IN a democracy, politics cannot be practised behind the hijab (veil), declares Zeenat Naz. The middle-class housewife horrified the orthodox Muslim town of Deobandh six years ago, when she flung off her burkha and appeared bare-faced before a crowd at a public meeting to symbolise her entry into the male dominion of politics. She was instantly ostracised.
Dedicated social service won her acceptance and, finally, admiration. In the run-up to the recent municipal elections in Uttar Pradesh, she was the most promising candidate for the chairmanship of the municipal corporation (nagar palika) of Deobandh, a seat reserved for women. But in a town that is a bastion of the orthodox and is recog-nised worldwide as a centre of Islamic learning, the very popularity of this unconventional woman alarmed the mullahs.
Advertisement
Despite their active opposition, she has contested and won. In the process, however, the clergys thumbs down on Muslim women joining politics has become a matter of record and a subject for debate. Given the international standing of Deobandhs Dar-ul-Uloom Islamic University, few are willing to openly contradict its stand.
A fortnight into her campaign during the recent civic polls in Uttar Pradesh, two maulanas of Deobandh issued a fatwa against Muslim women participating in elections. It was preferable to let a Hindu win, rather than permit a Muslim woman to shed her veil and enter the political arena. It hailed the purdah as the symbol of purity in Muslim women and warned that if "women become pradhans", segregation between men and women would end, to the detriment of society. The fatwa denounced reservation of seats for women as a ploy to bring be-purdah women out of their homes and into the male bastions and suggested that it was best not to vote for such ambitious women.
Advertisement
The decisions of the maulanas of Deobandh are generally not open to debate; they are accepted unconditionally. But this time, the maulanas were besieged with queries: were the prime ministers of Pakistan and Bangladesh, Benazir Bhutto and Khaleda Zia, transgressing Islamic law? Was it najayaz to vote for women like Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson, Najma Heptullah?
The maulanas came up with a clarifica-tion, signed by five of Dar-ul-Uloom Universitys top clerics. They declared that the Shariat did not debar women from serving society as elected representatives, provided they adhered to the code of conduct laid down by Islamic law and observed certain restrictions. Voting for women candidates was thus held to be permissible.
"There is not much difference between the first fatwa and the second. The restrictions on womenobserving the veil and not mixing with menmake it near impossible for them to fight elections anyway," observes Naseeb Siddiqui, manager of Dar-ul-Ulooms bank and a Zeenat supporter.
Ironically, the fatwas worked to Zeenats advantage. In a town where 65 per cent of the population is Muslim, giving away the seat to a Hindu candidate was unacceptable. At the same time, the towns elite felt it was far better to vote for Zeenat, who was already be-purdah, than to liberate more women from the veil. Hajan Naghma, a burkha-clad housewife who was Zeenats main rival, promptly took down her banners and posters after the fatwa.
Advertisement
Zeenat acknowledges that she owes her success to her husband, Mohammad Ershad. A small businessman, he nursed hopes of entering public life but abdicated his ambitions in favour of his wife. "She is more capable than I am, he says. For months, she resisted his plea that she abandon her burkha, which he saw as an impediment to a political career. "I obeyed him, but you can imagine my embarrassment as I stood on the dais, face uncovered, before thousands of people. I had been veiled since puberty," recalls Zeenat.
Even after her emancipation from the hijab, Zeenat says she is deeply religious. She rationalises her defiance of the fatwa by saying that it was politically inspired. Mohammad Sikander, a local businessman, agrees: "Fatwas are taken very seriously in Deobandh. But in this case, everyone knew the first fatwa was a political ploy. The second one was not but we felt it gave enough leeway to allow us to vote for Zeenat with a clear conscience. After all, she dropped her veil in a good cause."
Advertisement
Sikander points out that Zeenat is the epitome of modesty and dresses so that only her face and hands are visible and, thus, conforms to the tenets of the Shariat. An interpretation borne out in scholar Abdullah Yusuf Alis The Meaning of the Glorious Quran in which he says: "Note that for Muslim women generally, no screen or hijab is mentioned, but only a veil to cover the bosom and modesty in dress."
Maulana Hajib-ur-Rehman, signatory to the second fatwa, is unimpressed by this view. "If more and more women come out be-purdah from their homes, as is happening today, society will suffer. It is best that women stay at home. The external sphere is for men, the internal for women," he maintains. The argument against participation of Muslim women in politics cen-tres around the hijab, which symbolises segregation of the sexes, confinement of women in the home and their exclusion from public life.
Advertisement
Hajib-ur-Rehman strongly denies that either of the fiats were politically inspired: "We do not issue fatwas. Someone asks us a question on a point of Islamic law and we reply. No particular personality was involved. It was a general direction to the community," he said. That the winds of socio-political change have weakened the hold of the clergy over the quam, as Zeenats victory seems to indicate is something he accepts with regret.
Siddiqui feels it is high time Muslims took a more practical view of the Shariat. Rigid rules are all very well in an Islamic state, but if Muslims living in India try and bring everything into an Islamic framework, they will lose out.
He refers to another question raised in the second fatwa, that of reservation. Since the Shariat does not recognise classifica-tion between Muslims, are they entitled to benefit from the quota for backward classes? "If we dont, we are the losers," observes Siddiqui. The maulanas agree with him on this point.
On the issue of Muslim women in politics, the Imam of Delhis Fatehpuri Masjid insists that it is better for women to stay away. "In the interests of a clean society, the Shariat prescribes that women observe purdah and stay at home. But Islam is not as rigid as it is made out to be. I agree that if women want to serve society, they can come forward, but they must stick to the rules. Women can and do work in burkhas, but too much freedom is bad," he says.
The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid chooses to remain silent on this issue, rather than risk offending either the liberals or the orthodoxy. "Is maslay par woh kuchh nahin kahengay," says the Naib Imam.
A Muslim woman MP known for her progressive views condemns the Deobandh fatwas but refuses to go on record because she does not "want to get into a controversy". She points out that the best way to fight the orthodoxy is to do what Zeenat did: drop the veil and work quietly towards acquiring political clout.
On the question of the hijab, the Indian Muslim clergy has always been notoriously touchy. For instance, its main objection to Mani Ratnams Bombay was the scene in which a Muslim girl symbolically sheds her burkha and joins her Hindu sweetheart.
Few would agree with scholar Fatima Mernissis feminist interpretation of the hijab, that it was initially a screen between two men. The Prophet drew a curtain between himself and the man who was at the entrance of his nuptial chamber, to preserve his intimacy with his newly wedded wife, Zaynab. That screen was to become a mobile prison for Muslim women worldwide. In her book, The Veil and the Male Elite, Mernissi observes: "Muslims in search of identity put the accent on the confinement of women as a solution for a pressing crisis. Protecting women from change by veiling them and shutting them out of the world has echoes of closing the community to protect it from the West. Only by keeping in mind this double perspectivewomens body as symbolic representation of communitycan we understand what the hijab signi-fied."
For Zeenat, shedding her burkha was a symbolic gesture of emancipation. Today, a quarter of Deobandhs Muslim women have followed suit. But only through education and political power will their status improve, says Zeenat. For, only then can the Muslim personal law be reformed to make it less cruel for women.