This is the second episode in the In A Spot series. Speaking simply, I'm happy to have the opportunity.
Tavleen Singh puts herself in a spot again. Read this if you don't believe me. She's got the Imrana case firmly in her view, but a much bigger picture and target in her mind. Let me leave the initial paragraphs for now, and jump directly to her recollected visit to Deoband.
Tavleen Singh puts herself in a spot again. Read this if you don't believe me. She's got the Imrana case firmly in her view, but a much bigger picture and target in her mind. Let me leave the initial paragraphs for now, and jump directly to her recollected visit to Deoband.
She goes to the Dar-ul-Uloom in Deoband and wants to meet the Maulana there. He does not share her enthusiasm for a face-to-face and gives two reasons -
But she does take a stroll inspite of the watchman, a rude thing to do, and discovers - what else - Saudi Arabia. Why Saudi Arabia? Because all the men are bearded and wearing Islamic clothes - whatever that means. And the fact that all the books are in Urdu or Arabic. She probably forgot that Urdu is indigenous to the subcontinent though influenced by other languages, including Arabic. She tries to talk to some students, but they too want nothing to do with her - she was disrespectful of their teacher (the Maulana) and they only speak Arabic. Mind you, they tell her all this in Urdu . She concludes that they are "nauseatingly fanatic" and - yes, rude. She forgets the earlier bunch who helpfully pointed out the correct procedure for meeting the big M.
The visit ends and all the rebuffs have obviously led her to the conclusion that the whole atmosphere is medieval and extremely unpleasant especially for women. The "fine, white-washed Islamic buildings and ... magnificent mosque" are forgotten. Added to all this, she was able to spot only one woman the entire while. Ms Singh probably isn't aware that people studying religion (any religion) don't generally have too many women keeping them company. A certain asceticism is considered the thing to strive for in such places.
Finally the big picture and two questions are saved for the last and for, who else, Sonia Gandhi and also Mulayam Yadav : Why is this seminary even allowed to exist? And will the Maulvi's who pronounced the fatwa be punished?
How can the government shut down schools of religious studies? On what basis? And why this insistence of a shutdown only now? As for the maulvis, the time to punish them would be when they go and force their views on the concerned individuals. I mean, taking turns at her house to force her to follow what they said. A more sensible option is to see what can be done against the f-i-l. And the f-i-l has been put in judicial custody. What else can be done? And it is not even clear apparently that there was a fatwa. Could it have been someone just giving their opinion?
Now to the initial sections of the column where she notes that Deoband is the inspiration for the Taliban and inspired execution of women for adultery in Afghanistan. It does seem to be true, but not entirely. In reality, schools teaching more extreme forms of the Deobandi Islam seem to have mushroomed in Pakistan. The Taliban leaders actually studied in those schools. They were also heavily influenced by their own tribal traditions. So the full blame for their actions do not rest in the Deoband school.
Can there be a more sympathetic and understanding view of the school? Apparently yes and for that we need to look to an American writer, writing in Time. Here. Why does the writer, just 10 days after 9/11, come away with more sympathy than our own Ms Singh? Who knows.
And Ms Singh also writes:
My rating of this article by Ms Singh: Could do better.
Update: I have steered clear of the victim and her plight here. Of course, one's heart goes out to her and hopes that she gets full justice.
1) She does not have a prior appointment.Perfectly good reasons to get rid of unwanted visitors. But it irritates her and for some strange reason Saudi Arabia comes to her mind and the thought that this is India and not that oil-rich sheikdom. To me, the appropriate response from the Maulana (or his watchman) would have been : "This is my school and my mosque. I set the rules. I meet people I want and don't meet people I don't want. You can either like it or lump it". I'm sure there are many religious institutions and non-religious institutions where interviews are not given on the fly to every hack who happens to be passing by. Hell, there are temples down south were men have to bare their upper ends before entering and many where women are not allowed inside, pray they ever so hard and for whatever number of years. People have accepted it. Coming back to Deoband, some students eventually show Ms Singh the right way - hop it to the main office to fix an appointment and return at the given time. She turns down this advice.
2) She is not veiled.
But she does take a stroll inspite of the watchman, a rude thing to do, and discovers - what else - Saudi Arabia. Why Saudi Arabia? Because all the men are bearded and wearing Islamic clothes - whatever that means. And the fact that all the books are in Urdu or Arabic. She probably forgot that Urdu is indigenous to the subcontinent though influenced by other languages, including Arabic. She tries to talk to some students, but they too want nothing to do with her - she was disrespectful of their teacher (the Maulana) and they only speak Arabic. Mind you, they tell her all this in Urdu . She concludes that they are "nauseatingly fanatic" and - yes, rude. She forgets the earlier bunch who helpfully pointed out the correct procedure for meeting the big M.
The visit ends and all the rebuffs have obviously led her to the conclusion that the whole atmosphere is medieval and extremely unpleasant especially for women. The "fine, white-washed Islamic buildings and ... magnificent mosque" are forgotten. Added to all this, she was able to spot only one woman the entire while. Ms Singh probably isn't aware that people studying religion (any religion) don't generally have too many women keeping them company. A certain asceticism is considered the thing to strive for in such places.
Finally the big picture and two questions are saved for the last and for, who else, Sonia Gandhi and also Mulayam Yadav : Why is this seminary even allowed to exist? And will the Maulvi's who pronounced the fatwa be punished?
How can the government shut down schools of religious studies? On what basis? And why this insistence of a shutdown only now? As for the maulvis, the time to punish them would be when they go and force their views on the concerned individuals. I mean, taking turns at her house to force her to follow what they said. A more sensible option is to see what can be done against the f-i-l. And the f-i-l has been put in judicial custody. What else can be done? And it is not even clear apparently that there was a fatwa. Could it have been someone just giving their opinion?
Now to the initial sections of the column where she notes that Deoband is the inspiration for the Taliban and inspired execution of women for adultery in Afghanistan. It does seem to be true, but not entirely. In reality, schools teaching more extreme forms of the Deobandi Islam seem to have mushroomed in Pakistan. The Taliban leaders actually studied in those schools. They were also heavily influenced by their own tribal traditions. So the full blame for their actions do not rest in the Deoband school.
Can there be a more sympathetic and understanding view of the school? Apparently yes and for that we need to look to an American writer, writing in Time. Here. Why does the writer, just 10 days after 9/11, come away with more sympathy than our own Ms Singh? Who knows.
And Ms Singh also writes:
What should concern us is that the Dar-ul-uloom will get away with its outrageous interference in the law.What "outrageous interference" in the law? There apparently has not even been a fatwa. Someone apparently asked them an opinion about an hypothetical case and the person in charge of such issues replied. That's what they are saying now. May or may not be true. But it at least casts some doubt on their fanaticism.
My rating of this article by Ms Singh: Could do better.
Update: I have steered clear of the victim and her plight here. Of course, one's heart goes out to her and hopes that she gets full justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment