with Alyque Padamsee and Javed Anand, the key elements of the proposed rally were finalized: an unambiguous Fatwa from Deoband, an ‘Oath of Allegiance’ to be taken at the rally, the only two slogans to be used on all placards and banners, design of the stage backdrop, the key points of Maulana Madni’s own speech.”

Why was a religious body involved in what is a law-and-order and social issue? Since it came from an organisation, Mr. Anand was quoted as saying, “In the theological universe, it is the equivalent of a verdict of a full constitutional bench of a Supreme Court.”

So, why was this theological world involved then and why can it not be involved now? Only because it suits a certain kind of limited secular perspective in a state that is not viewed as ‘cosmopolitan’?

Since J&K does not have a law against conversions, Rev. Khanna has been charged under different sections. From Mr. Anand’s column:

“Section 153A pertains to ‘promoting enmity between different groups... and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.’ Section 295A has to do with ‘deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Why should conversion of a few Muslims to Christianity be deemed a malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings? Why should it be tantamount to promoting enmity between different groups? These might be questions for you and me. But Omar Abdullah and his police may well be wondering whether the FIR and the arrest are enough to douse the flames.”

Protesting more than conversions

In a tinderbox environment, everything hurts religious sentiments. If we are concerned about secularism then he should be happy that instead of the mullahs, the state has acted. Having said this, it becomes imperative for the government to ensure that due legal process is followed. The Kashmir Bar Association has refused to represent the pastor, but there are lawyers from outside who are willing to do so. Omar Abdulla should step in and see to it that the State he heads does not fall prey to other sorts of outside elements.

Besides the screeching mullahs and the angry Christians, there are also the liberals who will use Islam when it suits them. It is unfortunate that Javed Anand has quoted some anonymous punks from websites to justify his theory: 

“The responses to the video clip have apparently been venomous. ‘We promise to kill all Christian missionaries and burn their buildings, schools and churches!’ pronounces one commenter, while another proclaims, ‘we should burn this priest to death!’ Echoes of Pakistan’s obnoxious blasphemy laws?”

This is so mischievous. Does he know that our very own Vishwa Hindu Parishad has jumped in to protest the killing of three Hindus in the Sindh province of Pakistan? Here is what VHP president Ramakant Dubey said: 

“We demand protection of minority Hindus in Pakistan where they have been subjected to repeated attacks. Human rights organisations across the world and the Indian government should seek an explanation from the Pakistan premier about the repeated killings, massacres and conversions of minority Hindus.”

A rightwing Hindu organisation in India can interfere not only in Pakistan’s internal matter – however despicable the crime – but also applaud the US for raising the issue. If anyone from Pakistan even mentions the plight of Indian Muslims, the whole community is branded jihadi or accused of owing allegiance across the border.

It is, therefore, a dangerous argument that what people are saying on social networking sites works as law, whereas when a legitimate law is used it is questioned. This is double standard, too. One does not expect the Ummah to stay quiet, just as the Christian organisations are planning their own counter-protests. Incidentally, the ummah is not a universal body that can work on remote. Jammu and Kashmir does not have any blasphemy laws. If anything, more Muslims are arrested and killed in prisons there.

The sophistry of quoting nice little verses from the Quran does not work in a democratic polity, does it? Besides, it does not alter the soft belligerence of vocational secularists.

(c) Farzana Versey

- - -

Here is the video: 

Benetton's 'Friendly' Lip-service

How can you ‘unhate’? Is it like undress or undo? Benetton is known for its use of stereotypes to display its supposed egalitarian stance. Where money speaks who would anyway care about colour or race? The new campaign has images of people in positions of power, supposedly belonging to different ideologies, getting close and comfortable in a liplock. How does a kiss solve problems?

If we take it literally too, lust does not necessarily overcome hate. It could well result in more hate if it is embedded, for together with that emotion will be the added baggage of guilt: I slept with the enemy. People are also known to wreak vengeance through the sexual route. If we do not wish to get that far, then there is the image of social niceties. A ltitle peck, even on the lips, could be seen as a mere gesture, an acknowledgement of existence and being part of the herd. There is a good deal of it at gatherings, besides the overdose of socialite don’t-mess-my-makeup air-kissing.

The fact that Benetton desisted from using images of the Indian and Pakistani leaders due to cultural sensibilities reveals that it is steeped in these archetypes. There could have been a backlash, but it would not be so much about cultural sensibilities as it would for diplomatic reasons To force-feed friendship for commercial gains is pretty disgusting, especially if you know precious little about how the particular governments wish to deal with each other.

As I said, where money talks, the company need bother about bringing ideologies together. Major American companies have outsourced their technological marvels to China, where the workers are paid a pittance and labour in terrible conditions. So where does free enterprise and Communism clash here? One feeds the other.

The same goes for religious figures. The sheer muscle power of these organisations put them at an advantage. They have millions of people who will follow them for no reason other than that they are seen as emissaries of some god. They have not been able to control any undesirable activities within the fold or even within the hallowed precincts from where they operate. And chances of them being quite willing to put up Benetton’s rainbow-coloured banners to promote peace and sell a few threads are not quite as remote as it might seem. There has been sharp reaction from the Catholic Church and the company has decided to remove the Pope’s image with the Egyptian Imam.

Bringing the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in a digital photo-snogg is unlikely to solve the political issue; if anything the images draw attention to the differences.

So, let’s just not play this social consciousness banner game which follows the slapstick prototype rather than anything remotely sensitive to bonhomie. Get the slumboys and girls who work hours to make it happen. No, wait. That too might end up as slcik marketing gimmick. Nothing is left untouched. They’ll dig the muddiest places if there is promise of gold.

Let’s just continue to ‘hate’ without having to dress in ‘unhate’.

- - -

Note: I have used the images because the company cannot titillate and then choose to selectively censor. Besides, the more important issue is not of the photograph but the larger picture of why the need. 

- - -

Update: The Vatican has objected:

Press secretary Father Federico Lombardi said:

"We cannot but express a resolute protest at the entirely unacceptable use of a manipulated image of the Holy Father, used as part of a publicity campaign which has commercial ends. 

