Being Imrana

Re: # 45

Jawahara, well said. I am not such a fervent advocate of UCC, probably for similar reasons as yours, only that I include parties other than the BJP/RSS in the list of people haveing their own agendas to push in getting/not getting that through. But lack of a uniform civil code should not prevent Muslims from reforming from within, nothing drastic required, just making sure that travesties like this do not take place which, frankly, ends up making the whole community look rather silly.

Principles of universal jursiprudence should take precedence over Quranic interpretations in a case where a crime has been committed. Isn`t that plain common sense? If the woman was raped by her father-in-law, there should be enough physical evidence (if he was stupid enough to rape his DIL, surely he was stupid enough not to wear protection?); there should be the victim`s testimony; her husband`s testimony; perhaps the evidence o f the 12 neighbours and relatives who were interviewed by the police should be enough to land the guy in prison? If not, a little work on the daughterfocker by the local constabulory should fetch you a nice confession in no time. And balls to Amnesty International, this is India.

So you see, it really isn`t that difficult, and like Samina says, ``Why do we assume that ``the poor`` lack sense, a sophisticated understanding of justice, or fair play?``

``The poor`` are first and foremost human, we need to treat them as such instead of assuming they are helpless cattle just waiting to be led by selfish and narrow interests

This case has truly resonated with most people who have heard of it. I need to read Rushdie`s article more closely as well.

But if you can put the blame on the failure of the Indian state (a large, complex institution) why do you have a problem with him blaming other institutions like the Sharia law and the Deobandi sect? Why are they sacrosanct?

I, for one, am getting really tired of my fellow-Muslims not truly looking within, not understanding what it is that we might need to debate, discuss and perhaps change. Yes, she is a citizen of India and her victimization in this way is a failure of the state. But she is also part of the Ummah, part of her community and that too has failed her, pure and simple.

We have to face the fact that even if the Quran denounces rape it also makes it very difficult for a woman to prove rape and to get it prosecuted. Even if you disagree with that, for the common, poor Muslim living in a village a fatwa (justified or not) given by the local maulvi (who claims to interpret the Quran) holds more water than the actual text which s/he in most cases does not understand even if s/he can read it by rote.

So, what is the solution? I am equally confused as everyone else, though as an Indian Muslim woman myself I would rather be subject to a uniform civil code with the rights it promises than Muslim Personal Law. Of course, since I don`t trust the BJP/RSS, etc. who are the entities that push that agenda for their own reasons, I feel quite trapped as well.

The media`s only responsibility is to find good, and interesting stories and to keep the public informed. To blame them for Imrana`s plight is rather disingenuous. Of course they are in the business of selling more papers and time slots or whatever. But what about the responsibility of the framework within which most poorer Muslims live in India?

India is not perfect. There are tons of problems. But I also know of poorer Muslims that refuse to educate their children, especially their daughters, even if there are opportunities to do so. There were families for which my parents offered to pay for the girls to go to a good school who turned the offers down. They would rather have that money for dowries or for their sons. Whose fault is that? Not just the fault of poverty and ignorance because there was at least one family (from this same group) that did educate their daughter who is now an independent, educated young woman.

This is not to say that these problems do not exist in the larger Hindu society as well and this is not to negate the very real problems of communalism. But at some point, at some time we have to look within ourselves and brutally analyze ourselves and acknowledge that we too are part of the problem. That we cannot always blame others for all our problems.

Whether or not the fatwa was issued for this case is irrelevant really. Because the very fact that it was issued at all shows us something. This is what these men (I was going to type people here but that would be wrong) think. This is how they would rule if a similar case came in front of them. It certainly makes me think of other women in similar circumstances who have never come forward.

Also, I too have a problem with someone *facilitating* their own rape. Someone can facilitate their having sex, that is a matter of personal choice. Rape, however, is defined by the fact that the perpetrator forces the victim. There is either a physical or psychological threat inherent in the act. It is not an act of sex, but rather an act of force and/or violence that is acted out through the sex act.

