‘Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile’, a new feature film based on the life of the notorious American serial killer Ted Bundy, that has just begun streaming on Netflix. In the mid-70s Bundy, who used to be a law student in university, preyed on young and beautiful girls of various different universities in different cities. He would kidnap them, rape them and then kill them. In the beginning even though he tried his best to claim he was not guilty, on realizing there was no way out he later confessed to thirty such murders. Experts believe that the number of women Bundy killed was more than thirty, that it was possibly close to a hundred if not more. Ted Bundy was so handsome and so smart that one glance at him was enough to impress girls. Besides, he was such a smiling, well-behaved man that those who knew him could not have even imagined that he could murder someone. Catching him had not been easy either, he had twice escaped from two different prisons. But one day they did catch up to him, he was caught, tried and sentenced to death. Consequently it became possible to answer numerous questions surrounding him, how he used to abduct his victims, how they were killed and so on. But the one question that remains unanswered to this date is why his victims were exclusively women, especially when murder was something he was addicted to. Why did he not count men, animals or birds among his victims? Besides, it was not as if rape was the driving force behind his actions. There were many victims of his who were found to have not been sexually violated at all before being killed.
Around the time Ted Bundy was killing girls, two other notorious murderers emerged as well – Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono, called the Hillside Stranglers. Just as Bundy they too used to abduct young or adolescent girls, to rape and murder them. Bundy operated in Washington, Utah and Florida while the Stranglers operated in the California region. Is there any region that has not been a witness to femicide? Just a few years back, in 2014, Californian Elliott Rodger took to the street with a gun to shoot any girl he could find. So virulent was Rodger’s misogyny that he had even uploaded a video on Youtube containing his manifesto of hatred directed at women. In the video he had confessed to being a virgin because no woman had reportedly agreed to have sex with him. His manifesto of anger and hatred against women had been 140 pages long and Eliott ended up killing six people. Surprisingly, after the murders, instead of his actions being denounced a veritable wave of praise directed at him was unleashed. In no time many men popped up at various places claiming to be his admirers. What outpouring of misogyny it was! They named Elliot ‘Supreme Gentleman’ and his likeness began to find its way to their t-shirts. Canadian Alek Minassian, having adopted Rodger as his spiritual guru, went on a rampage on the busy streets of Toronto one day, using his van to run over a number of pedestrians, most of whom were women.
Not just offline, a thousand misogynist organizations have recently cropped up online as well – groups identifying themselves as ‘men’s rights’, ‘incel rebellion’, ‘pick-up artists’ among others. The last group claims that the best way to have sex is to first incapacitate the woman. These people may be misogynists but they are not as bad as Minassian. The latter was a proponent of murder while pick-up artists, although not aligned with murder or something so extreme, nonetheless are fine with rape. In fact, they believe every man possesses the right to rape women. Eliott Rodger was not the first of his kind. In 2009 a misogynist man named George Sodini had barged into a health club in Pennsylvania and killed three women. Before committing the crime he had left an entry in his online journal, confessing how he had not had sex in years because women paid him no attention.
Who will teach these men that it’s not a woman’s responsibility to satisfy them every time they get sexually aroused? Who will teach them that if they believe they are entitled to being inconsiderate, intolerant, violent, cruel and barbaric just because of their gender then they are seriously delusional!
Despite knowing that it is this misogyny that is behind such killing sprees and massacres directed at women, anti-terrorist experts insist on claiming ‘lone wolves’ are behind such incidents. Attacks by such lone wolves follow no strict plans and various reasons like drug addiction, depression and troubled childhood and growing-up years are often cited as motivating factors behind such aimless acts of murder and mayhem. But men who kill women because of their hatred for women, who commit such acts in cold blood, can be anything but lone wolves. The only people who can be perfectly compared with such misogynist terrorists are religious terrorists. Just as the latter category wishes for the annihilation of anyone or everyone who is critical of their religious beliefs, misogynists too wish for the end of all women. As per them if women are fine with living as slaves serving under men then they can be allowed to live, or else no woman has the right to life. No matter what else they are, misogynist terrorists are not lone wolves. Neither are they psychologically or mentally impaired or acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs. They do what they do because they hate women. Such acts of violence have a purpose, they are planned, they are political.
How many of us remember Marc Lépine? In 1989 Lépine had barged into École Polytechnique in Montreal and singled out only women students whom he had shot dead. That day fourteen women were killed. In the 70s and 80s Charles Sobhraj, famously called The Bikini Killer, killed numerous girls in Thailand and Nepal. The notorious ‘Yorkshire Ripper’ Peter Sutcliffe murdered thirteen girls between 1975 to 1980, besides attempting to kill many more. In early 1984 Australian national Christopher Wilder went on a crime spree abducting and raping at least twelve women, eight of whom he killed. Americans Rodney Alcala, Carl Eugene Watts, Leonard Lake, Gerald Stano, and Canadian Keith Hunter Jesperson were all involved in femicide. Then there was Ariel Castro from Cleveland! The man who kidnapped three young women and kept them imprisoned in his house, bound in chains, for more than a decade, treating them as sexual slaves, raping and torturing them!
So many feminists have faced death threats while protesting misogyny. In this age of technology and information just as misogyny has become popular, threats against feminists have gone up massively as well. While other acts of terrorism can probably be curtailed, murderous violence arising from misogyny is impossible to curb simply because misogyny is so normalized in our society. Patriarchy and misogyny are inextricably interlinked, without the latter the former will crumble. That is perhaps why across the centuries patriarchal society has actively nurtured and sustained misogyny.
Due to such entrenched misogynous attitudes, women are always considered inferior to men in all respects. It is believed that women are less intelligent than man, less talented, weaker, less competent and brave, all reasons why men are expected to lord over them. Men will draw the lines within which women have to live, they will decide what women will wear, what they will eat, where they can go and how far, what they can read or talk about, what they can write or think – everything will have its limits. Without misogyny, it would not be possible to think of women as insignificant and inconsequential. It is simply because of this pervasive hatred that women continue to be tortured, why dowry-related violence is still rampant, why sexual harassment is widespread everywhere be it at home or in the outside world, why even the threat of capital punishment has not managed to curb rapes, and why women continue to be murdered with impunity. Be it in the name of honour or in the name of retribution for adultery.
Children who grow up witnessing women being discriminated against never manage to learn any lessons on gender equality. What they learn from their families and societies instead is plain and simple misogyny. If anyone dares to claim equal rights for women, be it in education, practice, law, in the eyes of the state or in society, or even within the family, they are bound to face excommunication in some form or other. Just because the Prime Minister of a country is a woman hardly means such a society is free of misogyny or discriminatory practices. The Leader of Opposition is a woman, ministers are women, the head of state is a woman – none of these things can guarantee that in such a country women will enjoy as much freedom as the men do.
Women are murdered for various reasons, not every murder is femicide. Femicide happens when a man kills a woman simply because of who she is, a woman. A comparative term for the murder of men does not even exist simply because in our societies men are hardly ever murdered because of their gender. Being a man is not a thing of shame like it is in case of a woman. Women co-habit with their murderers, in intimate relationships, often under the same roof. Most women are murdered by people close to them, by their husbands, lovers, friends or close relatives. Other than among human beings in no species is cohabitation with one’s executioner such a naturalized tendency.

