| 17 December 2004 | Friday | 04 Ziqa'ad 1425 |
The lessons of 1971
Much ado about nothing
The purpose of this article is not to discuss how women's rights are practised in Muslim society today, but what they mean in a truly Muslim society. It is necessary to understand this difference, because Muslims today are facing much confusion over this issue and it has, in fact, percolated to every sphere of life and created two schools of thought.
One propagates western thinking and value system. According to it, the restraints Islam imposes on women are not only oppressive and unjust but also responsible for the material backwardness of the Muslims. They advocate "moderating Islam" and adapting it to a western model.
The other view presents notions of strict seclusion for women, and that they should not be seen outside their homes unless chaperoned by a male, not in the prohibited degree, or participate in social affairs on equal terms with men or even gain more education.
"Women's rights" is the mantra that everyone aspiring for entry into the "mainstream" chants. Let us take a look at its background. The slogan reflects women's reaction against prolonged "persecution." In ancient times, roles were strictly defined for men and women. So "Adam delved and Eve span" became the proverb.
At the same time, women were regarded as "the weaker sex," incapable of performing physically arduous functions and even of protecting themselves. They were, therefore, treated as inferior to men.
Even though Queen Bodicea led a rebellion against the Romans (62 A.D.) and Joan of Arc, a French peasant girl, led the French armies against the English in the early 15th century, still there was no place for women in social affairs.
Gradually men became more aggressive and began to treat women like chattel. Even queens were not spared. King Henry VIII of England had two of his queens (Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard) beheaded on charges of infidelity and adultery. Two he divorced and banished.
In Hinduism, women were required to worship their husbands. They ate separately after all males had finished eating. A widow was burnt to death on her husband's funeral pyre, according to a rite called sati.
After Viceroy William Bentinck intervened to ban this religious practice, their widows were subjected to other torments. A widow had to keep her head permanently shaved, eat a frugal meal only once a day, always dress in coarse white, not remarry, nor participate in auspicious rituals such as marriages etc. And the Hindu law, embodied in manusmirti (the "Law of Manu") and its two offshoots, the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools, both exclude women from inheritance.
Judeo-Christianity had no provision for inheritance nor did it define conjugal rights, such as maintenance and divorce. Fornication and adultery were cursed like other sins, in passing, but not treated as culpable.
Christianity's failure to solve social problems triggered a revolt in 16th century Europe which came to be known as the period of Enlightenment. The world view expounded by its apostle, Francis Bacon, emphasized the need for man to "consult only things themselves."
Hobbies followed, rejecting everything, other than material existence, as unreal. And Descartes put the seal on it with the postulate "Never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such."
This new weltanschauung banished God from human affairs. A new concept of liberty synonymous with licence emerged, evoking Milton's famous line, "License they mean when they cry liberty."
Women took the cue from the Enlightenment to organize and agitate. Thus the expression "feminism" was born in 1895, implying "political, social and economic equality between sexes." But, as they won victory after victory, the success fou spurred them to claim absolute liberty. So, feminism became "women's lib." Their new claims included the right to use their body as they wished, to have babies out of wedlock, besides lesbianism and abortion.
This attitude amounts to a revenge on religion for its failure to give them relief. So the laws on women's rights in non-Muslim societies were made by man. But human knowledge, despite all his achievements, is never the last word.
By contrast, Islam had codified the laws to protect the rights of women, 1,200 years before the phrase "women's rights" had been coined. And eight centuries before King Henry VIII banished his divorced wives, Muslim women had been assured of appropriate settlement on divorce.
It is a marvel that Islam's laws relating to women, revealed so long ago meet all the tests of modern civil law. Among them, marriage is the most glaring example. It is a contract according to the most rigorous definition of the term under the Law of Contract, embodying all the four basic ingredients of a contract, - offer, acceptance, consensus ad idem and consideration.
The woman's free consent (acceptance) to a marriage proposal (offer) is indispensable. Both must have a unity of minds on the issue (consensus ad idem). And the man must agree to pay a specified sum of money to the woman he marries (consideration).
