Noorjehan Safia Niaz, co-founder of the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), is a prominent voice in the discourse on Muslim women’s rights. Formed in 2007 and with over one lakh women as members, BMMA has actively campaigned for legal reforms and was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case, besides filing petitions against polygamy and nikah halala. BMMA has also been pushing for codification of Muslim personal law based on the Constitution and a feminist interpretation of the Koran. Its work has not been easy, particularly with the pushback from a section of civil society. As the hijab controversy rages, Noorjehan shares BMMA’s position. Excerpts:
ADVERTISEMENT
What is your take on the hijab controversy in Karnataka’s colleges?
What is happening in Karnataka is a very right-wing Hindutva position against the [Muslim] community. They have been doing it for many years, whether it is ‘Corona jihad’ or the episodes of lynching. The [Muslim] community has been pushed to the wall. How can you stop students from entering [college] premises? They have a right to educate themselves. While schools have the right to determine what their uniform should be, before enforcing a decision, why could discussions with all stakeholders not be held? Obviously, because the aim was to communalise, polarise, and push the community into a corner.
ADVERTISEMENT
Does BMMA oppose the hijab as an assertion of identity or that hijab is essential to Islam?
Feminists have questioned the patriarchal, misogynist logic behind the veil, the ghoonghat. We cannot reduce the hijab to a matter of identity or community. Surely, there are other ways of asserting one’s identity. That the hijab is essential to Islam is also a superficial, reductionist understanding of the religion. Islam is not about how much of my head is covered, the length of my sleeve, how long is my abaya. Islam is about equality, justice, wisdom, compassion, prayers, fasting; it’s those values that are the basis of Islam. What is missing in the current debates is the spiritual, cosmological understanding of Islam. The right wing’s vicious propaganda against the community is also not helping.
The problem lies in [men’s] interpretation of religious texts. When we started to read the texts, we realised there’s no such thing as triple talaq. On polygamy, too, there’s a verse [in the Koran] that says that you can marry more than one woman. But in the same chapter, another verse says that even if it’s your ardent desire to treat them equally, you can’t, so marry only one.
ADVERTISEMENT
Can the hijab be seen then as a voluntary, cultural practice rather than an enforced one?
The community is diverse, and so are the practices. But in the past decade or so, I have noticed three-year-olds, five-year-olds being made to wear a hijab — where is choice in that? Even with adult women, do families really give them a choice? But where is the space to discuss these myriad aspects in such a polarised atmosphere?
Since I am from the community, I can see the pitfalls of supporting practices such as hijab. I recall several instances where I’ve had complete strangers — young and old men, and once a younger woman — walk up to me in public and question my choice of dressing. The impunity, the audacity with which your personal space can be violated!
ADVERTISEMENT
My sister lives in Bhendi Bazaar — the oldest Muslim ghetto in Mumbai — and is perhaps the only one there who wears a sari. Women have come to her house and told her she shouldn’t be wearing one.
Instead of talking about real issues, the narrative is getting diverted. This is not good for the [Muslim] community; it’s not good for the country.
Even when BMMA opposed triple talaq, you encountered pushback from various women’s groups...
ADVERTISEMENT
It is understandable that religious groups would oppose us. But secular, liberal feminist groups stood against us and openly condemned our work. Even during the triple talaq debate, they did not stand alongside Muslim women’s demand for a just, humane family law. Instead, they chose to side with the conservative religious groups from the [Muslim] community. This time, too, these groups — except Shabnam Hashmi — have taken the position of reinforcing hijab as a matter of identity. They need to look within; to the damage they are causing the Muslim woman’s cause.
How can this anxiety of playing into the right wing’s agenda be countered
We must stand against all kinds of fundamentalism. Why can’t the secular feminist groups say that though we stand with you [those fighting to be allowed to wear the hijab], we don’t agree with you? Why not say ‘I stand with Muslim girls for their right to educate themselves, but this is not what you should be fighting for’?
We are clear that we don’t stand with Hindu fundamentalists. But we are also keeping our distance from this narrative [that hijab is essential or part of our identity]. Feminist groups have the privilege of language and the ability to take positions. So why not now? Every situation is not black and white, there are shades of grey.
Tell us about BMMA’s long-standing demand to codify Muslim personal law?
By 2037, it will be a century of depriving the Muslim community of a codified law. We have been getting bits and pieces — Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939; Shah Bano [Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986]; and now, triple talaq. Hindus, Christians, Parsis, all religions have had their personal laws codified. But each time we raise issues, we are told that the ‘time is not right’ or ‘why are you bringing in religion’, ‘why do you need separate laws’? So, the Muslim woman should not raise her issues?
We are not going to a political party, parties come and go; we are approaching institutions such as courts and the Parliament. Today, it is the BJP, but what did the Congress do [during Shah Bano]? Or, for that matter, what was the Shiv Sena doing 30 years ago? We can’t forget what they did to us, and we can’t let them forget either.
Have secular feminist groups severed engagement with the government? Are they not paying taxes? Were they not happy when homosexuality was decriminalised by this government? But when we talk of legal reforms for the community, we are told we are stooges of the government!
Now, the government wants to raise the age of marriage for girls from 18 to 21. If the Bill is passed, will the law apply to her [Muslim woman] or will religious laws that allow marriage at 15 years apply?
You say that issues such as hijab are diverting attention from the real concerns of Muslim women. What are those issues that we need to be talking about?
We have been consistently talking about education and livelihood issues. We have just opened a daycare centre in a district outside Mumbai; parents had to pay a small fee to use it, but they are unable to afford even that. At our training programmes, women demand jobs. During the last lockdown, we arranged scholarships for so many children.
What about global stances on the hijab, as in France, for instance? Are there lessons to be learnt from there?
There’s a need for deeper introspection. In a multicultural society with people of diverse faiths, there’s always a need for give and take, adaptations, and accommodation. But even as we condemn the right-wing and ultra-secular approach of the French government, what are we doing to ourselves, our religion? Why did we not take up certain issues in the community, allowing instead the right wing to hijack the agenda?
The writer is a Fulbright alumna and Director, Alliance for Knowledge Advancement and Dialog.