"The secretariat of state has authorised its lawyers to initiate actions, in Italy and elsewhere, to prevent the circulation, via the mass media and in other ways, of a photomontage used in a Benetton advertising campaign in which the Holy Father appears in a way considered to be harmful, not only to the dignity of the pope and the Catholic church, but also to the sensibility of believers."

While the al-Azhar mosque did denounce it, the Imam was not quoted.

The company immediately started tearing down the posters. Now, had the objection been raised by the Imam or his emissaries, it would have mmediately been branded as an over-reaction and muzzling of freedom of speech.

- - -

On quite another matter, and a bit on the light side of heavy....

Is Barack's Butting Again?

“I want women to be liberated and still be able to have a nice ass and shake it”

- Shirley MacLaine

But, do we want men to watch? President Barack Obama sure likes to stand behind women. Here he is with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Canberra on November 16:

Two years ago, his hindsight was evident when he looked back at a Brazilian girl under the watchful eyes of Nicholas Sarkozy (not in this picture):

Of course, there was a debate then about the 'lying' pictures. Of course, they can lie. But I am curious why other heads of state, friskier than Obama, have not been so captured.

The Republic of Ramdev

‘Midnight drama’, ‘Midnight drama’ kept flashing on the screen. Since I had not kept up with the news at midnight, I had no clue. Why do the channels not specify what the drama is? Because that takes away from the TRPs.


The news:

At 1 am, the police landed at the Ramlila ground and took Baba Ramdev to his ashram in Hardwar. Delhi Police served an externment order under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prevents unlawful assembly of five or more persons. The process of doing so resulted in stone throwing, destruction of props and injuries. Should we be surprised? Not at what happened but how it happened and why. My parodic take now seems tragic.

Meanwhile, the Baba is going on and on in a choked voice talking about how the poor, the women and children were dragged and arrested. He is to blame for it. There is no scope for BJP-like self-righteousness here. He bloody well knew what he was doing and when his sly plan to stop the fast after three days was leaked out, he got agitated.One should hope he now realises how it must feel for those who are rounded up and imprisoned for years without a trial for no crime except being 'suspects'.

We are hearing words like ‘blot on democracy’ from the BJP and how he has every right to protest. It is not the BJP’s business to raise a voice now unless they had sponsored this rally. He is a sadhu and this is not a theocracy. No religious figure has a right to protest in a public place on what is a state issue, and that includes Swami Agnivesh and all those mullahs coming out with black bands and white flags or whatever else.

We are playing into the hands of a virulent form of citizen’s movement. None of these people can claim to speak on behalf of the Indian population, not Anna Hazare, not Baba Ramdev. If they wish to, then they should start their own political party and contest elections. That is what democracy is about.

The so-called midnight drama has been likened to the Emergency, which is a most facile analogy.


Here are a few of the characters and their stupidity.


Kapil Sibal, HRD minister, Congress:

“A guru who teaches yoga should not teach politics to his followers of 50,000 people at the site. The permission was for yoga exercises, but he violated it.” 

Why was he walking behind the Baba when he landed at the airport? Was he discussing yoga?

Everybody knew what was going to happen there, so why was it not stopped before it got out of hand? This is a ridiculous argument and Sibal should apologise to the Indian public for misleading us. This is double crossing.

A report says:

An official in the government said that the permission to hold the protest at the site was given for a day and Ramdev and his followers had exceeded it. But the police action has led to a wave of anger among political parties who are now calling for the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to resign.

He has been giving interviews about how he would not end until his demands are met. Manmohan Singh should not resign because it is his job to put things in order. Resigning would be the easy way out. Are we discussing corruption or politics?


Nitin Gadkari, president, Bharatiya Janata Party:

“This government has no moral authority to rule anymore. This government should resign. They let the corrupt go, but beat up people who are conducting peaceful protest.”

How many corrupt people were arrested during the NDA regime? I am not talking only about scams. Corruption is a way of life in India, and it also sponsors movements against corruption. Newspapers bring out duds to show losses and also get additional newsprint; TV channels do something similar. So, what high horse are we sitting on?

Such peaceful protests are pre-planned and arranged by other factions. It happens even within the Congress. All political parties do this and the ordinary people who gather are no different from those who are brought in trucks to vote. If the cops used teargas shells and beat up people, then they should be hauled up and questioned. From what one has read, some people got violent. It is bound to happen when there is such a large gathering. It is also likely that together with the cops there must have been some goons on the ground who caused part of the damage.

There seems to be no stopping BJP spokesperson Arun Jaitley who is supporting the right to protest. In that case, the Kashmiris have a right to protest, the Maoists have a right to protest, riot victims have a right to protest. The problem with a democracy such as ours is that not a single political party is concerned about the rights of the people. Baba Ramdev does not have to be given any assurances by the Government of India. The Indian government is answerable to the citizens, not to individuals, unless they have specific problems or certain groups that represent sections of society.

Using the shield of corruption, these movements are tacitly supporting the rightwing parties. Why were they asleep for all these years? Will Baba Ramdev go and park himself outside the mansions of the big guys who pay big bribes to get their deals? Does he have the courage to perform yoga there? Guess what? He just might because the big guys will pay him to come and teach them and their wives and their kids and those society men and women with their arm candies dressed in comfy designer labels to get their taut bodies in the right asanas.

This is a sick game. People like Digvijay Singh of the Congress just make things worse by calling Ramdev a “thug”. Jaitley is really hot and bothered about “this kind of language”. There was no need to call him a thug; he is a shrewd businessman selling his saintliness. However, the BJP should not be too worried about language. Its politicians are not known to use temperate words – recall Modi on Sonia Gandhi, Thackeray on Sonia and Rahul, Varun Gandhi on Muslims, Uma Bharti on just about everyone. Calling him names transforms him into a hero and martyr and he is making full use of it on live television. Yes, he is live, in white robes like a newly widowed woman.

And I do not like anyone, including the media, talking about Sadhvi Rithambara's presence by mentioning her role in the Babri Masjid demolition; she was not alone. Do not ride on this and cunningly convey that they are against her because of it. It gives the impression that Ramdev’s arrest has something do with Muslim votes. Wait a minute. He had some Sufi belting out songs at his camp.

One cannot wish away corruption even with the Lokpal Bill. The manner in which it is being done is also corrupt because they are greasing the government’s palm with vile methods.

