NEW DELHI: The Indian Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Centre, Islamic Seminary, Darul-ul-Uloom of Deoband, All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), and several states on a petition accusing the two most important Muslim bodies of trying to interfere with the country’s legal system and introduce parallel Islamic laws in violation of the Constitution.

Taking cognizance of a public interest litigation (PIL) raising the issue, a Bench of Mr Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Mr Justice C. K. Thakker also issued notices to the AIMPLB, Darul-ul-Uloom, Muslim for Secular Democracy and the states of Haryana, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi and West Bengal, which were named as respondents by the petitioner, claiming that fatwas had been issued by some Islamic clergies in such cases in these states also.

Imrana, a mother of five children, who was allegedly raped by her father-in-law Ali Mohammed in Charthawal Tehsil of Muzafarnagar district in June, was reportedly directed by the Darul-ul-Uloom not to stay with her husband because after the assault by her father-in-law she had lost the right to be the wife of her husband as per the Shariat laws.

The police had registered an FIR against Ali Mohammed on June 4 on the complaints of Imrana but the village Islamic Panchayat had issued its “verdict asking the victim to treat her husband as her son and banned her from living with him for reasons of her sexual relations with her father-in-law,” the PIL, filed by Delhi-based lawyer Vishwa Lochan Madan said.

Subsequently, Darul-ul-Uloom of Deoband “passed a fatwa whereby it was declared that Imrana became ineligible to live with her husband. All India Muslim Personalaa Law Board on June 27 supported it,” the petitioner alleged. The dictates of Darul-ul-Uloom and AIMPLB, had raised four important questions that — it was an attempt to establish parallel (Islamic) judicial system (Nizam-ul-qazi), train paralle qazis (judges) and naib qazis (sub-judges) and give them certificates to function as judges, compel the followers of their religious faith, not to report matters to judicial machinery set up under the Constitution and adjudicate upon the disputes over matters covered by the provisions established statutory laws as per the Shariat (Islamic laws) — the PIL said.

It pointed out that Imrana’s was not an isolated case where such a “fatwa” had been issued. There were other cases like Asoobi’s case of her sexual exploitation by her father-in-law in Nuh area of Gurgaon district of Haryana and subsequent dictates by “Siddique Madars” declaring that police could not intervene in the matter and Assam’s Jyotsna Ara episode where she also was subjected to rape by her father-in-law in Nagaon district and then faced the same fate at the hands of the “Muftis of Darul-Hadis Parmaibheti Islamia madarsa”.

Raising an important question of law whether the Constitution permitted “concurrent jurisdiction in matters relating to matrimonial disputes governed by the personal law established under the Constitution or by “the pseudo-judicial system set up by the clergy of religious communities,” the petitioner said it was important to note that the clergy did not subject itself to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and that of Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 of the Constitution, whereby citizens have right to approach these courts to mitigate their grievances.

Describing it a serious development, the petitioner sought to declare such “activities” by the AIMPLB and other similar organisations for “establishment of Muslim judicial system (Nizam-i-Qaza) and Dar-ul-Qazas (Muslim Courts) and Shariat Courts in India as absolutely illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional.”

It further sought to declare any judgement and “fatwas” pronounced by any authority not established under law as “unenforceable being wholly non-est (non-existent) and void” and a clear direction to the Union Government and the states to forthwith take effective steps to “disband” all Dar-ul-Qazas and Shariat Courts, if set up in the country. It further sought a direction to AIMPLB and Darul-ul-Uloom to refrain from establishing parallel Muslim Judicial System, inter-meddling in the matrimonial disputes of Indian Muslims under the law which were not recognised by the Constitution and issuing or passing judgements, remarks and fatwas in such cases.

A further direction was sought to AIMPLB and Darul-ul-Uloom not to train and appoint any Qazis, Naib-Qazis or Mufti for rendering any judicial service not recognised by the Constitution. —By arrangement with TribuneIndia

THE good news to come out of FATA of late is that militant Baitullah Mehsud has pledged to suspend his operations against the army across Waziristan.

The Corps Commander, Peshawar, Lt-Gen Safdar Hussain, met Mehsud earlier this month at the latter’s home in North Waziristan. The exact rendezvous was not identified.

