South Asia Citizens Wire - # Pack 2 | October 22-23, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2309
[1] Clothes Aren't the Issue (Asra Q. Nomani) [2] India: 'And His Life Should Become Extinct' (Arundhati Roy) [3] India: Of military rule by other means (Jawed Naqvi) ____ [1] Washington Post October 22, 2006; B01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001261.html CLOTHES AREN'T THE ISSUE by Asra Q. Nomani MORGANTOWN, W.Va. When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost." Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation. The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago. Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call "the 4:34 dance" -- they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence. Western leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, have recently focused on Muslim women's veils as an obstacle to integration in the West. But to me, it is 4:34 that poses the much deeper challenge of integration. How the Muslim world interprets this passage will reveal whether Islam can be compatible with life in the 21st century. As Hadayai Majeed, an African American Muslim who had opened a shelter in Atlanta to serve Muslim women, put it, "If it's okay for me to be a savage in my home, it's okay for me to be a savage in the world." Not long after I picked up the free Saudi book, Mahmoud Shalash, an imam from Lexington, Ky., stood at the pulpit of my mosque and offered marital advice to the 100 or so men sitting before him. He repeated the three-step plan, with "beat them" as his final suggestion. Upstairs, in the women's balcony, sat a Muslim friend who had recently left her husband, who she said had abused her; her spouse sat among the men in the main hall. At the sermon's end, I approached Shalash. "This is America," I protested. "How can you tell men to beat their wives?" "They should beat them lightly," he explained. "It's in the Koran." He was doing the dance. Born into a conservative Muslim family that emigrated from Hyderabad, India, to West Virginia, I have seen many female relatives in India cloak themselves head to toe in black burqas and abandon their education and careers for marriage. But the Islam I knew was a gentle one. I was never taught that a man could -- or should -- physically discipline his wife. Abusing anyone, I was told, violated Islamic tenets against zulm , or cruelty. My family adhered to the ninth chapter of the Koran, which says that men and women "are friends and protectors of one another." However, the kidnapping and killing of my friend and colleague Daniel Pearl in 2002 forced me to confront the link between literalist interpretations of the Koran that sanction violence in the world and those that sanction violence against women. For critics of Islam, 4:34 is the smoking gun that proves that Islam is misogynistic and intrinsically violent. Read literally, it is as troubling as Koranic verses such as At-Tauba ("The Repentance") 9:5, which states that Muslims should "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" or Al-Mâ'idah ("The Table Spread with Food") 5:51, which reads, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends." Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem. A 2003 study of 216 Pakistani women found that 97 percent had experienced such abuse; almost half of them reported being victims of nonconsensual sex. Earlier this year, the state-run General Union of Syrian Women released a report showing that one in four married Syrian women is the victim of domestic violence. Much of the problem is the 4:34 dance, which encourages this violence while producing interpretations that range from comical to shocking. A Muslim man in upstate New York, for instance, told his wife that the Koran allowed him to beat her with a "wet noodle." The host of a Saudi TV show displayed a pool cue as a disciplinary tool. Modern debates over 4:34 inevitably hark back to a still widely used 1930 translation of the Koran by British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, who determined the verse to mean that, as a last resort, men can "scourge" their wives. A 1934 translation of the Koran, by Indian Muslim scholar A. Yusuf Ali, inserted a parenthetical qualifier: Men could "Beat them (lightly)." By the 1970s, Saudi Arabia, with its ultra-traditionalist Wahhabi ideology, was providing the translations. Fueled by oil money, the kingdom sent its Korans to mosques and religious schools worldwide. A Koran available at my local mosque, published in 1985 by the Saudi government, adds yet another qualifier: "Beat them (lightly, if it is useful)." Today, the Islamic Society of North America and popular Muslim Internet mailing lists such as SisNet and IslamIstheTruth rely on an analysis from "Gender Equity in Islam," a 1995 book by Jamal Badawi, director of the Islamic Information Foundation in Canada. Badawi tries to take a stand against domestic violence, but like others doing the 4:34 dance, he leaves room for physical discipline. If a wife "persists in deliberate mistreatment and expresses contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations," the husband "may resort to another measure that may save the marriage . . . more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body," he writes. "[B]ut never on the face," he adds, "making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one." As long as the beating of women is acceptable in Islam, the problem of suicide bombers, jihadists and others who espouse violence will not go away; to me, they form part of a continuum. When 4:34 came into being in the 7th century, its pronouncements toward women were revolutionary, given that women were considered little more than chattel at the time. But 1,400 years later, the world is a different place and so, too, must our interpretations be different, retaining the progressive spirit of that verse. Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult. Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small. In his recent book "No god but God," Reza Aslan, an Islam scholar at the University of Southern California, dared to assert that "misogynistic interpretation" has dogged 4:34 because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men." An Iranian American scholar recently published a new 4:34 translation stating that the "beating" step means "go to bed with them (when they are willing)." Meanwhile, shelters created for Muslim women in Chicago and New York have begun to preach zero tolerance regarding the "disciplining" of women -- a position that should be universal by now. And some Muslim men appear to grasp the gravity of this issue. In Northern Virginia, for instance, an imam organized a group called Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence -- though it still endorses the "tapping" of a wife as a "friendly" reminder, an organizer said. Yet even these small advances, if we can call them such, face an uphill battle against the Saudi oil money propagating literalist interpretations of the Koran here in the United States and worldwide. Last October, I listened to an online audio sermon by an American Muslim preacher, Sheik Yusuf Estes, who was scheduled to speak at West Virginia University as a guest of the Muslim Student Association. He soon moved to the subject of disobedient wives, and his recommendations mirrored the literal reading of 4:34. First, "tell them." Second, "leave the bed." Finally: "Roll up a newspaper and give her a crack. Or take a yardstick, something like this, and you can hit." When I telephoned Estes later to ask about the sermon, he said that he had been trying to limit how and when men could hit their wives. He realized that he had to revisit the issue, he told me, when some Canadian Muslim men asked him if they could use the Sunday newspaper to give their wives "a crack." Yet even those doing the 4:34 dance seem to realize that there's a problem. When I went back to listen to the audio clip later, the offensive language had been removed. And when I asked Estes if he had ever rolled up a newspaper to give his own wife a crack, he responded without hesitation. "I'm married to a woman from Texas," he said. "Do you know what she would do to me?" <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Asra Q. Nomani is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam" (HarperSanFrancisco). ____ [2] Outlook Magazine Oct 30, 2006 Afzal Hanging 'AND HIS LIFE SHOULD BECOME EXTINCT' THE VERY STRANGE STORY OF THE ATTACK ON THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT by Arundhati Roy We know this much: On December 13, 2001, the Indian Parliament was in its winter session. (The NDA government was under attack for yet another corruption scandal.) At 11.30 in the morning, five armed men in a white Ambassador car fitted out with an Improvised Explosive Device drove through the gates of Parliament House. When they were challenged, they jumped out of the car and opened fire. In the gun battle that followed, all the attackers were killed. Eight security personnel and a gardener were killed too. The dead terrorists, the police said, had enough explosives to blow up the Parliament building, and enough ammunition to take on a whole battalion of soldiers. Unlike most terrorists, these five left behind a thick trail of evidence-weapons, mobile phones, phone numbers, ID cards, photographs, packets of dry fruit, and even a love letter. Not surprisingly, PM A.B. Vajpayee seized the opportunity to compare the assault to the September 11 attacks in the US that had happened only three months previously. On December 14, 2001, the day after the attack on Parliament, the Special Cell of the Delhi Police claimed it had tracked down several people suspected to have been involved in the conspiracy. A day later, on December 15, it announced that it had "cracked the case": the attack, the police said, was a joint operation carried out by two Pakistan-based terrorist groups, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. Twelve people were named as being part of the conspiracy. Ghazi Baba of the Jaish (Usual Suspect I), Maulana Masood Azhar also of the Jaish (Usual Suspect II); Tariq Ahmed (a "Pakistani"); five deceased "Pakistani terrorists" (we still don't know who they are). And three Kashmiri men, S.A.R. Geelani, Shaukat Hussain Guru, and Mohammed Afzal; and Shaukat's wife Afsan Guru. These were the only four to be arrested. In the tense days that followed, Parliament was adjourned. On December 21, India recalled its high commissioner from Pakistan, suspended air, rail and bus communications and banned over-flights. It put into motion a massive mobilisation of its war machinery, and moved more than half-a- million troops to the Pakistan border. Foreign embassies evacuated their staff and citizens, and tourists travelling to India were issued cautionary travel advisories. The world watched with bated breath as the subcontinent was taken to the brink of nuclear war. (All this cost India an estimated Rs 10,000 crore of public money. A few hundred soldiers died just in the panicky process of mobilisation.) [. . .] In its August 4, 2005, judgement, the Supreme Court clearly says that there was no evidence that Mohammed Afzal belonged to any terrorist group or organisation. But it also says, "As is the case with most of the conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence of the agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy. However, the circumstances, cumulatively weighed, would unerringly point to the collaboration of the accused Afzal with the slain 'fidayeen' terrorists." So: No direct evidence, but yes, circumstantial evidence. A controversial paragraph in the judgement goes on to say, "The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender. The challenge to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India by these acts of terrorists and conspirators can only be compensated