Dissent is the sign of a healthy society

I could never have dreamt such an incredible dream that school students of Bangladesh would one day change their country. Neither did I ever entertain the fantastic notion that because of their requests, or orders if you may, no unlicensed driver will henceforth be able to get behind a wheel in Bangladesh, motorcyclists will have to wear helmets and everyone will have to obey traffic laws. What they have managed to do on the streets of Dhaka within only a couple of days has impressed not just me but numerous other people. But just as is the case with any successful movement, here too, opportunists have managed to insert themselves within the call of Nirapad Sadak (Safe Roads) for their own personal political gains. Perhaps the students should have gone back home much earlier. But just because they had not heeded the request of clearing the roads, did that justify brutalising unarmed students using the police and armed units of party cadres? Times have changed. Things can now easily be recorded, identifying who has done what and when. There are usually lesser chances now of criminals feigning innocence than before. All the information about how photojournalist Rahat Karim was attacked with sticks and machetes and who the perpetrators were is on the internet, only a click away.

The Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has banned my books and prohibited my entry into my own country. In fact she did not even allow me the courtesy of being able to visit my father on his deathbed. As per her instructions the embassies do not renew my passport or attest any of my important documents. And yet she has my undying support. I support her because even though she has been nothing but bad when it comes to me, she has been good for the country. This assessment is not based on her strengths as a leader, her humanity or her experience though; it’s based solely in comparison to the leaders of her Opposition. Even today, given a choice between Hasina’s Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party – Jamaat-e-Islami coalition, I will give more points in favour of the former. It is unfortunate for Bangladesh that they do not have a better political option than the League; nor have they managed to foster leaders better than Sheikh Hasina, given how both can be labelled lesser evil at the end of the day. She is not an ideal leader and neither is her party the ideal political party. But the Opposition is so corrupt, so treacherous and so invested in ideas of jihad that one is left with no choice but supporting Hasina. I support her despite acknowledging the many mistakes she has been making and the injustices she has been committing one after another. I wish for her to stop making mistakes, because I support her and because there is no one else at present who can lead the nation other than her. I cannot help but notice how quite frequently her behaviour appears to mirror that of a dictator, how she no longer wishes to adhere to tenets of democracy, human rights and the freedom of speech and expression. I feel pained, I scream out in anger; not that there is anyone to witness my outbursts. I am not a politician, a philosopher or anyone influential. I am in the shadows, at the end of the queue, an orphaned writer among the many other disenfranchised of the land.

It is an undeniable truth that the faith and respect many progressive individuals across the globe had for Sheikh Hasina has taken a considerable beating, as has her reputation. This is precisely why she must prove herself and rectify her mistakes. She must prove that she is not only a leader of her party but also a leader of the people, that she still believes in the ideals of democracy, that she does not condone extra-judicial murders, that she does not want to suppress the free press, that she is not a vengeful and cruel person but a sensitive human being and a worthy head of state. She must prove she does not maintain an army of thugs and that she does not use her armed cadres to crush rational modes of protests and the rightful demands of citizens. She must repeal article 57 of the Information and Technology Act and prove that she recognises the freedom of speech and expression, one of the foundational tenets of democracy. Otherwise, sooner or later, progressive people will be forced to withdraw their support of her. If they do not believe in progress, modernity, women’s rights and secularism, if their party is what matters to them the most, then how are they any different from their opponents anymore?