Baba Ramdev to his followers after his externment (not arrest):

“Today is the blackest day in history. We will observe black day all over India. The fast is not over."

Your history, Baba Ramdev, has nothing to do with Indian history. Keep your followers, for that is the only way you can be a leader. Ask them to register a case against the government. Get the BJP to be a co-respondent because they had supported Anna Hazare’s fast. You can continue fasting.

Most of India does. Everyday. Not out of choice. Or to protest.

- - -

Updated on new post

Deos and Deities

Who’d have thought that the government move against deodorant ads would get a saffron person to state:

“I guess these guidelines do not apply when it comes to painting Hindu gods and goddesses in nude and/or erotic positions."

Well, that was what my Inbox had and it is something that keeps coming up in discussions too. 


My reply in full:

Dear X ji:

I do not believe these ads have much of an impact, but am I to assume you have no problems with such ads? Does the Shiv Sena not routinely tear up posters on hoardings that it finds objectionable? What about protests during Valentine’s Day? Most religious groups inflict such morality on people without even taking recourse to the legal process.

The analogy of paintings of Hindu deities naked or in certain positions is not quite the same. These depictions are there in temples and ancient art. Most of contemporary art does not demean the figures. And let us not forget that guidelines or no guidelines the people behind such paintings do bear the brunt. In our country we have a very strong unofficial system of policing. Sadly, it does not come out when the country is in real danger.

I can only guess that your next query or thought would be, ah, and what do Muslims do when there is a cartoon drawn about their Prophet? As a non-practising person with some basic knowledge, I think it has to do with non-idolatory. Islam has no visible images at all; we do not know what the Prophet looks like. So, like most vain people we’d want a more Christ-like or even Santa-like image rather than some skewed Aladdin. It has to do with aesthetics.

Now, you may well ask, what would a mullah whose face is covered with a bush know about aesthetics? And what is aesthetic about shouting slogans and doing other undesirable things?

Claudia and calligraphy

I agree, but in this respect all religious proponents have the same degree of enthusiasm. Recently an Australian swimwear company had images of Goddess Lakshmi; some years ago model Claudia Schiffer walked down the ramp wearing a dress with Islamic calligraphy drawn on the top; pop star Madonna used Sanskrit shlokas in some songs, someone else belts out some exclamatory lines from the Quran; there have been occasions when even Buddhists have been hurt because some wine was called Maya. There have been objections and protests.

The protestors showing what they do not want shown!

I think the oft-quoted bit from the Bhagwad Gita can be applied across the board:


Karmani ave adhikars te
ma phalesu kadachana
ma karmaphal hetur bhoo
ma sangostu akramani

“Thou hast power only to act not over the result thereof. Act thou therefore without prospect of the result and without succcumbing to inaction.”

Everyone acts the way they deem fit for fear of inaction.

Regards,
~F

PS: Sorry about the long rant but traditionally the majority has appeased the minority so I assume some indulgence! (Please take this in the right light spirit.)

- Note ends -

I did not copy the pictures in the email, though.My views on the deo ads have already been expressed here

The Brotherhood of Hindu-Muslim Clerics

The maulvi says TV is haram. The sadhu says gambling is immoral.

Baba Ramdev and Maulana Madani

Under the skin they are the same, so what tells the mullah apart from the swami? Nothing. If we ignore the outside perception, then it is quite another matter. There is bound to be an Us vs. Them battle for the worse agent of regression. The mullahs win because the way they dress is pretty much how many traditional Muslims dress. The sadhu’s robes are restricted to the ashram community or the occasional flash of saffron donned by political leaders of a religious stripe.

Two recent reports have brought the underlying similarities to light and in fact raises questions about how religion is viewed by those responsible for propagating it. It is interesting that they seem clueless and appear to be more interested in playing god themselves. The media, predictably, plays to the gallery and especially in the case of Muslims tries desperately to get the moderate or liberal faces, though one is not quite certain about the distinction between the moderate and the liberal in this context. It is assumed that the Muslim community is held hostage by the utterings of a handful of mullahs and consolidates such a viewpoint. Curiously, they use other religious figures or scholars of Islam as the voices of reason, quite forgetting that the large populace has no such scholarly knowledge or interest and faith is just one more way to express their beliefs and identities.

This does not suit the Indian media, so you have a screaming headline: ‘TV and cinema are SATAN’S TOOLS’. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind (JUH) chief Mahmood Madani has declared:

“Watching television and cinema are haram. They are the tools of Satan and must be buried as soon as possible.”

This debate has been going on for years. and Madani is right that only such sensational pronouncements are reported. Education and employment reservations may lend themselves to panel discussions, but not quick news stories. The anti-polio stand has fewer takers than the anti-condom stand.

A moot point here is that rarely is there a poser regarding how these maulvis themselves appear on television to promote their version of religion or indulge in political discussions. If television is haram, then what are they doing before the cameras? Why are they using the internet to advise believers about everything from sexuality to health issues?

Maulana Madani on TV

Will the media have the courage to ban these religious authorities and then let us see how their views are made available? It is a mutually-beneficial game they both play, and it reached its absolute nadir when they had the audacity to conduct a kangaroo court on TV in the Gudiya case, where clerics debated about a young woman’s marital fate. How different is it from fatwas and underworld diktats or even regional politicians holding court and dispensing justice?

The progressive mullahs, usually the likes of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, state, “By asking Muslims to boycott television and films, they are Islamising non-Islamic issues.” He goes on to answer his own query: “How many Muslims will listen to them and switch off their television sets?” Precisely. However, what exactly are non-Islamic issues? Islam or any other religion can be applied to any field or behaviour, if the believers want it to be so. There is no reason to drag in Islam at all simply because by doing so such scholars make these issues haram, for to the faithful anything ‘non-Islamic’ will be unacceptable.


Blind devotees do not look at history. They might not even exercise their minds to realise that during the time of the Prophet there were no electronic gadgets. Unfortunately, it is the modern inventions that are projecting regressive views and are responsible for the creation of a standard scapegoat fanatic, when there is fanaticism in every sphere. What does a political scientist mean when he says, “Conservatism is only a step behind fanaticism”? Does fanaticism not base its fervour on the foundation of conservativism? How many liberals are deemed fanatical?