Besides, not only married women have the right to maintenance but even divorcees have such rights under given circumstances. It follows, therefore, that a Muslim woman can only be married to a Muslim man.
Therefore the marriage of any woman to the Quran, for instance, as practised by some people in Pakistan, is not only invalid in Islam but also an enormous heresy because it amounts to attributing male gender to the Divine Revelation.
The element of tender care for women is reflected in 2:223 where it says, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you..." You have only to ask a farmer how he cherishes, cares for, and covets his tilth, to capture the exquisite beauty of the simile. Reciprocal respect is enjoined in 2:187, where spouses are called each other's "garment." There is no concept of the woman worshipping the husband.
Although one of the steps to discipline wives, "on whose part one fears disloyalty and ill-conduct," permits "beating." (4:34), all commentators, including Imam Shafei, are unanimous in holding that "beating" should be deprecated and if at all resorted to, should be nominal, without any element of cruelty. Besides there must be no "nagging" if the wife corrects herself.
If dispute persists, there is provision for arbitration and counselling (4:35) And 4:128 provides for separation if a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part.
A woman inherits a specified share in the property of her deceased parents as well as her deceased spouse. A Muslim woman is sui juris. She can sue and be sued in her own name.
She can own and dispose of property. Women can go out of doors alone and take part in social, economic and political activities or pursue a lawful vocation. They have the right to offer prayers with men. But "with," here, means "in unison with," as in Makkah, Medina and other mosques, as distinguished from standing sandwiched between men.
Muslim widows are free to remarry. (24:32). Launching a charge against chaste women unless supported by four witnesses (24:4) is a punishable offence. Actually, Islam interprets the laws of nature.
It takes note of the perils inherent in excessive gender interaction, because, despite all their masculine achievements, women remain vulnerable as borne out by frequent complaints of gender harassment on job.
Recent reports in the American media about the scandals in some of the US Air Force bases and the Lyndee England - Charles Graner scandal at Abu Ghraib prison further highlight the consequences of carrying gender equality too far.
To prevent such ugly eventualities, Islam emphasizes modesty. The Quran asks not only women, but also men, to keep their gaze low. Islam puts a heavy premium on chastity which is still valued even in non-Muslim societies, despite widespread promiscuity. This should explain the restraints on women's dress and conduct among relatives within prohibited degree and others.
"Elderly women, past the prospect of marriage, may lay aside their outer garments provide they do not make a wanton display of their beauty;" (24: 60). For appreciating its profundity the ayah requires some reflection.
Fornication and adultery are crimes in Islam, for which specific punishment is prescribed without gender inequality (24:2). Anything beyond that (e.g. karo kari) is, therefore, transgression. There is no question that adultery is far worse than fornication. It breaks homes. It ruins lives.
Islam preaches that everything in heavens and earth belongs to Allah. That includes the human body. Humans had no choice in the creation of their bodies, the formation of their limbs or their faculties. Therefore, all people are not equal physically and mentally. They cannot stop the onset of decay in their bodies.
In fact, humans are lessees in perpetuity; Allah is the owner of their bodies and unto Him shall they return eventually. As a lessee is not free to do whatever he wishes with his leasehold, so humans must use their limbs in the way their Creator and Owner has ordained.
Therefore the concept that women have a right over their own bodies to use it the way they wish is unacceptable in a Muslim society. To understand the spirit of the Islamic principles with regard to women, a careful study especially of Sura Nisa (4) and Sura Noor (24), is recommended.
The lessons of 1971
Does December 16, 1971, look different from before in the year 2004? It does. It was previously regarded as the end of the political history of united Pakistan with a change of geography. It means more than that now.
Our accumulated hindsight has exposed a lot, which makes the difference. It reveals that, for the residual Pakistan, the geography did change but the political history did not.
For us, the post-independence pattern of politics continues till today in the same old fashion, and December 16, 1971 was merely a demarcation in its two phases. We now realize that from 1947 to 2004, a single team representing the feudal-military-mullah alliance is continuously playing a long unbroken inning of power play in the pre- and post-1971 Pakistan.
Each ruler looked different and raised new slogans, but all of them pursued common policies to fortify the alliance. Each component of the triple alliance strengthened the other two during its rule. All the military rulers reinforced feudalism by avoiding effective land reforms.