The bad news is that Osama, his right-hand man Ayman Al Zawahiri, the one-legged Abdullah Mehsud and the Uzbek Tahir Yuldashev remain elusive as ever. Furthermore, whereas the intensity and the quantum of the insurgency have decreased, the stand-off persists. Troop build-up continues to escalate to pre-empt further outburst of militancy with renewed strength and vigour.

It would be roughly three years next month when the turbulence in Waziristan first came in the limelight. Till then a sleepy, unknown village in South Waziristan, Angoor Adda, suddenly hit the TV screens and print media front pages after cross-border intrusions by US-led coalition forces in hot pursuit of absconding militants from Afghanistan.

Since then sporadic violations of Pakistan’s land and airspace by the coalition forces seem to have become more of a rule than an exception. The American stalwarts, former US plenipotentiary Zalmy Khalilzad to the commander of the US troops in Afghanistan, Lt.Gen. Frank Barno, would launch their cross-border forays at will, justify them and unabashedly threaten such operations when necessary.

In a recent press statement, Gen. Hussain, while admitting the truth about periodic cross-border intrusions of the Afghanistan-based foreign military forces, also provided a sort of alibi, if not exactly a justification, for such excursions. He said: “When they (foreign troops) face attacks from North Waziristan they will naturally retaliate and conduct military offensive and search operations in Pakistan to forestall cross-border attacks.”

An honest soldier’s hard-headed appreciation of the situation without beating about the bush. What bothers the civilian mind, however, is the sort of free passage given for the movement of these troops back and forth at the discretion of their own commanders.

As for our own strong military presence in Waziristan and along the Pakistan-Afghan border, Gen. Safdar said that it would serve as an essential security shield against outside intrusion. Foreign troops, he said, could have ventured into our areas to ‘eliminate’ the terrorist elements at their own discretion. This would have been the ‘worst humiliation and dishonour for Pakistan’.

The fact is that Pakistani forces have been facing the dual threat of local as well as militants from across the border. Gen. Safdar and his forces thus face a complex politico-military task. As regards the human dimension of the task it would be to ensure that no harm is done to the innocent law-abiding tribal population, especially the women and children caught in the crossfire. A recent such incident in which a number of locals were killed and wounded caused much embarrassment and pain to the corps commander and his men.

While the organizational capacity of Al Qaeda is said to have been broken, its capacity to continue with its guerilla operations remains fairly intact, even if it is not as strong as before. Gen. Hussain has said that it had an elaborate organizational base and a proper training system, including budget and a propaganda directorate. Most operations were followed by distribution of CDs glorifying the operations, usually beginning with chants of ‘Allah-o-Akbar’. The break-up of the organization’s hardcore militant fold, while welcome, also means that the group is now scattered and hence even more difficult to track down.

Operationally, this may well be a task even more formidable and nerve-racking than engaging a relatively more centralized force. It is also to be noted that the insurgents do not have the same problems in regrouping and reorganizing themselves as do the regular forces. They live off the land and hit their enemy when and where they might find their target of opportunity.

They also seem to be facing little opposition from the locals. This could be out of tacit sympathy. Without such support they would have hardly managed to wage their hostile war for so long.

Gen. Safdar in an interview in the first week of July said that Pakistan would deploy 4,000 more troops on the Pakistan-Afghan border to ‘tighten’ control over the activities of the militants there. Would that alone be enough however, without enlisting the effective support of the political arm at the federal and the provincial levels?

Islamabad and Peshawar, unfortunately, happen to be at odds even at the fundamental constitutional level. The Hasba bill has drawn the province and the centre into a legal battle threatening to blow

up into a grave constitutional crisis. The question the military command must ask itself and answer is: what are the tribals really after? What is their objective? Is it to harm their own land and the people or is it to get the Americans out of Afghanistan and out of parts of their own land?

Also why should the tribals deny themselves the fruits of the massive development work undertaken by the government? Surely, someone with even a modicum of good sense would not be so mad as to spurn what is theirs for them to take.

After his meeting with Baitullah Mehsud, Gen. Safdar Hussain also admitted that peace cannot be restored using force alone. “The tribal people are our people and we cannot think of operations against them,” he said.

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.