Her well-wishers surely do not want her behaviour to resemble the very opponents she defeated to come to power. Already Reporters Sans Frontières, the non-profit that advocates on behalf of the freedom of the press across the globe, has issued a statement detailing how nearly twenty-three journalists have thus far been attacked while reporting on the Nirapad Sadak movement. Human Rights Watch too has sternly criticised article 57, clearly elucidating how the law was formulated to aid in persecuting anyone who would dare speak out against the actions of the Prime Minister or the ruling party. The entire world knows by now that the case filed against photo-journalist Shahidul Alam was based on article 57, resulting in his arrest and ten day remand during which time he has been severely tortured. His only offence was that he gave an interview to Al-Jazeera regarding his experience of photographing the Nirapad Sadak student protests where he spoke in favour of the students and made a number of critical observations against the government. He did not murder anyone, did not hack anyone with a machete or broke bones with sticks and hammers. The only thing he did was to sit in his own home and express his personal views in an interview to the media. How can viewpoints that are perceivably critical of the government be sufficient grounds for harassment? Let me assume Shahidul Alam did not speak the truth. Why has his untruths driven the government to such desperate measures to shut him up? Let the government prove that it is telling the truth. If Shahidul Alam is indeed a liar then that should not be too difficult for the government to prove. Let them prove they are the ones who are telling the truth and in the process disprove Alam’s claims! One can only imagine how much confidence the government must have lost in itself to have fallen on such hard times that they fear everything, right from school students and the demands of the common people, to the press, the photographer’s camera and dissent in general! It is a thing of terrible irony that the Bangabandhu’s daughter Sheikh Hasina is afraid of the same things that her idiotic and unsuitable opponents would have been afraid of had they been in power in her stead. People scare you only when they know you will be afraid.

A great person must necessarily possess the strength to accept criticism. You cannot expect to be a great statesman otherwise. In many civilised countries leaders resign even in the case of the most minor mistakes or errors of judgement. It is only in the third world that people employ any and every means necessary to hold on to power and as per the tenets of democracy even the most vile, bigoted, self-serving and stupid barbarian gets a shot at ruling the country. The belief that since one is good for the country no one else can ever take one’s place is deeply detrimental to the well-being of the nation. And there are enough sycophants in this part of the world to help nourish that belief and aid in its growth. But one must never forget that totalitarianism cannot be the solution to any problem. The way we oppose those who wish to use the tools of democracy to ultimately subvert its very ideals and establish a communal and fundamentalist regime, the same way we must also contradict those who wish to run a totalitarian regime in the guise of a democracy.

It’ll be catastrophic, the day the people go silent. All injustices and discriminations must be opposed. In order to heal, one must first identify the wound. Opposition to an injustice being done is the sign of a healthy society while the use of state power to quash dissent and abuse protesters is the sign of a diseased and barbaric state machinery. BNP coming to power would mean giving up the country to stupid and corrupt people like Tareq and Khaleda Zia. The Jamaat will invariably turn the country into another Afghanistan. And I am not sure if one can place too much faith on those who are plotting to come to power by ‘offing’ both Hasina and Zia. The best outcome would be if Hasina were to admit her mistakes and continue to serve the country. She will certainly win in the next election, but if religious bigotry manages to spread its roots further into the heart of the country, if stupidity is encouraged simply because it is more popular, if those who believe in free thought are assumed automatically to be enemies, if there are attempts made to silence dissent, then that victory will surely be a hollow one. Perhaps it might benefit Hasina and her party, but it will most definitely not be beneficial for the country.

One would rather have the democracy of someone unsuitable than the tyranny of someone suitable. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had made a grave error when he had decreed that there was going to be no other party than BakSAL (the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League or the Bangladesh Worker-Peasant’s People’s League); I hope Sheikh Hasina will not repeat the same mistake. I also hope that she will not repeat the error Sheikh Mujib had made by forming the Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini (National Security Force), by allowing the supporters of the Awami League or the boys of the Chattra League (Bangladesh Student League) to continue to commit acts of terror with impunity.

The mosque in New Zealand

The entire Muslim world has been shaken by the terrorist attack on the mosque in New Zealand. As it is many people nurse a lot of anger against Muslims because of numerous past incidents of terror committed by Muslim terrorists across the world. Numerous people die in such incidents, innumerable women get raped. For these reasons islamophobes never miss an opportunity to insult or hit back at Muslims. The act of terror on the mosque is an instance of that very Islamophobia.

The attack on the mosque itself is nothing new. Sunnis have always been known to attack Shia or Ahmadiyya mosques. The attacker in New Zealand is a right-wing Christian fundamentalist and racist who hates people of colour, especially immigrants. A lot like racist Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik. Their kind of Islamophobia is a lot more extreme.

Islamophobes have taken it for granted that since all Muslims are terrorists, killing one is akin to getting rid of a terrorist as well. Their minds are so clouded with hate, their brains so impaired that they cannot reasonably understand that most Muslims are not terrorists. Millions of innocent, regular Muslim people across the world have to pay the price for the terrorist acts committed by a few Islamic fanatics.