The feudals-in-power always flirted with the army and quickly indemnified the misdeeds of all the military dictators, while the feudals-in-waiting constantly invited the army "to do its duty" by active intervention.
All the rulers lured and nudged the mullahs from the mosques to the assemblies. There was perfect team spirit in this co-sharing arrangement. It needs some elaboration.
The first pre-1971 phase of this process is summed up in the following extract from my earlier write-up (Dawn: December 16, 1996. "Verdict of History") "..... It was November 24, 1971.
Three days had passed since twelve divisions of Indian army, aided by air force, had openly attacked East Pakistan on five fronts but, to everybody's surprise, Pakistan had not complained to the UN Security Council.
I happened to glance through the copy of a despatch by a foreign correspondent sent to his newspaper abroad painting three possible scenarios of the impending Indo-Pakistan war. One of these was that Pakistan might go for a mock war and quick surrender.......
"The projection of the coming events before the war by an outside observer and the performance evaluation after the war by our own military expert (retired Maj-Gen Fazal Muqeem's book: Pakistan's Crisis of Leadership) are amazingly identical......
They (outside observers) had a very clear perception of the army-feudal axis, which not only ruled the country but also had repeatedly demonstrated in the past that it was bent on retaining its dominance by any means whatsoever.
"This axis had always inwardly felt threatened by East Pakistan.... because the non-feudal Bengali was more vocal and politically conscious than the docile and traditionally oppressed West Pakistani in a feudal setting.......Many straws in the wind were clearly indicating to any intelligent observer that this axis would rather get rid of East Pakistan than allow its domination to be diluted."
Today our hindsight tends to support the concluding lines of this extract with a painful suggestion that the nation's humiliating defeat was in fact a hidden victory for the system.
This marked the end of the first phase, and the beginning of the second. The previous style and conduct, however, were faithfully, and demonstrably, carried forward to the second phase.
What was a mere axis of convenience between a military dictator and feudal Bhutto before 1971 developed into a regular alliance of the two groups after that. No one was punished for the debacle, though it was generally accepted as deliberate. Many of the main characters were quietly rewarded, if not openly honoured.
On his death, Gen. Yahya was buried with military honours. A documentary, and other images, of surrender were permanently banished from the television. Hamoodur Rahman Commission report was buried in oblivion. (It was partially released in the last days of 1999, 28 years after the event). Maulana Kausar Niazi (the two-way hidden valve between the mullahs and the establishment) got the high pedestal of a cabinet minister.
The unwritten state policy was to forget East Pakistan as if it never existed. The textbooks of history tried to hide facts from the students to the extent of distortion. Objective writings on this subject, in literature or journalism, were either ridiculed or ignored in our sycophantic environment.
This was the second phase of the same old inning by the same old axis. The unwanted weight of the permanent challenger (East Pakistan) having been craftily jettisoned, the axis started flying higher with far greater confidence.
Its capacity to manipulate increased manifold, when the mullahs openly joined the alliance in the 1977 agitation, thus facilitating General Zia's ride on the religious turf for eleven years, and Gen. Musharraf's Samson-like strength for endless years by the LFO accord in December 2003.
The firmer grip led to the elimination of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1979, a member of the same team but subsequently perceived to be a potential threat for treacherously blocking the free play of other members with the threat of treason under the 1973 Constitution.
It also led to the dismissal of many elected governments after Gen. Ziaul Haq mutilated the Constitution. Its article 58 (2) (b) went on shooting from the hip at first directly and then from the flanks of intelligence agencies.
The striking feature of the second stage is the gradual transformation of its post-1971 confidence into ruthless overconfidence. During the first stage, this system eliminated the East Pakistani challenge by breaking up the country; but in the second stage it is eliminating even the germination of any challenge by breaking into bits the 1973 Constitution, all institutions under its umbrella, contours of civil society, and any prospect of clean politics.
