certifired_img

Books and Documents

Islam and Politics (22 Nov 2019 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Who Are These People Who Want A Review Of Babri Judgment And Why Are They Allowed To Represent Us?


By Arshad Alam, New Age Islam

22 November 2019

Writing in these pages, I had suggested that in all probability, the all-important judgment in decades will be in favour of the temple. The reasons for this was certainly not that the Muslim claim rested on a weaker premise, but that given the recent judgments of the highest court on the finer points of personal liberty, it was becoming increasingly clear that there was a certain worrying closeness between the government of the day and the highest court of appeal in the country. Therefore, in its essence the judgment was an act of political management rather than that of legal jurisprudence. Even those who are sympathetic to the right wing Hindu ideology are having difficulty in justifying the judgment. But then this article is not about the Supreme Court or the ruling party, rather it is about the Muslim response to the whole issue.

Ever since the matter was in the SC, we Muslims have consistently maintained that we will respect the verdict, irrespective of the outcome. So what has happened now? Why is it that we are reneging on our promise of respecting the SC judgment? Or was it that we were supremely confident that the SC judgment will be in our favour? This would certainly mean that our faith in the judicial process was a mere strategy and not a principled stand. Now that the judgment has gone against us, there is a growing clamour that we should file a review petition.

Now, it is no body’s case that review petition cannot be filed. Any aggrieved party is well within its rights to do so. The point fundamentally is what purpose is it going to serve when in an overwhelming majority of cases; the SC does not entertain review petitions. But perhaps that is missing the point. The point of the review petition may not be upholding the idea of justice but is only meant as an exercise for some Muslim faces to remain politically relevant. Which brings us to the most important question: who are these people representing us and filing petitions on our behalf and what are their reasons for doing so?

The original litigant in the case is the Sunni Waqf Board and there are conflicting reports whether it wants to file a review petition or not. However, there are other players which have made themselves as ‘stakeholders’ and have anointed them as spokespersons of the community. The foremost amongst this cabal is the AIMPLB. This rump, consisting of rag tag Ulama, many of whom cannot get elected from even their respective hometowns, has been around since 1973. Needless to say that the Board came into existence with the benign indulgence of the congress party which wanted pliable intermediaries through which it could control the Muslim community. In its philosophy, the Personal Law Board treats the Quran and the Sunnah as the fountainhead of Muslim cultural life (not just religious) and the safeguarding of the laws that flow from these texts is supposed to be the prime duty of every Indian Muslim.

Comprised largely of Deobandis and reformed Sufis, the Board has largely been regressive when it has come to women’s rights. There have been moments when it has rejected secularism as an interference in their personal religious matters. And yet the same Board today wants to uphold secularism in this country. The Board came into prominence during the Shah Bano agitation when it largely argued that the supreme court of the country had no authority to pronounce a verdict on matters of Muslim personal law. In short, much like the right wing Hindu parties of today, it argued that its faith was above the constitution of this country. Some members of the Board at that time had even argued that a Hindu judge cannot pass a judgment on matters relating to Shariat. It is rather strange that today we are aghast that a Muslim professor is being stopped from teaching Sanskrit at a leading university in India. The genealogy of hate runs deep in this country and we Muslims have certainly played our part in its dissemination.  Its second moment of fame came during the Imrana rape case, where a father in law allegedly raped his daughter in law. In its divine wisdom, the local Ulama asked the victim to marry the rapist and decreed that the earlier husband had now become a son of the raped woman. The AIMPLB wanted to correct the ‘Muslim image’ which had received its fair share of criticism and therefore constituted a fact finding team. But rather than giving justice and relief to the woman concerned, the AIMPLB argued that no rape had happened at all.

And of course, the Board’s ridiculous affidavit in the matter of triple Talaq is too fresh in memory to be recalled for its absurdities. The Board, although talks of inclusiveness but till date does not allow Ahmadias to be represented in the Board. Before fighting the right wing Hindus for their exclusivism, how about the Board teach itself some lesson about inclusivism. But then that is too much to expect from them.

Then, there are other interesting characters. The Jamaat e Islami is there too. And it is an organization that wants the creation of ‘Islamic system of governance’ in India. Its spokesperson recently fought an election from West Bengal where he could barely save his deposit. But the more important to ask is how such an organization (which wants to bring Allah’s laws on earth) can fight for secular constitutional principles. We need to ask these Islamists how they find their Nizam e Mustafa compatible with our secular laws. 

Then there are the Barelwis (or whatever is left of them since they have their own personal law board now) and the reformed Sufis. They have been always opposed to any reasonable expression of dissent or critique within the Muslim community. They spearheaded venomous campaigns against Muslim women who were campaigning for the abolition of instant triple Talaq. They called them names and even stooges of the ruling dispensation when in reality; all that these women were asking was a minute reform of the Muslim personal law. That fight is still going on. But for these self-seeking Ulama, any expectation that they will change their stance is hoping for too much. They are demanding rights from the state as minorities but they will never extend the same rights to the minority within the minority.