by giving maximum punishment to the person who is proved to be the conspirator in this treacherous act" (emphasis mine). To invoke the 'collective conscience of society' to validate ritual murder, which is what the death penalty is, skates precariously close to valorising lynch law.It's chilling to think that this has been laid upon us not by predatory politicians or sensation-seeking journalists (though they too have done that), but as an edict from the highest court in the land. [. . .] So: Should Mohammed Afzal's life become extinct? A small, but influential minority of intellectuals, activists, editors, lawyers and public figures have objected to the Death Sentence as a matter of moral principle. They also argue that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the Death Sentence works as a deterrent to terrorists. (How can it, when, in this age of fidayeen and suicide bombers, death seems to be the main attraction?) If opinion polls, letters-to-the-editor and the reactions of live audiences in TV studios are a correct gauge of public opinion in India, then the lynch mob is expanding by the hour. It looks as though an overwhelming majority of Indian citizens would like to see Mohammed Afzal hanged every day, weekends included, for the next few years. L.K. Advani, leader of the Opposition, displaying an unseemly sense of urgency, wants him to be hanged as soon as possible, without a moment's delay. Meanwhile in Kashmir, public opinion is equally overwhelming. Huge angry protests make it increasingly obvious that if Afzal is hanged, the consequences will be political. Some protest what they see as a miscarriage of justice, but even as they protest, they do not expect justice from Indian courts. They have lived through too much brutality to believe in courts, affidavits and justice any more. Others would like to see Mohammed Afzal march to the gallows like Maqbool Butt, a proud martyr to the cause of Kashmir's freedom struggle. On the whole, most Kashmiris see Mohammed Afzal as a sort of prisoner-of-war being tried in the courts of an occupying power. (Which it undoubtedly is). Naturally, political parties, in India as well as in Kashmir, have sniffed the breeze and are cynically closing in for the kill. Sadly, in the midst of the frenzy, Afzal seems to have forfeited the right to be an individual, a real person any more. He's become a vehicle for everybody's fantasies-nationalists, separatists, and anti-capital punishment activists. He has become India's great villain and Kashmir's great hero-proving only that whatever our pundits, policymakers and peace gurus say, all these years later, the war in Kashmir has by no means ended. [. . .] If Afzal is hanged, we'll never know the answer to the real question: Who attacked the Indian Parliament? Was it the Lashkar-e-Toiba? The Jaish-e- Mohammed? Or does the answer lie somewhere deep in the secret heart of this country that we all live in and love and hate in our own beautiful, intricate, various, and thorny ways? There ought to be a Parliamentary Inquiry into the December 13 attack on Parliament. While the inquiry is pending, Afzal's family in Sopore must be protected because they are vulnerable hostages in this bizarre story. To hang Mohammed Afzal without knowing what really happened is a misdeed that will not easily be forgotten. Or forgiven. Nor should it be. Notwithstanding the 10% Growth Rate. FULL TEXT AT: Alternative India Index http://membres.lycos.fr/sacw/article.php3?id_article=29 (originally at: http://outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20061030&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1 ) ____ [3] Dawn October 23, 2006 OF MILITARY RULE BY OTHER MEANS by Jawed Naqvi THE Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee was set up recently to review India's Armed Forces Special Powers Act, (AFSPA, 1958) -- a law that has been inflicting a heavy toll on democracy and civil liberties in border states like Jammu and Kashmir and across the northeastern swathe of primarily tribal provinces. The committee's report has been lying with the government for days and human rights groups now want it to be made public and discussed in parliament. A "leaked" copy was distributed to the press last week by rights NGOs, especially those engaged in the troubled state of Manipur. Incidences of frequent rape and killings in this state, allegedly by security forces, have triggered a wave of protests there. According to the committee's findings "... the (AFSPA) Act, for whatever reason, has become a symbol of oppression, an object of hate and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness." Giving other similar arguments, the Reddy Committee has recommended that it would be desirable to repeal the Act altogether. We'll discuss the caveat entailed in this generosity. In its initial comments on the proposed repeal of the Act, Manipur's Human Rights Alert welcomed the move, albeit cautiously. But some other activists led by senior Supreme Court lawyer Colin Gonsalves warned that the recommended repeal could really be another way of bringing the law back through the back door to encompass not just the border states but the entire country. "Remember that we could be preparing the grounds for Martial Law in India," Gonsalves warned his audience at the Delhi Press Club. The Reddy Committee's report coincides with what is seen as an apporaching change in India's neighbourhood policy, particularly the "Look East Policy". There is an aim here to link the country to South East Asia, by a network of roads and railways. The Human Rights Alert sees the move as part of a wider globalization process that offered a window of opportunity to the historically ignored region. "But this is contingent on whether and how far are the people of the Northeast empowered and prepared enough to leverage this opening promised by the Look East Policy." Colin Gonsalves is evidently not so sanguine about the future. In a detailed critique