Entertainment is taboo in many societies, yet most of them skirt it by using music and even dance to sing praises of god. The number of shrines that have such performances is evidence of it. The camera-friendly staff members at such mausoleums are ready to entertain celebrities.

The discourse on Islam also ignores the fact that the idea of Satan is not in opposition to god, but to angels. Satan is a flitting character, which is why he has to be hit by stones in a symbolic ritual at Mecca. To grant Satan the ability and right to influence the gullible is itself wrong.


The Biblical connotation is a curious intrusion. It seems to have entered the Hinduism discourse, too. Is there a concept of the seven deadly sins in the religion? It is not even part of pure Christianity and is referred to only in Matthew’s Gospel. But a code of conduct has been promulgated for the priests in Karnataka to stay away from such sins. It states:

“Archakas (priests), who give prasada and teertha to devotees, should be above board. They should be free from sapta vyasanas (seven sins) so as to maintain the sanctity of the profession. We are also bringing in an amendment saying that priests should know vedic mantras or shlokas related to rituals of temples where they work, without which they can be disqualified.”

They must also not indulge in gambling, smoking, immoral sex and cannot take the money deposited in the hundis, which will go to the temple account. Why are these not seen as regular laws by the Temple Boards rather than sins? There have been instances where priests have indulged in some or all of these acts, but they usually operate from their own or smaller ashrams. One of the clauses in the amendment is rather surprising – priests should be free from virulent or contagious diseases. How can they lose their jobs over this? They may not perform certain rituals that might affect the gathering, but they are not to blame.


One might ask how it is possible to extricate morality from religion when the former is based on the belief system. This is largely true. However, the concept of sinning also has the convenient proviso of penance, so religious authorities might sin and find an exit through penance. This luxury is not as easily granted to the ordinary person, who often has to use dubious middle-men to cleanse themselves. Swami Nityanand is a case in point. Despite the videos where he was captured in compromising positions with his female devotees, he had audaciously organised a havan to purge himself.

Mata, Vidya and the cellphone

The sins also reveal that the activities mentioned are indulged in and this is across religions. Do the priests indulge in them due to lack of entertainment or because of their exposure to it? Access to the world and to religion itself has become dependent on such means. Why do pirs and sadhus advertise their ‘wares’? Why do they conduct nikaahs or hold pujas over the internet? Are they not aware that other ‘immoral’ websites are just a click away? If technology is haram or exploits religion, then before preaching to the public, the clerics should take the first step and refuse to use it. There was this photograph of actress Vidya Balan with Mata Amritanandmayi who is apparently blessing someone on her cellphone in a Page 3 moment. Aren’t these instances of commercialisation of religion where every scripture-reading session by some ‘devi’ or ‘maulvi’ is a sponsored event and the happening crowd that has suddenly discovered their roots gets into designer stupor?

The media will not highlight these, at least not to expose the farce. It needs the fanatics and it needs the liberals and they have to be on two sides fencing. This is prime-time faith, where even invoking of god’s name is TRP-driven.

(c) Farzana Versey

Indo-Pak Pieces and Bits

I find the phrase “diplomatic offensive” rather amusing. So, one such offensive took place yesterday when Pakistani singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan was not arrested despite being caught with $142,000. He was not being harassed; this is customary procedure. I know there are people who will shoot back about transactions worth crores that get past. They do but they must not. It is as simple as that.

It is appalling that a report in the TOI can flaunt how he could get away with this:

The decision not to arrest the singer was influenced by the fresh peace process between India and Pakistan that started only a week ago.

At risk would be the PM’s latest effort to mend fences with Pakistan, because Rahat is not only a popular Bollywood singer, in many ways, he is also the voice of all attempts to foster India-Pakistan peace.

Great. It follows that we should not probe into other issues – whether it is Hafeez Saeed or Dawood Ibrahim – because we are talking peace. There was diplomatic pressure from Pakistan and there would be because he was a celebrity. The same prompt action is not taken when fishermen are caught only because of the tides that push them into each other’s territories.


And how does he become the voice of peace? We have had people like Mehdi Hassan and Reshma years ago, but there was no attempt to project this ‘aman ki asha’ commercial enterprise. Let us not say there was no need. Our relations with Pakistan have always been strained. If he is a Pakistani icon then I wish he’d get more singing assignments there. He is a marvellous singer, but it isn’t that we don’t have any of our own. I have repeatedly said that the import of performers is limited to the safe bets and those who will increase the TRPs. There is not sufficient reciprocity, though.

Regarding the practical issue, why was he carrying this much foreign currency? It is common practice for performers, Indians included, to be paid in cash, though they do show a percentage of their earnings on paper. Therefore, this is ridiculous:

Documents revealed that Khan sang in Hindi films for free as “a goodwill gesture”. However, DRI officials don’t buy it and suspect that the singer was paid Rs 15 lakh per song through a different manner, which they are investigating.

We have had cases of high-profile Indians who have been detained. There was the wife of an industrialist who was carrying undeclared jewellery; she had to put up with the investigations although she was known to wear a lot of these baubles.


More recently, the Income Tax raided the houses of Priyanka Chopra and Katrina Kaif. They are famous and ‘icons’, for whatever it is worth. I am quite certain they could and probably did use their contacts to hurry up the matter, but did the government put pressure?

The media is making it out to be a case of Indo-Pak relations and mentioning the cases of Adnan Sami and comedian Shakeel who was sent threatening messages by Raj Thackeray’s MNS. We know that this party threatens and roughs up Indians from other states as well. As for Adnan Sami, his property was attached because his wife has filed a suit against him.

Why does not anyone talk about peace initiative in this case?

- - -


Salman Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri has been indicted, but on Valentine’s day students and other fans sent him roses.

Now, wasn’t he supposed to be a hardcore Islamist and doing his bit for the religion? Then why are the clerics not flogging his supporters? Some Maulvi Ibrahim had threatened to flog anyone who was spotted selling or buying red roses. He said:

“Islam condemns Valentine’s Day and boys presenting flowers to young girls is vulgar and goes against the norms of Islam.”

If Islam follows the sharia, is there any hadith that actually mentions Valentine’s Day? Who is this man kidding? Is there mention of flowers, roses or lilies or even cacti, mentioned in any religious scripture of Islam and their role in corrupting morals? What is so vulgar about it?