The way Muslims have come together to bemoan the collapse of humanity, why do they not do the same when non-Muslims or non-believers die at the hands of Islamic terrorists? Is it because they feel more acutely sad at the death Muslims than they do when someone else is involved? I have seen islamophobes who, let alone being sad, exhibit genuine happiness when they hear of Muslim people dying. Aren’t these two mindsets remarkably alike!

I will cry only when it’s someone from my family or my community who is the victim, otherwise, I could not care less – that is not what it means to be a good human being. To be loved and respected, it’s not enough for Muslims to sport the tag ‘not a terrorist’, they must exhibit kindness and compassion towards non-Muslim people just as they do to their own. The amount of freedom, cooperation, and respect that Muslim people get in most non-Islamic nations is way more than even in Islamic countries. Thus, no matter how conservative they are, many Muslims hanker to settle in non-Islamic nations.

Muslims must learn from the way non-Muslims from across the world have come together in solidarity to express their grief and compassion with the victims of the terrible incident in New Zealand. When non-Muslims lose lives in such senseless acts of brutal violence Muslims too must come together in solidarity.

Those who always seek to blame the wrongdoings of USA and Israel for Islamic terrorism, will they now blame the machinations of ISIS, Al-Qaida or Boko Haram behind the man barging into the mosque in New Zealand and killing all those people? If not, then obviously there must be something wrong somewhere.

The time for Muslims to remain in their state of childlike innocence has passed, the time has come for them to behave like adults and accept their responsibilities. ‘You cannot talk about my religion, you cannot argue against my laws, you cannot say anything about what I wear or what I eat, you cannot talk about the animals I slaughter or the discrimination between the sexes that I practice in my social life, you cannot hurt my religious sentiments, make a comment against my Prophet or make a sketch of a woman. If you do any of these I will kill you, set you on fire, destroy your world…’ These are childish and brutish demands! If one wishes to be civilised one must acknowledge not just one’s own rights but the rights of others as well – the human rights, democratic rights and freedom of expression of all people, irrespective of religion, faith, colour, gender or language.

For women, fight for independence much more important than entry to temples like Sabarimala

The protests against the Supreme Court Sabarimala temple order show that some places in the world are still inaccessible to women, all the magniloquent talk of equality in a democratic world notwithstanding.

Mount Athos in Greece is one such place where the entry of women is forbidden. Not only women, even female animals are not allowed. Mount Athos houses orthodox monasteries where about 2,000 Russian and Greek monks reside. The same system of prohibiting women is followed on Mount Omine in Japan. At its gate, “No woman admitted” is written. Still, the UNESCO declared it a world heritage site.

India, too, has many places where women are barred like Mawali Mata Mandir in Chhattisgarh, Kartikeya Mandir at the Haryana-Punjab border, Kamakhya temple in Assam, Mangal Chandi Mandir in Jharkhand, Ranakpur Jain Temple in Rajasthan, and Shri Padmanavaswami Temple, Shri Krishna Temple and Sabarimala in Kerala.

Women cannot enter some of these religious precincts because the Gods there are believed to be celibates. At Shani Shingnapur in Maharashtra, women do not have access to the sanctum sanctorum. And women could not even move around Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai. Now, after the intervention of the court, they can go there, but not the inner sanctum. The sanctum sanctorum is considered ‘pure’ and women are considered ‘impure’; so they are kept at bay.

Traditionally, women bore and brought up children, served their husbands and in-laws but did not get any respect or rights. Time changed; now women are no longer house-bound. They have become engineers, doctors, professors, lawyers, judges and topnotch professionals and scientists. They have even gone to space. In politics, they have become heads of states and governments. But all this could not disabuse them of the tag of ‘impurity’ labelled over them by patriarchal society.

The Supreme Court of India declared the practice of not allowing women of menstruating age into Sabarimala as violating the right to equality granted by the Constitution. But for the priests and devotees of Lord Ayyappa, the decision of the apex court does not hold water in the face of the old tradition. They did not allow women to enter Sabarimala, defying the court’s order, and surprisingly, many women devotees joined the male protestors. The attitude of political parties is ambivalent as they fear losing Hindu votes and so fight shy of taking a clear stand.

Religion is patriarchy and misogyny. No religion accepts equality of women. The reason because of which Sabarimala bans women’s entry is the same that of Haji Ali Dargah or Mount Athos.

However, I also wonder whether the people who want women’s entry into Sabarimala by any means think that it will give women equality. Many misogynistic rituals such as shashti, sindoor khela, karwa chauth are celebrated with fanfare and gusto. Even in marriage, the hymns chanted ensure the wife’s subservience to the husband. It was thought that Muslim women would get equality once the practice of triple talaq is banned. Such an absurd thought! Muslim women do not have equal rights under sharia laws that still exist.

We must not forget that women are oppressed because they are born as women. Incidents of rape, gangrape and sexual assault are rampant. Women suffer because of poverty, they are persecuted for dowry, and face domestic violence.

The body and mind of a woman are controlled by men. Female animals are not subjugated and tortured in the jungle the way women in the civilised world are. Animals enjoy equality, we don’t. We created religious places to worship imaginary Gods who are misogynist. Then why do women need to go to temples and mosques? Why do they need to bow down before the deities who treat women as impure, inferior, untrustworthy and untouchable. Women face problems at every step in this patriarchal society, but the truth is, temples and mosques are not going to resolve them.