To avoid issues like this in the future individuals, the society (religious and secular), the community, the legal system and yes, the nation, all have to examine themselves equally.

Re: # 48 vaga

I think harimau is right. Rape is also a crime against the state. If it is NOT so in India - then it should be made so. So should be the dowry offence.... No matter what the victim says - the state must prosecute the offender. Because otherwise, the rapist might go on to rape others. The dowry seeker will seek the same elsewhere.

Haven`t you seen ``Law and Order :)?

Re: # 46

No sir I beg to disagree. If you remember, a few months back there was a rape trial in India wherein just before the final judgement the accused proposed marriage to the victim and the judge deferred the verdict and asked the prosecution to respond. The woman responded by requesting the bench to hang him and the indignant media and womens groups accused the judiciary for being partiarchal and insensitive towards the victim.

But the learned judge knew what he was doing and so must you. Same applies to Nisha Sharma`s case as well.

The prosecution may present whatever evidence but if Imrana says `My FIL didnt rape me` or Nisha Sharma (or the victim I mentioned above) says `I do`, the judge can do nothing but dismiss the case forthright.

Murder or homicide is a different case altogether. In Indian law even suicide is a crime.

Ref vagabond78 #22

[My opinion is that it remains a domestic matter till they come out and seek redressal from societal law.]

And you would be wrong.

[And even after that if they go back and settle their dispute then arun jaitleys, deoband mullahs, law, police and the courts have no business to interfere.]

The prosecution has every right to conduct the case based on evidence. The victim might refuse to testify in court but today the oral testimony of the witness is no longer needed to prove rape. We have got something called DNA that would nail the rapist.

[Since the author mentioned Nisha Sharma: What if she had decided to go ahead with the marriage and withdrawn her statement? Do the courts and the police have locus standi then? So..]

The police might withdraw the case because they have other things to do but they do have a right to arrest the groom and his family under the Dowry Act. The evidence of a car, two refrigerators, air conditioners, etc., would all be admissible in court.

Just because in Arab societies you can get blood money in exchange for withdrawing a case of death by murder doesn`t mean in India you can withdraw a murder case. There is an overriding socital interest in punishing the guilty.

That is why in England and the US and Europe, they don`t condone honor killings but prosecute the family for murder. Unlike Pakistan.

From a well-known Islamist website, a blurb about someone who had confronted the Mullah who had issued the fatwa. What is it they say about power?

http://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/04/article04.shtml

To quote:

A Noida-based Urdu newspaper, Rashtriya Sahara, asked the mufti in India`s premier Muslim seminary, Darul Uloom Deoband, to give his opinion.

The mufti, Maulana Habibur Rahman, without ascertaining the facts of the case or going to the area or sending someone there to find out the truth, issued a fatwa on June 25, saying Imrana ``is now haram (forbidden) for her husband and should leave him``.

``We have obtained a copy of this fatwa and asked Mufti Habibur Rahman certain questions. He was unable to counter our argument that the Qur`anic injunction (``And marry not women whom your fathers married…`` 4:22) does not apply here,`` says this correspondent.

``The mufti gave us some references to support his view but when we read them, they did not seem to support the mufti`s interpretation which is the opinion of some Hanafi fuqaha (scholars) who consider rape also as a cause for prohibiting such marriages.

``We confronted the mufti again. This time he referred us to another maulana who, he said, was present in the meeting when the decision was taken. We asked him, why should we go to someone else when he (Mufti Habibur Rahman) had signed the fatwa. Seemingly he was not pleased with our argument and asked us to write down whatever ``problems`` we had in mind. We did this promptly and are still waiting for his reply.``

Other schools of thought like Shafi`i, Maliki, Jaafari Shia and Ahl-e Hadees reject this interpretation, as they hold that only legitimate marriage is meant in the Qur`anic injunction and a crime does not change the rule.