Anyway, this is some mullah who has nothing better to do. He should be sent off to Syria, a nice Muslim country, where women wear the most enticing lingerie that have feathers and flowers. Some of these are gifts from their husbands.

Which makes me wonder: Is it okay in Islam if a man gives his spouse roses on V day? Or will he have to consult a maulvi about this impious act? And does placing flowers on graves of persons of the opposite sex also go against culture? Just asking…

- - -


In India the Darul Uloom Deoband has come up with its latest fatwa:

“If a holy Muslim doctor advises that a woman is unable to bear birth pangs, then a less than three months old pregnancy can be terminated but if it is more than three months old, the abortion is absolutely unlawful.”

Medical practitioners already know that it is inadvisable to terminate a pregnancy later than three months. But how will this holy Muslim doctor know whether a woman can bear birth pangs six months in advance? Is he that holy? I assume this doctor is a male, so is it okay by the Deoband that a woman would be examined by him? Or will he only check her pulse and get a brainwave?

I think these guys should just take their business on the roads and get parrots to pick out cards to give ‘advice’.

- - -


A man has been granted divorce due to mental cruelty. No, his wife was not tormenting him to perform well or nagging him or asking him for roses everyday. She just wore revealing clothes.

The courts thought he had a point:

Cruelty includes not only physical but mental cruelty as well. Ostensibly, she (wife) has indulged in bloating falsehood beyond proportions, additional district judge Manmohan Sharma ruled, accepting the husbands plea that he suffered mental agony as his wife regularly wore vulgar dresses. The court allowed the divorce plea saying mere living under one roof without the necessary ingredients of love and faith, which are the hallmark of a fruitful matrimonial relationship, is nothing but animal existence. The man contended that his wife wore vulgar clothes during their honeymoon. She dressed herself in a very vulgar manner and asked to change she retorted that she wanted to be noticed by at least 50 people.

Fine, it is possible for a man to feel disturbed and insecure. But there are instances when men like the idea of their wives being noticed. It is a huge ego boost. In this case, did she love him less? Did he lose interest in her? Was she unfaithful?

Let us flip this: If he wore lungis or tight-fitting jeans, would the court accept a divorce plea from her on grounds of mental cruelty?

These are indeed personal choices and the partners need to have some understanding, but it is unfair to undermine individuality. Men get attracted to women who are all sexed up but once they get married those very clothes, that foxy look and aggro attitude become a problem.

Stick to inflatable dolls. I think there is nothing in any religion's scriptures against this.

Veena Malik represents freedom of expression?

Last night we got to see Pakistan’s best and worst on TV. There was ghazal maestro Ghulam Ali on the grand finale of the music show Sa Re Ga Ma Pa and then there was Veena Malik, the has-been wannabe – yes, she seems to be a veteran of wannabe-ing – who even in her moment out of Bigg Boss kissed the mirror she was gifted. There was a second’s poignant flash when she spoke about being tanha (lonely), but that is a personal aspect that one may or may not identify with. It isn’t even narcissism.

She IS black and white

 It is rather sad that only because some mullahs are baying for her blood due to her clothes and ‘open’ behaviour she has become a symbol for freedom of speech and an opportunity to take on the moral brigade. “This is not too dissimilar to the public floggings of the Taliban variety,” said one commentator. Really? Those women do not have a choice regarding what they wear and what they say. In Pakistan Veena would be doing precisely what she is doing now – and she has admitted so herself – and no one would notice.

I am afraid if some Pakistanis think this is the modern version of their country that they wish to hawk to India, whose film industry incidentally is being dissed for “commodification”, then they’d please prop her up in the salons of Karachi and Lahore. She has just declared that she will return despite the threats. So give her a hero’s welcome. I mean, do we want to hear stuff like she “has dared to participate in the famous and brainless Indian reality TV show”? She was considered powder-puff before she came on this show; all the newspapers had relegated her to the gossip genre on which she was feeding. Her appetite for this had been detailed in their media, and that was before the mullahs reared their beards.

In India she would be on par with any item girl performing in some small town on New Year’s Eve. Her attempts at being anglicised and modern were laughable, especially her language skills. She would try out PTV Urdu when it suited her and then shout out in English with a Multan-Manhattan accent. And just what was it about calling that other has-been ‘Ash-mit’. Since I started watching the show a few weeks after its debut, I had initially thought it was some inside joke, but when the host Salman Khan corrected her a few times, I knew this is how she pronounced it. Why is it so difficult for a Pakistani to say Ashmit? Does she refer to, say, an Ashfaque as ‘Ash-fack’? Does she say ‘ash-aar’ for ashaar (couplets)? Her local roots came through glaringly when she’d call Shweta ‘Shivaeta’.

If Pakistanis think that what we have is a “Bollywood circus”, then the likes of Veena Malik may only manage to be molls of the clowns. Anyone remember Meera?

It is understandable that she wants to grab eyeballs, and who does not on that show and in showbiz? But, I wish Pakistanis would realise that making such people into a cause to uphold demeans the women who wear what she does and are bold and brazen and go out and work. And, no, I am not making noises about the Hudood Ordinance here. Please, that is a separate and important issue. Clubbing it all with this drama-daasi (slave) - she has miles to go to become a drama queen - only reveals that otherwise sensible people too are getting so affected by this ‘failed state’ business that they’d latch on to anything that looks unIslamic. Guess what? She thinks she is answerable only to Allah!

And like that bikini contest winner, she too might talk about nationalism and taking a message of Indo-Pak peace. Thanks, but no thanks. We have our own mirrors and our own filthy ponds and our own pebble pelters. Where ripples are concerned, and much else, we are pretty self-sufficient.

Rishtey mein Lord Ram hamare baap lagte hain?

It is lecture time. “The interest of ordinary Muslims in new India lies in embracing modernity,” says Minhaz Merchant. The headline of the editorial page piece in The Times of India is ‘Educate, Don’t Appease’. It assumes, therefore, that only the uneducated are appeased and the white knights like Mr. Merchant are not.

I will tell you how they are. In his own precious words:

As a group of visiting senior Muslim clergy from Ayodhya, with wisdom born of great learning, said recently to Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati, the highly respected Shankaracharya of Dwarka: “Even though our religions are different, we share the blood of the Hindus.” The Shankaracharya replied gently: “That makes our Lord Ram your ancestor as well.”