The stand of Hindu fanatics in the Sabarimala case against the court emboldens Muslim extremists who always oppose judicial interference in their religious laws. They want to perpetuate their age-old anti-women laws. They refuse to be modern. Thus, Hindu and Muslim obscurantists think and act alike. The best solution is to go beyond one’s religious identity. One should say, “You are bad, but why should I not be good?” Instead, religious fanatics say, “You are bad, so why should I not be bad as well?”

Society is evolving. The feminist movement has been trying to change the patriarchal mindset but religious authorities and fundamentalists frustrate it in the name of upholding traditions based on misogyny.

Once upon a time, religious authorities enjoyed absolute power. Naturally, they did not want any dilution of their power. So, they always opposed any reforms. Countries which sidelined religion grew and progressed. Reformers throughout history have tried to make religion humane and free from cruelty and barbarism. In the past, there have been some rulers who tried to reform religion. But today’s rulers praise religion knowing that religion is anti-democracy, anti-women, and anti-free speech. They do not want to separate state from religion completely. If India is a truly secular state, it must not have religious laws. Laws should be based on equality and justice for all—Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Christians. One country, one law.

If women do not have the freedom to enter mandirs, mosques, churches, pagodas, so be it. I do not think it will harm them at all. Gods are male; they hate women. What women need the most is freedom from anti-women religious laws, and freedom from the barbarism of patriarchy. Women need education, healthcare, independence, and security. The fight for these is much more necessary and important than the fight to enter temple or mosque.

Muslim women and an emerging new politics

Those Indians who are known to be secular, liberal intellectuals usually support everything to do with their Muslim minorities – their religion and customs, madrassas and mosques, Eid-Muharram, hijab-burqa, even their misogynous Sharia laws. Whether it is Muslims expressing a desire for more mosques, or if they insist on blocking thoroughfares for their Friday prayers regardless of the inconvenience caused to common people – left liberals back them up always and even fight for them. Such liberal intellectuals have done a lot for the equal rights of Hindu women but they have never been too concerned about similar rights for Muslim women as well. They believe Muslims ought to be granted whatever they demand. Obviously, here Muslim means just the Muslim men. These men want to establish laws based on religion and it is believed that they should be allowed to do so. Muslim men do not wish to give any independence to Muslim women, so it is assumed that is how it is in Islam. This is exactly how the left-wing liberal intelligentsia of India has committed serious human rights violations since time immemorial, all in the name of solidarity with the minority. And then they claim that they are human rights and women’s rights activists, that they are progressive in their outlook. The ban imposed on triple talaq in India has elated the right-wing fundamentalists of the nation while it has made the liberal class unhappy. While Hindutva activists clamour for a Uniform Civil Code on the basis of equal rights of men and women, liberals are not heard making similar demands. However, it should have been the liberals who should have been in the forefront of this rights discourse.
Muslim women in India whose rights and independence have thus far always been denied have suddenly woken up to din of equal rights. A couple of educated Muslim men have put forth a demand that Muslim women be allowed to enter mosques and offer their prayers just like men. The Supreme Court of India has asked the government for clarification on the matter and this is now front page news. Just like how the Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory rules that barred Hindu women from entering the Sabarimala temple there ought to be a similar law for Muslim places of worship as well. Muslim women deserve the right to enter mosques just like Hindu and Christian women have the right to enter their respective places of worship.
The ban on triple talaq resulted in a declaration of victory across India, as if Muslim women had finally earned their equal rights. That is how little people actually know about the discrimination between the sexes inherent in Islamic jurisprudence. Muslim women have not achieved anything remotely close to equal rights yet. I feel compelled to ask, what good will it do if women earn the right to enter mosques and offer their prayers? They will be able to offer their supplications in front of Allah, occupy the same row as the men while performing Ruku and Sajda – things they had not been allowed to do previously. Not that they will be allowed to read the actual namaz along with the rest of the men – instead they will be made to stand behind a wall or a purdah, in a small back room or the veranda perhaps. The same prayers they used to offer at home they will now be able to offer in the mosque if they wish to. The Prophet had said that it was best if women prayed at home. I fail to comprehend how devout women are expected to flout the Prophet’s wish in order to be able to enter a mosque and pray. Many have claimed that allowing Muslim women to enter mosques will mean the realisation of equal rights. The women will not be allowed to stand beside the men or in front of them, they will be relegated to the back behind the men. How is this equal rights? It will just further demarcate and put people in their respective places, that too in a mosque – men in the front and women behind them. Women becoming imams, offering prayers kneeling beside men or in front of them, such things are considered haram in Islam. Equal rights cannot be earned from within the ambit of religion, it requires one to move out of the structure of organised religion. Will devout women be able to fight for equal rights in marriage, divorce or inheritance? If one believes in Islam one has to also condone the structural discrimination between the sexes that is there in Islamic law!
How many Muslim women manage to finish schools or attend universities? How many Muslim women join jobs or start businesses like other modern women? How many are allowed to take own life’s decisions? How many Muslim women have the right to not wear burqas or hijabs? How many are independent or self-reliant? The numbers must be very low. When this number increases only then can one say that Muslim women are earning equal rights. No one has forbidden women from offering the namaz. Since many women remain occupied with housework it is more convenient for them to pray at home. Since men spend most of the time outside it is more convenient for them to visit mosques. Most women actually spend more time in religious activities and rituals than men, so it is causing women no great harm if they cannot go to the mosque. What is definitely causing them harm is lack of education, absence of proper healthcare and lack of independence. What is causing Muslim women true harm is the erasure of all their rights under religious laws, child marriage, being forced to marry one’s rapist or even being forced to a marry one’s rapist father-in-law, and a host of associated misogynous laws and regulations including being prohibited from using a mobile phone. Among the Bohra Muslims of India female genital mutilation is still prevalent, to ensure women find no pleasure in sexual intercourse. They firmly believe sexual pleasure is solely for men. Have Indian liberals had anything to say ever about female genital mutilation or have they simply accepted this as part of Muslim culture too? Those who truly want the betterment of the minorities must surely wish for the latter to receive proper education and become self-reliant, that they turn towards a scientific outlook and extricate themselves from the mires of superstitions and religious fundamentalism.
I did not write in favour of revoking the ban on women entering the Sabarimala. What business do women have going to places where it is customary to consider them polluted? Is it not time yet for women to start maintaining a safe distance from God? No person of sound conscience should bow down before a misogynous power, especially women should not do it at all.
Then there are the ones who call themselves liberal, who are labelled as progressive despite being so reactionary. There are very few who are truly progressive in this subcontinent. The ones who are Islamophobic, those who believe that all Muslims should be driven out of the country, are one sort of reactionary. While the ones who believe Muslims should remain immersed in their religion if they want to, adhere to Sharia law if they so desire, be allowed to mutilate the genitals of young girls and call it culture – such people are another kind of reactionary. A truly progressive person can only be someone who wishes to combat all kinds of religious extremism – be it Muslim or Hindu. Not just the laws and misogyny of one particular religion, it is necessary to fight such problematic features in all religious beliefs. Regarding the misogynous, patriarchal and brutal customs of a minority community through a lens of kindness and compassion will only add to the further detriment of said community.
That is not to say I am calling for everyone to tolerate the barbarism of the majority either. Half the world’s problems can perhaps be solved only if we stopped tolerating brutality irrespective of religion, gender, race and ethnic or linguistic communities. The rest can be solved by using the good to push aside the bad, the beautiful to overcome the ugly.
The problem with those who believe in free thought in India is that although they never fail to express their pride of vanguards like Raja Ram Mohun Roy and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar who took the first steps to counter Hindu fundamentalism, they simultaneously never wish for such forerunners to be found among the Muslims of India. Unless Muslims can be trained to inculcate truly secular values, free thought and a modern, progressive and science-minded outlook they will continue to wallow in the depths.
More than being allowed into mosques it is essential for Muslim women to be allowed to attend schools, colleges and universities, to become self-reliant, to learn to hold their head high, become their own persons and declare a war against patriarchy and the clout of the mullahs. To live having to hide one’s face, dependant on someone else, terrified like a witless worm – that is not how one lives. When I speak in favour of the independence and rights of Muslim women, when I call for Muslim men to become more progressive and rise above fundamentalist dogma, the so-called liberal intellectuals who consider themselves well-wishers of Indian Muslims abuse me and label me ‘anti-Muslim’. Does that not make it clear what they want? They want for Muslims to remain consigned in the darkness, just like how Islamophobes want Muslims to remain. Such people keep trying to stop me from showing my fellow Muslims the way towards the light; they want Hindus to find this illumination but when it comes to the Muslims they say it is not time yet. When sati was being abolished in this country many educated as well as uneducated members of society had been similarly disposed towards claiming that the time for it had not come yet. We must remember that the right time never comes on its own, it has to be ushered in.

