‘My mother was wronged, gravely wronged’

“…if we agree (to accept the judgment), we’ll be forever branded as the
people who got the government, or the courts, to interfere in the
Shariat. There’s no point in living with such a taint on you.”

….senior Congress leader AK Antony …”People have lost faith in the secular credentials of the party. They
have a feeling that the Congress bats for a few communities, especially

St Antony is known to be a loyal party man but at some point even a worm will turn- hence the outburst. Our guess is that Congress is trying to desperately hold on to its last bastions – of which Kerala is one – by going all out to woo conservative Muslims. This will of course drive the Hindus into the welcoming arms of the Sangh Parivar. The Christians do not matter right now (they are used to voting against the anti-God communists) but they may well elect NOT to vote against the BJP.

If Congress is planning for a come-back as a truly secular party which speaks for all Indians, it should learn from the momentous days in the 1980s, when it tried to play communal games that blew up in its face. This is a dangerous game that at best goes nowhere and at worst leads to even more divisions in society. Most importantly other groups can play this game much better than the Congress can. Why vote for soft-Hindutva, when the real item is on the menu?

This is what happened in 1985. Congress cancelled a Supreme Court order for paying alimony to a indigent widow from Indore as a sop to conservative Muslims (see below). Then in 1986 it allowed for unlocking of Ram Mandir gate (locked since 1949) as a sop to conservative Hindus.

This directly led to the Babri Masjid destruction which was also facilitated by the Congress because it thought that the BJP will be wiped out as a result. Instead it was the Congress which got wiped out in 2014, when the country finally had enough of dynasty rule. Even the co-ordinated secular campaign could not prevent a BJP majority.
defence minister and senior Congress leader AK Antony on Friday raised
questions over the party’s commitment to secularism in the state.
“People have lost faith in the secular credentials of the party. They
have a feeling that the Congress bats for a few communities, especially
minorities,” he said.

Antony, who has taken a strong stand
against minority appeasement earlier too, went on to criticize the way
the state leadership and the state government are appeasing particular

“The people are really worried whether Congress
can ensure social justice. The people are concerned whether the Congress
is ensuring social equality in society. There appears to be doubts in
the minds of some people that while professing and practicing
secularism, the party has some slants that all sections of people do not
receive equal justice. This has to be removed,” he said.

Pointing out that minority and majority communalism were equally
dangerous, Antony linked the rise of fundamentalist forces to the
Congress’s inability to do enough for the secular cause.


A quarter of a century after the historic Supreme Court judgment on the
maintenance lawsuit of Shah Bano and the ensuing storm which made the
then Congress government rework the law, her youngest son Jameel Ahmed
Khan recalls the deep financial distress and mortifying shame his mother

“My mother was wronged, gravely wronged,” said Jameel, 60, as
wrinkles on his face rearranged themselves in remembrance of
circumstances triggered by her fight for maintenance.

“My mother was a simple, purdah-observing woman. Being divorced at
such a late age (60, by most accounts), the publicity, paper-baazi… she
was very ashamed of all this. She didn’t say much but kept stewing over

This bottling up of emotions took its toll. “She developed high blood
pressure and frequently fell ill,” said Jameel, a ‘property broker’
(local euphemism for somebody without a steady job), who lives in a
modest house in Indore. Shah Bano died of brain haemorrhage in 1992.

Mohammed Ahmed Khan, an affluent and well-known advocate, took a
younger woman as second wife 14 years after he had married Shah Bano.
After years of living with both wives, he threw Shah Bano and her five
children out. When he stopped giving her Rs. 200 per month he had apparently promised, she fought and won a seven-year legal battle for maintenance.

Prominent Muslim organisations opposed the Supreme Court verdict,
which they felt, encroached on Muslim personal laws. The Congress
government, which had the biggest majority in India’s Parliamentary
history, reworked the law — by enacting the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 — barring Muslim women from getting
maintenance after divorce under civil laws.

A provision of the Act limited the husband’s liability to pay
maintenance to his divorced wife only for the period of iddat (roughly
three months immediately after the divorce).