Just one day after our interaction June 29, the mufti`s office announced Friday, July 1, that the previous fatwa was not about Imrana, which is factually incorrect. While the name ``Imrana`` is not mentioned in the question to which the fatwa was given, her village and district are mentioned. Moreover, the July 3 issue of Rashtriya Sahara Urdu newspaper carries an article by Mufti Habibur Rahman which explicitly mentions the name of Imrana and pronounces the same opinion he earlier expressed in his fatwa.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, too, has now distanced itself from that fatwa and will soon reconsider the issue, says IOL correspondent.

Re: # 52 jawa
///.....I think the desire for UCC needs to come from within the ranks not because of external pressure...//

I was afraid of this. I was truly hoping that you wouldn`t tag this self-defeating line which, unfortunately, has been followed by many muslims all along. ......

And the results of such self-defeating policies are for all to see - The community stays backward, Imranas continue to suffer, inter-commuity relations are still bad. Everybody looses in the bargain - except, of course, the RSS - their propaganda machine is running full strength.

You are truly cutting your nose to spite the face. Ugliness of the whole spectacle makes us all cringe ..... and RSS is having the last laugh.
+++

As for the ``external pressure`` - Sati was abolished not because of ``desire from within`` - it was also ``forced`` from outside, by the hated and racist colonizers. So was the evil of child marriage. If you are looking for ``desire from within`` - then you can wait until cows come home - which basically will never happen.

Hate of RSS is blinding you so much that you are doing exactly what they want you to do. That`s a Pity.

Re: # 52

``That might be true. However, I think the source of the change does need to be looked at. I also don`t want to play into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists and their own agenda because it gives them a perfect opportunity to piggyback other less savory items attached to this issue.. I acknowledgment I am torn about this but I think the desire for UCC needs to come from within the ranks not because of external pressure...``

So how long do you wait and how many ``shah banus and imranas`` it would take to get you moving.. Almost all the reforms in ``Hinduism`` like ``sati/child-marriage-ban/temple-entry for dalits`` (possibly ``dowry`` and hopefully ``caste-based-on-birth`` in the future) have come through laws enacted by mostly non-religious people and ``external`` to the system.. It`s naive to expect that one fine day, the ``mullahs`` and the ``believers`` would realise the ``truth`` outside the ``book`` and change themselves..

#49 by mohar11 : Opposing UCC just because RSS supports it would be like ``cutting your nose to spite the face``[or whatever that proverb is]

That might be true. However, I think the source of the change does need to be looked at. I also don`t want to play into the hands of Hindu fundamentalists and their own agenda because it gives them a perfect opportunity to piggyback other less savory items attached to this issue.. I acknowledgment I am torn about this but I think the desire for UCC needs to come from within the ranks not because of external pressure.

#48 by vagabond78

Just because a judge makes a ruling does not make it right. Of course, the judge was being patriarchal and insensitive. Just as another judge was so when he said a woman wearing a short skirt practically forced the rapist to rape her. Just as another one was when he said it was unnatural and therefore, obviously a lie that a father had raped his 8 year old daugher and that the mother must be *evil* and had made up lies. This was said without looking at the evidence. When a crime is committed, the perpetrator cannot start making deals outside the court. In the case you mention the perpetrator was (in my opinion) further victimizing the victim by a ridiculous proposal of marriage. The crime has to be prosecuted.This is not family court we are dealing with a crime against a citizen. It was not the judges decision to delay the judgment. If the rape victim had said `I do` then yes, his hands were tied but until that happened it was not his call to make. He was there to preside over a case not be a cog in a patriarchial system.

At one point in time slavery was legal in the United States. It did not make it right.

In a country like India where societal pressure is great and women (apart from some in the urban centers) are taught that they are inferior, that they should not be heard, that they should suffer in silence, a judiciary that does not takes this into account (and in fact is sometimes prey to these same ideas) is in effect victimizing them further. Rapists and other perpetrators depend on women being blamed for rapes. They depend on women being cowed into submission by the larger society. We don`t need judges who become part of this larger society. We need them to impartially preside over cases and decide them on the merit of the arguments and the evidence. That`s it.

This article is again an unmitigated disaster because everytime it says ``I am not saying,`` about something it ends up saying precisely that.