The perfect marriage

I am so happy to see Deepika and Ranveer smiling and laughing during their wedding day. I never saw any bride laughs on that day. Since my childhood I have been witnessing brides are sad and grooms are glad. It is true for a bride no matter how rich she is, how beautiful or educated she is, she is sad. No matter what her political and religious beliefs are, she is sad. Brides are sad because they are moving to uncertainty. Subcontinent’s most marriages are unfortunately arranged marriages. And almost all men, irrespective of their religion, they demand or expect dowry. Even though Muslim men need to pay ‘mahr’ or money to bride, still it is common that they ask for dowry from girls’ family. We know how women are tortured even killed by their in-laws if they are not capable of paying dowry. Misogynistic patriarchal culture is so deep-rooted here that it is almost impossible to make people treat women as equal human beings. It was a part of Bengali ritual that men had to tell their mothers while going to a bride’s house to marry her that ‘I am going to bring a slave for you’. Bengali men may not say it nowadays, but they mean it. They marry so that wives can serve them and their parents and siblings. A bride moves to groom’s house, and she is forced to adapt with a bunch of strangers and accept everyone as her most closest relatives and start cooking and doing all household chores. They are just unpaid maids. Men are glad during the wedding day because they get dowry money, as well as a slave for the house, a free cook, a free cleaning lady, a free caretaker,a free gardener, a free nurse, a sex slave, and a free child-bearing machine. Women are hundreds in one. They have to. Otherwise, they are not ‘good women’. If women are not ‘good women’, society will definitely make women’s life hell. Women are forced to accept all anti-women societal systems.

So, in our society, not many couples want female babies. Because females are a burden. Collecting dowry money for daughters marriage is quite challenging for poor or lower middle-class families. I wonder how popular the dowry system is that no law can make it go.