of the Reddy report he listed concerns, primarily the suggestion that the key provisions of the AFSPA could be transferred to beef up already existing Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAP Act, 1967). To begin with, the Reddy report suggests that even if a new law is not made, the Central Government can nevertheless order the Army into any particular state under Article 355 of the Constitution to protect the State against "internal disturbances". It can do so even without there being a request from the state government. Gonsalves points to other troublesome implications. The Reddy report, for example, says that "it is highly advisable to repeal this Act altogether, without of course, losing sight of the overwhelming desire of an overwhelming majority of the region that the Army should remain." In other words, the Act can go but the army should stay under different heads. "For this purpose an appropriate legal mechanism has to be devised." To justify the transfer of the powers of the AFSPA to UAP, the Committee presents arguments. It says that a major consequence of the proposed course would be to erase the feeling of discrimination and alienation among the people of the north-eastern states that they have been subjected to, what they call "draconian enactment made especially for them. The UAP Act applies to entire India including to the Northeastern States. The complaint of discrimination would then no longer be valid." Now that's a brilliant way of arguing against discrimination. In other words, let's share the same draconian laws with everyone and make it equitable throughout the country. As Gonsalves notes, the Reddy Committee is aware that the UAP Act "does not provide for an internal mechanism ensuring accountability of such forces with a view to guard against abuses and excesses by delinquent members of such forces." The committee has proposed Grievances Cells to address this problem. However, a cursory look at the constituents of these cells makes the proposal look laughable. The cells "should be composed of three persons namely, a senior member of the local administration as its chair, a captain of the armed/security forces and a senior member of the local police." Not only are the cells going to be dominated by the security forces and the police, but they would also have no power to punish at all. All they can do is to enquire into an allegation and provide information. Gonsalves suggests an alternative -- a Civilian Oversight Commission along the lines prevalent in Britain. "This is obvious from the principal grievance against the security forces in India. No enquiry has ever come to light where the security forces have been severely punished." Further, after setting out the principles that the use of the armed forces ought to always be for a limited period, the Reddy Committee suggests an open-ended time schedule. It says that while the Central Government should desist from extending the period for calling in the army beyond six months, there were circumstances when it could do so. "At the end of the period so specified, the Central Government shall review the situation in consultation with the State Government and check whether the deployment of forces should continue and if it is to continue, for which period. The review shall take place as and when it is found necessary to continue the deployment of the forces at the expiry of the period earlier specified." Another proposed amendment to the clauses of the AFSPA that may be co-opted into the UAP Act has raised serious concern. The Reddy Committee qualifies its suggestion that the armed forces act in aid of the civil power by saying that the forces will do so "to the extent feasible and practicable... However, the manner in which such forces shall conduct their operations shall be within the discretion and judgment of such forces." Worse, the Committee also suggests that the deployment of the security forces in any states can happen "notwithstanding that no request for such force is received from the State Government concerned." In the opinion of Colin Gonsalves and others all this adds up to a proposal to pave the way for martial law in the country as and when that is found feasible to have it. But many Manipuri activists are too busy celebrating the proposed repeal of the dreaded law to notice the warning. And given their long ordeal, they can't be blamed. * * * * * We all know that American diplomats often interfere with the most private matters of state of the countries they are stationed in. Some half a century ago the boot was on the other foot. Here's a vignette from The Hindu of October 21, 1956. "India's Ambassador to the United States, Mr. G.L. Mehta, was on October 18 spotted by a reporter as he (Mr. Mehta) was standing far back in the rear of a crowd at the railway station at Elyria (Ohio) to watch the Democratic Presidential candidate, Mr. Adlai Stevenson. The reporters called out from the train "Hi Ambassador" to Mr. Mehta, who was standing with his hat brim lowered firmly over his eyes. The Ambassador then dropped his "disguise" and was greeted by Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Mehta had just delivered an address to students at the Oberlin College at Elyria. He said he had not planned to attend the "whistle-stop" meeting as he did not want to get mixed up in American politics but was persuaded that the disguise would work. Evidently, it did not, he added." _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on matters of peace and democratisation in South Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit citizens wire service run since 1998 by South Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/ SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/ DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers. _______________________________________________ Sacw mailing list [email protected] http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/sacw_insaf.net