But it is a pleasure to see Jawahara discussing this important topic. Such is the force of her credibility that I know I will agree with almost everything she contributes.

Re: # 55 kaal
//... R.S.S.` responsiblity (if it wishes to) to win the trust of people like Jawahara...//

``RSS`s responsibility``? Well - first of all, you should never put ``RSS`` and ``responsibility`` should in the same sentence. I mean - that`s the problem to begin with, right? RSS are just a bunch of freaks....... And why would they wish to win trust? Their agenda is served by lack of trust.

Anycase - this is NOT about RSS. This is about muslim community, and what is good for them. If UCC is good for them, then they should go for it - in fact, they should demand that UCC be implemeted ASAP. They should rally community support against fatwas, against the mullhas, against the oppression of Shah Bano, Imrana......

The issue is very simple really. If you have monkey on your back - then you have to get rid of it, by hook or crook. Of course, your enemies are taunting you for stupidly carrying that monkey for so long - that`e even more reason to get rid of the problem. But instead, you are holding on to the monkey tightly, feeding it and letting it loose on yourself ..... and then you blame your enemies for your plight? I mean, come on - can it more clear than this?

RSS is just an excuse. The problem is what jawahara first said [and then ignored her own advice] - inability to look within and reform. That`s a problem with muslim communities world over.

mohar11 # 54

IMO, it`s not Jawahara`s job to not hate the R.S.S. but R.S.S.` responsiblity (if it wishes to) to win the trust of people like Jawahara.

Cloaked lies, agendas, conclusion, intentions.........what else to expect from a muslim......blame others, Jews, India`s state system.

It wasn your/religious narrow mindedness, archaic, dark, inhuman teachings that failed Imrana - NOT the state. Others live in that state.

When you refuse to send your kids to secular schools and insist on separate laws for muslims, what do you expect?

When you refuse to adapt to secular and adopt secular ideas, what do you expect? Schools are open to all, send your kids there, instead of the Madrasas.

There is an Afghan family here in the US. The kids are born here. The parents don`t send their daughter to school because they don`t want to spoil her culture, heritage etc.....they say they will wait till she grows up and has grasped her own culture. WHAT is your EXCUSE in this case? WHO will you blame this time?

WHY blame the system, when the fault lies within you?

You cloak your real intentions by mildly rebuking Deobandis in the begining (to pretend to be a rational and balanced muslim); and in the end, blame India`s system. This trick is getting old. Try something new. Stop playing the victim game.

#52 by Jawahara

In hindsight the marriage proposal is of course ridiculous. But how would a judge decide that? He obviously had to ask the victim right? And that`s what he did. And you admit it yourself that his hands will be tied had the victim said `I do`. So in this whole process the verdict will be delayed, no?

Then pray tell me what you mean by this:
[The crime has to be prosecuted.This is not family court we are dealing with a crime against a citizen. It was not the judges decision to delay the judgment. If the rape victim had said `I do` then yes, his hands were tied but until that happened it was not his call to make. He was there to preside over a case not be a cog in a patriarchial system.]

I`ll give a miss on the slavery part but you`ll find your last para in every judgement where a rapist is convicted. Each judgement would stretch to 70-80 pages where the judge will refer to a dozen cases and bemoan the society for illtreating women; accuse the state for failing to protect its citizens; and ask all those present in the court, ``are you not ashamed of yourself?``, ``isnt the accused a part of the society?``.

If the accused is an illiterate labourer and some such shit, he would also remind the state of the directive principles and will show leniency. Ask yourself: If a very rich woman is raped by a roadside beggar, shouldnt the judge be lenient in pronoucing the sentence?

Now, jawahara, you might wish to take back a few things you had said in #52.

Re: # 59

``Nobody will win if you (and Jawahara) don`t focus your energies against people with whom you really disagree. ``

Kaalchakra:

I don`t understand.. Can you explain??..

masanauthu bhai # 57

Nobody will win if you (and Jawahara) don`t focus your energies against people with whom you really disagree.