“Izzat ki ladai thi (It was a fight for self-respect). It was a fight
against our izzat being maligned in the locality and a family matter,”
Jameel said.

Although Jameel, a god-fearing Muslim, was careful not to criticise
his father, he conceded that Mohammed Khan increasingly favoured his
younger wife’s children after the two households became separate.

“It came to a pass where he’d only come on Eid, and even then my
chhoti vaalida (stepmother) would send for him even before we could
serve sevaiyan,” he said.

In fact, it was a festive day attempt at rapprochement that finally
tore things asunder. “Around two years after my mother had moved out, my
brothers and I went to meet my father on Eid and asked him to forgive
and forget. But he slapped me and threw us all out,” said Jameel.

When the Supreme Court in 1985 upheld Shah Bano’s maintenance claim, a political blizzard broke out.

“Former diplomat and prominent Muslim leader Syed Shahabuddin visited
our house as did ulema (clergymen) from Indore and other cities, who
told us that the verdict was against the Shariat,” said Jameel. “We
didn’t know much about it (Shariat provisions for maintenance etc) then…
our mother was illiterate. Clergymen from India and abroad contacted us
and told us that there had been a mistake and explained how things
should be according to the Shariat.”

He added, “Several people including (names a well-known cleric from
Gujarat) had offered money and even a job abroad (for refusing
maintenance). But I was clear that if we refused, it would not be for
material gain but Fi Sabeelillah (for Allah’s cause).” 

Once the matter
became public, journalists from India and abroad started landing up.
“The pressure became such that I felt winning the case wasn’t so good.
It would’ve been better if we lost,” said Jameel. “Massive processions
against the judgment were staged across the country. In Mumbai, traffic
was held up for hours. Even in Indore there was a lakh-strong rally
which passed in front of our house. Even if every rallyist threw a
pebble each, our kuchha house would have crumbled. This creates terror.”

Simultaneously, the family started getting invitations from liberals
in the community. “We accepted these thinking ‘let’s see what they have
to say’,” he said. A group from Ahmedabad organised a felicitation for
Shah Bano.

In the meantime, the family received a message from then Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He wanted to meet them. Shah Bano and Jameel
travelled to Delhi and met him.

“He said the situation was very critical, serious. ‘We have to find a
way,’ he said,” recalled Jameel. “I told him (I’d since read up on
Shariat directives about marriage and maintenance) there was no
provision for maintenance, except for money to be paid during iddat and
mehr (money to be paid at the time of divorce). I told him the law
should be amended. He, in turn, asked us to announce that we were
refusing the maintenance.”

Jameel was candid about vote-bank politics. “Muslims across the
country were ranged against the verdict. The elections were approaching.
Political parties think about their interests. It was felt that if
Muslims voted en bloc against the Congress on the issue, the party would
lose power.”

After returning to Indore, Shah Bano held a press conference to
announce that she was forsaking the maintenance because it was against
the Shariat. “I thought if we didn’t backtrack now, azaab (grief) would
be on us. Since it was a matter of religion, I didn’t want us to become a
precedent,” he said.

“I thought, ‘My mother will live for another two, five, 10 years. But
if we agree (to accept the judgment), we’ll be forever branded as the
people who got the government, or the courts, to interfere in the
Shariat. There’s no point in living with such a taint on you.”

Almost immediately, the whole situation changed. “My mother was feted
at public functions (by orthodox Muslims) and showered with titles like
‘Deeni Bahan’ (Righteous Sister) and ‘Islami Behen’ (Islamic Sister),”
Jameel said.

“Although a section of the media continued to report that our
decision was the result of pressure by the clergy, we chose not to
respond. We also decided to withdraw a case for recovery of mehr, which
was 3,000 kaldars (silver coins), but my father only paid Rs. 3,000,” he added.

Asked if he had taken issue with clergymen who approached him after
the verdict for ignoring Shah Bano’s plight earlier, he said, “The first
question I asked them was, ‘Where were you all these years?'”


Link (1): http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Antony-attacks-Congresss-minority-appeasement/articleshow/37353720.cms

Link(2): http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/767905.aspx



Brown Pundits