Very well, we are family and all. Then, rishtey mein Babar is also daddy dearest to Hindus, no? And most certainly Emperor Akbar? After all, he was married to Jodha bai and used to rock the cradle with Krishna’s idol, at least that is what they showed in Mughal-e-azam. So, if you want to play ball, then you have to be on the same court. You can’t just lob it up in the air.

The author goes on to state:

This is not just about genealogy – it reflects India’s embedded religious diversity.

Sure. The TOI used this picture with the headline, ‘Reinforce the tolerance that unifies’.

Tolerance has to be mutual, even though I dislike the word tolerance. You cannot have one idea of god and a stereotype of another religion paying obeisance to that god and call it diversity.


I had written about just such a narrow vision in the article Mainstream Terror:

It is interesting that while the urban elite has taken over religious celebrations and consumerised it, they use the ‘backward’ idea to drive home the point of India’s colourfulness. It almost seems like they are sitting away and cheering at a spectator sport.

My real issue, though, is how the Muslim clergy and the shankaracharyas are considered the only wise folks around worth quoting. Does the author not talk about modernity? Then why is he appeasing religious heads?

Grow up and get your priorities right. It is shameless and insensitive that this piece was written as a prelude to the December 6 Babri Masjid demolition’s 18th anniversary. Was that appeasement or modernity?

Jamaatis vs. Peroxide Blondes

Not a huge fan of a ‘balanced picture’ nor of teetering on the side of achingly forced ‘logic’, quite by default I have ended up rubbing the jamaati proponents and the peroxide blonde supporters the wrong way. This would make me balanced.

I don’t see it this way. There are areas that need to be explored beyond what is available to us.

Reproduced here is an excerpt from a letter…I have withheld certain details for the individual may not wish to make known his profession or location and has not posted at the website:

I am referring your article Untouchable Aafia

It is excellent. But I am surprised about your comment ‘The Jamaatis who would want their women in purdah and left uneducated, barefoot, pregnant and most certainly not in the lab’, I don’t know is it because of ignorance or bias?

We worked in a flood relief mission of a Jamaat e Islami affiliated body. It has a women wing as well with well educated medical professionals including Medical College professors. They work in flood affected areas where secular NGOs are largely absent.

We are surprised to see their professionalism as well as commitment. Their affiliated bodies have opened large number of girls schools in rural areas.

I am a keen observer of Pakistani English press. Unfortunately large number of its columnist write to satisfy their ego rather than deal with facts. They talk to themselves and their colleagues. I see a difference in your writing, but partially.

May be you are ignorant of what really Jamaatis are.

I cannot claim expert knowledge and I am aware of their work during the earthquake and floods, but where an individual case is concerned I am wary about religious groups getting into the picture and furthering a stereotype, however faulty it be. Why religious, I would say the same about certain vested interest activist groups.

I have already mentioned in my reply to Yvonne Ridley at the site my intention:

As one who has written about the Jamia Hafsa women as legitimate protestors, I would not tar any organisation with one brush. It is important for me to reiterate that I was positing two extreme stereotypes to drive home a point.

You are right about the ‘peroxide blondes’ earlier enthusiasm; Aafia is their discomfort zone right now. I am afraid that the half-hearted liberal support is full of ‘ifs and buts’. The JI may be in the forefront, but as I stated, I think they will force or be pinned to the Islamophobia tag, which helps no one.

This brings us to the completely weird support of the peroxide blondes. I wish there was some understanding of the deliberate ‘characterisation’ I was indulging in.

Here is one example posted at the site:

These peroxide blondes (your disgust and bias is obvious) have just come off the movement of restoring of judiciary expressing on everyone of us to respect judiciary. How can they now go against it and tell us not to respect decision of judiciary? You expect double standard from them? Damned if they do damned if they don’t.

Wow! Forget my bias, this is precious. They restored the judiciary? And what is the chief justice’s standing as of now? What is the Pakistani judicial system doing, really? And these people are going to sit and respect a decision when they are not one bit affected and we are expected to see them as holding a stable stand on the matter? Please. This is sheer bunkum. Respecting the judiciary does not mean blindly accepting any and every verdict, but understanding that the victim has recourse to legal aid and justice.

The onus is not on the victim to prove she is innocent but on the courts to prove she is guilty. And guilty in clear terms of the guilt and not the possibility of guilt. That is what courts are for. And then these people want facts of innocence.

Someone even wants to know why I wrote in Aafia’s favour despite knowing about her guilt. Did I? Where did I state it? Of course, the person has an analysis, and it makes for some chuckles as to my motives for writing this column:

There could be two possible reasons. 1. to collect few extra claps from Mullahs and Mullies who are a obvious majority in Pakistan. 2. the usual infection the Muslims are prone to; the rediscovery. In males the symptoms are instant growth of beard and in females, the sudden or gradual disappearance of a woman beneath the burqa.

I am discarding the second possibility as I don’t see your fresh photograph wrapped in scarf with this article. If the first reason is true then that would be outrageous. As you are well aware of the fact that a few brave men and women in Pakistan are busy waging war against loony mullahs and their wretched self exploding followers.

You may call these brave people peroxide blonds, but they are the only hope left for Pakistan. They are the ones who are fighting to keep the sanity alive in the land of the nuts. It take a lot of courage to challenge herds of lunatics while living amidst them. Even people of great stature such as Mr. Kamran Shafi are not spared.

Instead of extending a moral support, you ended up handing over more ammo to the Jihadis by writing this foolish article.

Since the Jamaatis have questioned me, the first option too is out. What I find amusing is that many of these people have never been to Pakistan, do not know any real Pakistanis outside of the internet world and the media, and suddenly they see these neo-concerned women and their bravery captured on TV channels. They have no clue about the real work being done by real people – men and women – for years before these people tried to bring ‘sanity’. Their sanity is a specific limited version that helps them keep their lawns mowed and in fine fettle. They have not had to battle the government and its policies on the ground, they have not been hounded, and they are most certainly not the only hope. If they are the hope that the outside world sees, then it is much like the India Shining flag that flies full mast way above the poverty line, which is more than half our population.

Pakistan has its own problems and its hope lies among different sections of people doing different things. There are women in the villages, women in the NWFP. There cannot be one group taking over and being the media mouthpieces.