Nothing is being spared from demolition or deformity, be it the legislature, executive, judiciary, press, political parties, bureaucracy, statutory bodies, corporate sector, or even the country's sovereignty. Sadistically relentless at home, the system meekly and willingly surrenders national sovereignty abroad. It did so on Dec. 16, 1971, and in gradual steps after 9/11 2001.
Today, the clear verdict of our hindsight is that the system will do anything to stay in power. We should not, therefore, build any hopes on the post-Ramazan agitation by the mullahs or the politicians, who are equal partners in the system.
In spite of so many storms in the past, the system has been growing stronger because of endless variations of possible compromises. Family quarrels for a bigger share in the pie never breaks the family. It will simply be another round of mock fight for ultimate regrouping but the table of power will never be vacated for the masses.
December 16 comes every year and is lost in blaming a few individuals. Each partner in the triple alliance has tactically created a scapegoat suiting his own selfish ends. State resources have been successfully diverting peoples' accusing fingers to these dummies.
It has been going on for 33 years after the debacle. A whole new generation has grown up in an environment of half-truths and lies in every sphere. Because of this hypocritical breeding, this generation is incapable of judging the true colours of this system.
The elder generation, with its benefit of the hindsight, has mostly remained silent and has miserably failed in passing on the patriotic legacy to their children. The heavy price for this silent failure is that the unholy triple alliance continues to strangle the national interests with impunity. It will stay on because the oppressed, disillusioned, dejected and disorganized people find it impossible to fight its overwhelming strength.
The only way to get rid of the system is to bypass this 57-year old co-operative arrangement by persuading and organizing the masses to elect new leadership from their own ranks.
They should themselves bring in democracy, which their rulers have been denying them. If December 16, 2004, can create this realization, it will be a new silver lining in this heavily looming dark cloud of tragic history.
E-mail: mmufti@apollo.net.pk).
Much ado about nothing
What do you do when there is nothing to do? For normal people that is not a problem. We sleep. We laze. We bond. We read or, more probably, doze before the more mindless television junk. We might even indulge in some minor free-market crime, like watching pirated movies. There is lots to do when there is nothing to do. For normal people.
But since those who have once tasted power tend to be too grand to be normal, they have a problem when ejected out of office. After a spell of life during which every minute is allotted, either to work or to flatterers, the absence of a printed schedule (not to mention the absence of hangers-on) can be tormenting.
Politicians in other democracies have found solutions. In America they all sign up with agents who put them on lecture tours. America is a very audio-friendly society. Instead of falling asleep at lectures, people actually pay to hear them.
An orator like Bill Clinton makes millions out of lectures. This may not sound surprising, given the number of women anxious for proximity; but even serious men are willing to lay out a budget for the privilege of hearing him speak.
Clinton has a seat in the luxury class of this gravy train, but there is space for lesser lights as well. Even British politicians with some cache are beginning to get on. Then there is membership of the board of companies. British politicians are far more adept at becoming directors.
The city keeps a fair percentage of its space at the top for out-of-work politicians. This is also a means of reducing the income-deficit that all of them have to suffer when in office.
Government salaries are significantly less than what they would have earned in the private sector, so this is an opportunity to compensate. The practice is understood even though it might never be stressed.
For the crasser kind, this can become a pay-off: firms that have benefited from a politician's influence in decision-making tend to possess a memory that can be lucrative at the right moment. Halliburton's expertise in such matters comes to mind.
Then of course there are books. The Clintons, Bill and Hillary, made, together, nearly twenty million dollars at the very least from their respective memoirs. Retired generals have a good market as well. Colin Powell saved himself from any chance of penury with his book about the first Bush-Gulf war.
The trick of course is to be known well enough to be a regular face on television. If you are seen on TV your book will be purchased by large numbers of suckers who have no desire whatsoever to open its pages, except perhaps to get the copy signed by the author.
However, it is reassuring that in some societies a book remains a status symbol of some value. There is after all no scramble for signed DVDs of television serials.
The second requirement is "revelation". The book must reveal something that can put it on the news stories. After that the celebrity author can do his/her round of appearances and stroll all the way to the bank.
We can see instantly that almost none of this works in India. Who was the last Indian politician who wrote a best-seller? Who was the last Indian politician who wrote a book? I am not going to be nasty and ask who was the last Indian politician who read a book, because all of them are literate and many of them do read.