We now know that there are hundreds of reasons for women to cry during their wedding day. They go to a house of uncertainty. They do not know how the man would behave, whether she would be a victim of bride burning or domestic violence. They do not know they would be cut into pieces and put in the refrigerator. They do not know whether they would be strangled to death or beaten to death. This is so common among all classes and castes and creeds in the subcontinent.

The truth, marriage cannot make life secure. If anything can make women’s lives secure and safe, that is financial independence. Dependent women have insecurity, inferiority complex, and many other issues. Patriarchy has been telling women to be dependent on fathers when young, on husbands when grown up, on sons when old. When would women start to reject the anti-women guideline of patriarchy?

Deepika is an independent woman. Deepika and Ranveer are in love. They are not victims of arranged marriage. They know each other well, they are friends, and they want to become husband and wife, they have become. They fulfill their wishes. They are happy marrying each other. Deepika would not need to be dependent on her father or husband. She is neither a slave of her husband nor a slave of her in-laws. She has her own house. She will never allow any domestic violence because financial independence has made her stronger than millions of women who are not allowed to earn their own money or if earn, are forced to give all they earn to husbands. Women’s money does not belong to women. Money always belongs to men no matter who earned it. People believe that women are considered lesser humans, so they can earn but they do not know how to spend money.

Deepika is happy, Priyanka also is. But many Bollywood actresses were not happy. Some of them committed suicide. Deepika is loved by Ranveer. Both are gorgeous and talented. I want women to wipe their tears and laugh on their wedding day. I want them to laugh like Deepika, I want to see women happy like Deepika. I want they say NO to arranged marriages, NO to financial dependency, NO to dowry, NO to domestic violence, NO to marital rape, NO to patriarchy, NO to misogyny.
Deepika and Ranveer will make love. But unfortunately, most women in the subcontinent have to be passive on the bed. Men do not like to see women equally active during sexual acts. It is men who do sex, as they believe sex is for the enjoyment of men, and men only. Women are supposed to dedicate their body for the sexual pleasure of their husbands, whenever husbands desire. Many women are victims of marital rape. I do not know why marital rape is not considered a crime anywhere in the subcontinent. Many women still do not know what orgasm is. The male orgasm is important, not the female orgasm. In some societies, female genital organs are mutilated so that they can not enjoy orgasm.

It is enough for the traditional joint family. Man and woman should start living in their own home from day 1 after marriage. Living with in-laws is really weird. No woman with dignity and honour would move to husband’s parent’s house to live for the rest of her life. Men do not go to live with his in-laws, women also should not go to live with her in-laws. Women do not need to be submissive only because society wants them to be submissive. And they do not need to sacrifice their lives for husbands and husbands’ relatives. Women have their own life and they should decide what to do with that life. They deserve to be happy. Most women are indoctrinated in patriarchy that they sincerely believe that a woman’s happiness is in her husband’s happiness.

Women need to learn how to enjoy everything life offers to them. Her own identity is more important than her identity as a wife, or a mother. She must not give up her own surname in order to take husband’s surname. I wish Deepika would not turn to be Deepika Singh. I wish she would remain as Deepika Padukone exactly the way Ranveer would remain as Ranveer Singh.
Husband and wife should be respected as individuals. They should stay together as long as love exists. If there is no love, it is horrible to live as a couple under the same roof. Nothing is better than divorce if love is not there anymore. It is also weird to live with someone without love for the sake of children. Children get depressed and disturbed when they see no love between their parents. If women are independent, they would not hesitate to divorce abusive husbands or the husbands they love no more.

I hope Deepika and Ranveer become the ideal happy couple. Neither of them needs to give up their identity or their job for the marriage.

The Burqa Issue

It is the most Islamophobic among the far-right in India who have consistently demanded the ban on triple talaq and the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code, who have been vocal about doing away with Sharia law. But the ones who should be making these demands in the first place, the ones who should have been at the forefront of the movement, have never done so. They are liberal, not blinded by religion or at times not even religious, they subscribe to leftist ideology and believe in human rights, freedom of speech, women’s liberty, equality, truth and compassion – but they are all quiet, they are yet to utter a word. Muslim women, by the very fact of their sex, are not allowed to go to colleges and universities, are often married off young and are forced to cover themselves in the burqa. For the crime of being born female they are systematically disenfranchised from equal rights regarding all things like marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance.

So who will fight for the independence of these women? The far-right has been vocally against the burqa. It will be quite natural to take that as evidence that they are truly sympathetic to the cause of Muslim women. But truth be told, it is due to no sympathy on their part but simply the demands of their own political gains that motivate the far-right to remain alert about faults on the part of Muslims. Muslims are not modern, they contribute in no way to the betterment of society, they imprison women behind the veil, they are not fit to be citizens of India, they are capable of only committing bad deeds, violence and bloodshed are endemic to them, their chief problems lie in their religion, in their religious texts and laws – these are what the far-right wants to highlight. However, they rarely choose to point out facts like how the religious laws of Hindus and other non-Islamic creeds used to be no less problematic, like for instance how the Manu Samhita has next to nothing when it comes to rights due to women. And that most modern laws were made by cancelling those aforementioned religious laws and patching together various things premised upon the principles of equality, as a response to decades of activism demanding equal rights for women. The far- right had always been in favour of preserving the religious laws. It was the liberals, the ones who believed in the demands for equality for women, who had fought hard against them. Wasn’t it the fanatical right-wing factions who had been the most miffed with Raja Ram Mohan Roy for speaking against the practice of sati or with Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar for having argued in favour of widow remarriage. Today the same right-wing is trying to achieve something akin to what Vidyasagar had done. But they are doing this not to reform their own religion but someone else’s. I don’t believe that in order to reform age-old religious traditions or ensure the development of a backward community only people of said community must come forward and no one else. It’s general human responsibility to try and work towards the betterment of all societies and classes. But if the ploy is to only sing the praises of one’s own religion and social formations, ignore its faults in favour of highlighting the problems and issues in other faiths and societies – that is the occupation of a slanderer, not a reformer.