These people will take up a case only when it suits them at a given time. I don’t have the time or the inclination to extend them moral support. Especially, not anything moral, which really gets them to do a little gig because it imbues them with a halo.

Wah-wah, Ramji, Modi kya banaye

Ram Jethmalani certainly deserves the Rajya Sabha seat. The BJP is happy to acquiesce, at least one section that counts.

He is also making the right noises. About Ajmal Kasab’s death penalty, he disagrees, though:

"Let him rot in solitary consignment in Indian jail till his death so that he realises that what Mullas told him was wrong. This man was ill doctrinated by some Mullas that if he kills some innocent people in the neighbouring country, he will go to Paradise and he will also get the company of beautiful women there.”

This is sheer buffoonery. These are not your everyday mullahs; they hold training camps to kill and they use ideological bait. Women they can get anytime they want because they are powerful. A man of Mr. Jethmalani’s intellect should know that there is no need to mix religious issues here.

He is also exposing his ignorance. Nowhere does it state that you will go to Paradise by killing innocent people.

Reminds me of his quote way back in December 2000 in Rediff:

People who used Hindutva to get into positions of power are quite willing to abandon it when it suits their interests. Some shut it in a closet. Some use it depending on the audience. Some flaunt it when required.

He is showing those same signs. He contested against Vajpayee as an independent with Congress support. Now he is returning home but only if he gets that hot little seat in the RS.

Kasab comes in handy and a pat on the back from Narendra Modi helps.

Modi is a real number. Is it November 14? No. Is there anything happening on the children’s front? No. Was he attending a summer camp for underprivileged kids, you know the ones whose parents his boys did in? No.

Out of nowhere and with reference to nothing he asked:

“Has anyone shed a tear for these children who struggle to get a square meal a day when Children’s Day is celebrated? Nehru was said to be very fond of kids and his birthday has been christened as children’s day. Kids called him ‘chacha Nehru’ and it brought images of a benevolent Nehru flooding our minds. But what good has it done to the kids?”

What is his point? If he wants to rant against Nehru, then there are several other things he could have picked on, especially since he is into the development agenda. Why did he bring in kids? I do not know if Nehru really loved kids; he must have been fond enough of his daughter to ensure that she retained power within the family.

Now Modi may not wish to sire kids, but he can adopt a few at the refugee camps and come out smelling of roses.

Subjugating the Muslim Woman

Subjugating the Muslim Woman
by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, May 12

What is worse – the Dar-ul Uloom Deoband’s decree that a woman’s earnings are illegal because according to the Sharia her working among males is wrong or the Allahabad high court ruling that a non-Muslim bride must convert to Islam to marry a Muslim?

In both instances Islam is used to denigrate the position of women.

In the case of the edict, I fail to understand how it is being referred to as a fatwa by the media. This word is being abused in the most blatant manner. What the clerics of the Deoband seminary say is their point of view and they are often responding to specific queries by individuals. Their pronouncements and the questions asked are not universal statements or a general matter of concern or confusion among the Muslim populace.

Here is the Deoband version:

“It is unlawful (under the Sharia law) for Muslim women to work in government/private sectors where men and women work together and women have to talk with men frankly and without a veil.”

As happens often, newspapers have collected stray comments, and all from the religious perspective. Historical examples are a good foundation and place to start an argument, but they need not be used to deal with contemporary lifestyles and attitudes.

Why have the clerics woken up now? If they are supposed to be of any consequence and wish to be taken seriously, then must they wait for someone to raise a point? Don’t they see that thousands of women work and earn and help their families?

Have they not seen women beggars at traffic signals asking for money, displaying maimed children? There are Muslim women among them, too. If groups of Muslims keep talking about the real issue of economic backwardness, it is related to social backwardness that is forced upon them by these mullahs.

It is a tragedy that even where political issues are concerned women have to bear the brunt. Do the mullahs recall how they brought their women out with the same frankness they are against to reiterate their anti-terror position? Do the mullahs realise that everytime there is some backlash and they feel their religion is threatened it is the women who have to start observing the dress code, whether or not they themselves do as a mark of respect to their identity?

While there is no doubt some merit in making references to the Prophet’s liberalism and his wife Ayesha’s participation in the war, these are seen as special cases. For, in a monotheistic faith where the Prophet is held in complete reverence no one wants to emulate him or anyone from that period. They only wish to use their limited understanding of certain sayings in the Quran and either twist them or use them without any concern for the changing mores and requirements.

How many such edicts have been passed against men?

To be fair, there have been voices within the religious fraternity that have objected to this edict. These voices will be very few and not really stand out. It is the women who need to make themselves heard, both with their actions and their words.

The Dar-ul-Uloom is based in India and while the country does have provisions for personal laws, there is the Indian Constitution. If this gives us freedom to practise religion, then it will also intervene in criminal cases and any form of cruelty.

It is for this reason that the Allahabad court judgement goes against the principles of choice provided in the Constitution. The ruling states that matrimony between a non-Muslim woman and a Muslim man will be considered void as it goes against the tenets of the Quran.

This sort of blanket judgement bringing in religion can have disastrous consequences later. Sunita Jaiswal had filed a FIR against Dilbar Habib Siddiqui alleging that he had abducted her daughter Khushboo; she contended that she did not convert to Islam to buffer her case.

The court verdicts states:

“In our above conclusion we are fortified by the fact that in the affidavit and application filed by Khusboo herself subsequent to her alleged contract marriage, she has described herself as Khushboo and not by any Islamic name. As Khushboo, she could not have contracted marriage according to Muslim customs. In those referred documents she has addressed herself as Khushboo Jaiswal daughter of Rajesh Jaiswal.”

Therefore, her marriage is void, says the judgement.

One assumes that she was not abducted because she made the subsequent application. Therefore, unless she was forced, one cannot use that against Dilbar. While many people choose to use religion-specific names, some don’t. Khushboo is an Urdu word and could be a Muslim name. There have been several cases of celebrity nikaahs performed where the couples belong to different religions and opt to retain the cultural rituals of both sides of the family. It may not have religious sanction, but some qazis do conduct such nikaahs.

What if the couple got married under the Special Marriages Act and had it registered? No conversion or name change is required. I should hope the girl is not pressurised as this could well be a ruse to prevent a cross-religious alliance.