The only author-politicians who come to mind are foreign minister Natwar Singh, petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar and former finance minister of Bengal Ashok Mitra, and that is because politics is a second, post-retirement, occupation for them. (I can't include Arun Shourie in this category because there is some doubt as to whether he was ever a politician.
He was in office but never in politics. He was and is a believer, occasionally of the fundamental variety.) Atal Behari Vajpayee writes good poetry, which is evidence of his difference, but while poetry might fetch an audience it does not fetch royalties.
No best-sellers then to fill empty time zones. One reason for this is that you have to retire to write a memoir. You can't begin to dish out revelations about colleagues if you still intend to do business with them. Who was the last Indian politician who announced his retirement? If you can think of any do let me know (mjakbar@asianage.com will find me).
Politics is a full-time job, and also therefore the only source of income. The only exceptions are those who were born rich, and brilliant professionals like Arun Jaitley or Kapil Sibal.
No one, therefore, thinks of writing a book to reduce the income-deficit. (Ministers, with honourable exceptions, quite often use office as an insurance policy against leaner times.) Ideology is the other reason for writing books, as in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia or Madhu Limaye. Since ideology is dead, ideological books are also dead.
It was different once, as the mention of Lohia and Limaye indicates. But all the greats of the freedom movement wrote. Mahatma Gandhi wrote incessantly. His collected works are nearing the century mark. The finest writer-politician was undeniably Jawaharlal Nehru, whose prose was as immaculate as his intellect; and both virtues took second place to integrity.
Since they had integrity, they had the courage to have differences. Here is Nehru on Gandhi which should be read for at least two reasons: to glimpse the quality of politics in his time, and for the sheer joy of reading excellent prose.
'And then came Gandhi... Much that he said we only partially accepted or sometimes did not accept at all. But all this was secondary. The essence of his teaching was fearlessness and truth ... abhaya, fearlessness, not merely bodily courage but the absence of fear from the mind.
Janaka and Yajnavalka had said, at the dawn of our history, that it was the function of the leaders of a people to make them fearless. But the dominant impulse in India under British rule was that of fear.
'Pervasive, oppressing, strangling fear... It was against this all-pervading fear that Gandhi's quiet and determined voice was raised: Be not afraid. Was it so simple as all that? Not quite. And yet fear builds its phantoms which are more fearsome than reality itself, and reality when calmly analysed and its consequences willingly accepted loses much of its terror.'
Is it the absence of anything else to do that makes politics a full-time activity in India? A political party naturally needs to function out of office, but opposition does not mean a full-time discordant chorus. Silence is not a virtue in any party's dictionary. Loss of power seems to induce a serious sense of insecurity that demands continual if not continuous confrontation.
Sometimes the two sides in a match forget that there is an audience watching every move, and in the political game it is the audience that eventually decides who is the victor: there is no other referee.
Lal Krishna Advani has seen the weather change too often not to recognize this. If by some magic three quarters of the BJP top echelon had other things to do, he might have been a happier man.
One gets the sense that sometimes he is compelled to create artificial activity where none is needed. He is latching on to issues that refuse to catch fire; and not enough thought is being put into examination and analysis, of cause and consequence.
Even the campaign over the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, Jayendra Saraswati, seems to have spluttered out. It is possible that the citizenry is over-sated with politics after the needlessly long election and simply wants the government to get on with its job and the opposition to leave things alone for a while.
There are no takers for any policy of confrontation. Laloo Yadav has only reaffirmed his image of irresponsibility by his sordid attempt to character-assassinate Advani.
Indians do not like witch hunts, no matter who initiates them. (The subtle alteration in the meaning of that term shows how it has fallen into disgrace. It used to mean a hunt for a witch; it has now begun to imply a hunt by a witch.) Indians like it even less when a government uses its power to do so.
Shakespeare - inevitably - had a phrase that sums up the present, and welcome, scratchy lull in Indian politics: Much ado about nothing. When there is nothing to do, the last thing one should do is make much ado about it.
The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian Age, New Delhi.