Also on board is the emerging and extremely popular leader from a political party in Hyderabad. For some time now, he has been speaking for Muslims, demanding their rights within the Indian constitution. However, couching everything in Islamic terms is not going to take him too far. Moreover, when he is not demanding these rights for Muslims, he is doing exactly the same things which he accuses the Hindu fanatics of doing. Lest we forget, his party organized the boycott of Taslima Nasrin’s talk in Hyderabad. Not just that, his MLAs threw power pots at her while she was speaking. So when Mr. Owaisi laments that there is no freedom of speech for Muslims in this country, is he willing to extend the same courtesy to those who are critical of Islam? Perhaps not as he has hardly learnt any lessons. Just before the recently concluded Maharashtra elections, he forced his MLA candidate to apologise simply because the said candidate had visited and prayed at a Hindu temple while campaigning. Certainly Mr. Owaisi would not like to be reminded of these episodes while he criss-crosses the country complaining of Hindu intolerance.

Hypocrisy does not lead us anywhere. We need to reject these leaders not just because they have failed us time and again but because they are deeply regressive. Muslims need enlightened leaders who talk about education and employment. More importantly, they should also talk about reforming certain aspects of the personal law which have a tendency to create a negative stereotype in the minds of the majority community. It is time perhaps that some Muslims went to court and argued that these so called stakeholders do not represent us. They just represent themselves and their myopic interests.

Arshad Alam is a columnist with NewAgeIslam.com

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-politics/arshad-alam,-new-age-islam/who-are-these-people-who-want-a-review-of-babri-judgment-and-why-are-they-allowed-to-represent-us?/d/120335

New Age IslamIslam OnlineIslamic WebsiteAfrican Muslim NewsArab World NewsSouth Asia NewsIndian Muslim NewsWorld Muslim NewsWomen in IslamIslamic FeminismArab WomenWomen In ArabIslamophobia in AmericaMuslim Women in WestIslam Women and Feminism




TOTAL COMMENTS:-   6


  • I agree with Aiyna
    By Arshad - 11/26/2019 2:00:28 AM



  • To Arshad
    They are not representing you, you Muslims are representing AIMPLB.
    Why so?
    Here are the Questions?
    Ask yourself?
    1)Why there were so many Muslims who accepted Ram, it was not necessary to accept ram as God, like You Muslim accepted Jesus but not per terms of Muslims.
    2) We Hindus feel that when Muslim talks of Dara Siko that is to fools us, otherwise India would have not partitions with no Hindu left( very few left for your Muslims brother harreshment and humiliation) both in Bangladesh and Pakistan and not to forget Kashmir within india.
    3) Your Shamless brother Sultan Shahi  never put the K K Mohammad work on temples,
    4)None of the real,values that is dearest to Hindu had been also part of your Muslims tradition on the contrary fake Ganga Jamni Tehzib, can explain in your next article what is this Ganga Jamni tensing which will represent you Different type of Muslim which you seems to be found of.
    We know hypocrisy of Muslims, but we will watch all,this fake narrative, Ganga Jamani Tehzib or Cashing Dara Siko when want to fool Muslims.
    Left Dara Siko to Hindus as usual its matter of time we will built temple of him like we did with Shirdi Sai.
    Muslim and Abhrahmic tradition cannot respect other than from their own history not even their forefather call them Zahiliya themselves what a pity that a race call thier forefather all virtue as Zahilyia
    Who more Zahiliya than those Arab who had no history left of their forefathers, try to potry whole Arab was Zahil and Islam took them out, remember no race can survive without wisdom
    By Aayina - 11/25/2019 10:14:12 PM



  • Quite rightly said, systems of inequality need first to be addressed. Your article focuses on a forward- looking approach where more than anything else, education and employment gain priority. 
    A review petition is surely not the need of the hour! 

    By Meera - 11/22/2019 6:02:57 PM



  • This hatchet needs to be buried.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 11/22/2019 9:54:57 AM



  • A review petition of Babri judgement may not be fruitful at all considering the current  political environment. When the constitution has given the right for review petition, there is no harm the opposition parties ie AIMPLB ete can knock the door of supreme court for fair judgement. Whether they represent the whole muslim communities or not that is different matters.One can only hope that muslim community  comes out from all kind of odds and becomes literate, tolerent and liberal society.
    By ASM KHAIRUZZAMAN - 11/22/2019 8:32:08 AM



  • "The point of the review petition may not be upholding the idea of justice but is only meant as an exercise for some Muslim faces to remain politically relevant"
    I too think so. 

    By GGS - 11/22/2019 4:07:41 AM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content