If the judge believes she is abducted, he should handle the case at that level as a criminal offence. There is no need to bring in religion and humiliate the young woman. This is just an invitation to divide people and bring in the religious heads to intervene in a personal matter. Incidentally, there was no reference to a non-Muslim male marrying a Muslim woman. The patriarchal mindset even of a secular judiciary believes that only the woman has to convert.

At this rate, the Deoband edict could well reach some high court in the country and we might have an Indian judge pronouncing that Muslim women in the work-place goes against the Sharia and therefore will be kept out of any professional role.

The state and religion are two entities and it is the business of both to protect all its citizens and members. Women are not lesser human beings and if we are expected to perform our duties, we are also in a position to demand our rights. And our rights include non-interference of the state and religion in matters of our well-being.

* * * End of article * * *

Updated on May 13 around 6.30 PM IST:

The role of the state and religion had come to the fore with regard to such religious edicts when P.Chidambaram applauded some maulvis on their stand against terrorism.

Here is an extract from my earlier piece The Farce of Fatwas:

Have the Jamiat or the Darul-uloom ever come to the forefront and fought for the dispossessed within the community? What has been the role of religious organisations during times of riots and such crises? Do they work with traumatised victims as human beings and not merely god’s soldiers? Give us the instance of a single head of such an organisation who is leading such proactive movements. They merely pontificate and pronounce edicts. The opinion of a handful of maulvis cannot be elevated to a diktat.

- - -

Updated on May 14, 5.25 PM IST:

Why does the TOI insist on using pictures such as these when talking about Muslim women in Mumbai? How many women dressed in this manner do you see even in the mohallas? They did it in the initial report and this one is in today's paper where the topic of discussion is the Urdu press opposing the fatwa. So, in effect, TOI is following in the footsteps of the Deoband. Why am I not surprised?

"Youre a hateful writer"

I do occasionally put up feedback received and my replies, if any, here. Many of them are those that disagree. This is not to say there have been no positive responses; it is just that these give a glimpse into a more varied mindset. Positive and negative are anyway relative terms.

The following did not deserve a personal response and came from someone trying to sound like an organisation.

On the fatwa piece

Youre a hateful writer. I was so disappointed to read your disturbing diatribe against muslims and their community leaders. so hateful, so drirty. Shame on you. Who pay you to produce this kind of text?

Damn. If only I knew where to get the monies from…Well, all I know is that Swami Ramdev will get lots of business from the Muslim fraternity for learning how to blow their noses.

As for the “community leaders”, here is a report from today’s papers:

Six days after the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind passed a resolution asking Muslims not to sing Vande Mataram on the grounds that it was “un-Islamic’’, the community’s clerics have reportedly softened their stand. The change of heart came after spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar visited Deoband on November 8 and met Jamiat leaders.

After the meet, the ulema said they did not have any objection to the national song and had left it to the conscience of Muslims who could decide for themselves whether they wanted to sing the song or not.

So ask these hypocrites, Mr. Letter Writer, who is paying them.

- - -

Sometimes, correspondence is really worth it and makes one feel that what one is doing isn’t so bad. Not for me, at least!

The next was unexpected, although I have indeed corresponded with quite a few academicians. It is from someone who knows Structuralism enough to hate it. We have had a bit of an exchange and here it is without naming the name.

On The Savage Mind

Farzana, you are much too kind to Levi-Strauss's incomprehensible fog.

Marvin Harris was a scientific anthropologist & Levi-Strauss's greatest critic.

Harris takes the Gallic charlatan's know nothing structuralism to the woodshed for a thorough thrashing in Cultural Materialism (chap. 7).

There are thousands of academics still pretentiously spouting the rancid bullshit of structuralism.

Reply:

I am kind and do believe that all fog does not denote winter, so one must meander through the mist.

There are anti-Structuralists as there anti Freudians or anti anything, and there ought to be. I was, in my own little non-academic way, trying to question some theories...it was part tongue-in-cheek.

- - -

Structuralism turns anthropology into a delight for literary poseurs.
Try Marvin Haris's expose.

Reply:

I delight in exposes. According to your theory, anything construed as a delight is anathema, or logically ought to be from your perspective on poseurs. Whether it is Levi-Strauss or Harris, they are taking a position which might be deemed as a posture for one critiquing it, which would in turn be seen as posturing. It is a clique of charmed intellectuals, and for an outsider, whose primary interest lies in the human as animal, social creature and sublime wannabe, anthropological analysis can come from the toenail of an ape and I’d be happy. Or, delighted?

I only wish you had noticed that I used the Structuralists paradigm to explore the mundane. Not too many academicians are interested in it, but it might surprise you to know that many of us live it.

Having said this, I appreciate your position and almost proselytising fervour. Harris is a lucky god!

Mine is more like Margaret Mead’s:

“Anthropology demands the open-mindedness with which one must look and listen, record in astonishment and wonder that which one would not have been able to guess.”

~F

More on Chidambaram...

My article on ‘The Farce of Fatwas’ below did not mention one quote by P. Chidambaram because the subject would have got diverted. But here it is:

“We have no hesitation in speaking for the rights of Muslims at a time when Tamils were denied their rights in Sri Lanka and Indian students were attacked in Australia.”

This is utterly stupid. What does he mean by having no hesitation? Is it being done under duress? Or, do Indian Muslims who have lived here all along need an alibi in the form of Tamils in Sri Lanka, which is Sri Lanka’s problem and therefore India's concern, and Indian students in Australia, which is an immigrant issue that has to do with racism?

When Mr Chidambaram speaks about Indian Muslims as a minority, he must not forget that we are naturalised Indians and not part of any secessionist movement (a section of Kashmir being the exception for complicated reasons). And this minority would not be considered a minority anywhere in the world given the numbers. It is pretty immature to speak in such a manner. Time for him to come to grips and address the Muslims in a non-religious environment.

- - -

As for the maulvis, I suppose hobnobbing with an idol-worshipping godman who performed pranayam while another Hindu priest recited vedic hymns at the congregation is completely in keeping with monotheism. These same guys made a noise when actor Salman Khan visited a Ganesh pandal.

So, what is Maulana Mahmood Madani doing with Baba Ramdev?