I fight for the adoption of the Uniform Civil Code without having pledged allegiance to any one group or community or political party, simply as a feminist and advocate of human rights. The Hindu right-wing too is a proponent of the Civil Code and there are obvious differences between the motivations of the two points of view. I wish for Muslims to become secular and enlightened, and move forward towards establishing a modern, equal society. The motivation of the Hindu fanatics is not very clear to me. Like for instance I am not a supporter of killing Muslims for eating or trading in beef, which is clearly something the Hindu fanatics is perfectly fine with. My position is always against any kind of religious fanaticism, even the Hindu kind. But does that mean if the Hindu fanatics support the Uniform Civil Code, even with their own ulterior nefarious motives, I should immediately withdraw my support regarding the legislation? Of course not! Just because my mortal enemy admits the sun rises in the east must I say the opposite! That the sun in fact rises from the west! Obviously not! I had once asked a friend why they were not supporting the cause of the Uniform Civil Code despite being so progressive. The friend had admitted that it was because the BJP supports the Code. Just because the BJP wants the Uniform Civil Code they don’t want it! I do not feel he is really progressive.

Any talk about a ban on the burqa makes people go into shock. Fourteen nations from across the world who are at the forefront of adhering to human rights have banned the burqa – either in certain designated areas or everywhere, either partially or completely – Belgium, Austria, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Latvia, Norway. In most cases the issue has been regarding allowing someone to keep their faces covered in public. Many people these days don’t feel comfortable when they see people moving around in their vicinity with their faces covered. Recently Sri Lanka has banned the burqa too, to ensure that it does not happen again that a terrorist is loose with their identity and their bombs hidden underneath a burqa and the police have no wind of it.

The other day in Bangladesh four goons dressed in burqas approached the young madrassa student Nusrat, doused her in kerosene and set her on fire. Those men burnt her alive because she had dared to make a police complaint against the principal of her madrassa who sexually abused her.

A suicide bomber is walking around wearing a burqa and we are sitting complacently beside them taking them to be innocent women – the days of such stupidity are over. A wide array of people wear the burqa – 1. Girls brainwashed by religion into believing they will go to hell if they don’t wear the burqa; 2. Girls forced by their families into doing so; 3. Suicide bombers; 4. Escaped convicts; 5. Criminals on the run with bounty on their heads; 6. Thieves; 7. Dacoits and 8. Murderers.

The burqa needs to be banned across the globe. Once that is done women will be able to move around with the dignity of human beings, without having to carry around a mobile prison at all times as punishment for having been born as female, to no longer have to live as faceless zombies. Can there be any better news for women? The women who claim they like wearing the burqa or that it is part of their rights do so only because they have been indoctrinated into believing so.

Back in 2010 an old article of mine on the burqa issue had been reprinted in a journal in Karnataka, that too without my knowledge. It had sparked riots in two cities. Obviously it was the men who had been rioting even though the issue at hand was womenswear. It’s usually men who decide what women should wear. If the burqa is indeed such a blessing why do men not show interest in donning it? That women too have sexual desires, that they too can make advances towards a man, these things are proven facts. We have heard of women getting attracted to other men and plotting to kill their husbands as well. So if women are expected to keep themselves covered from head to toe so they don’t end up stoking a man’s sexual desires, then men too have to don the burqa to ensure they don’t similarly incite women’s desires. But other than thieves, goons, murderers and terrorists no man will wear the burqa, because they feel it will damage their masculinity, like how sarees or bangles do.

Sarees, bangles, burqas, lipstick, kohl – these are women’s things. When a man uses women’s things, or does things that are usually expected of women like cooking, cleaning, childcare and suchlike, it jeopardises his rank and standing. On the other hand women slip into men’s clothes with ease, they do the same difficult or risky jobs as men, and it only adds to their standing. Isn’t this picture enough to make it clear to us how women are not regarded as human beings in the strictest sense as men are, they are usually regarded as lesser humans. Society has only made technological advancements but it has hardly progressed in its outlook at all.

The burqa is a symbol of insult to women, all of us know this and yet we are not doing anything to rectify this. To be honest, more than how degrading it is for women it is even more so for men. Burqas prove irrevocably that men are incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. They are helpless, weak and their libidos override their personalities. Let women say, ‘You cannot control your sexual excitement, that’s your problem not mine. You cannot cover me up because you have a problem. I am not your private property that you will decide for me what I should wear, how, where I should go, how far. You solve your own problems, why should I be expected to bear the brunt of them! I have my desires as well but I have never demanded you keep your face and body covered because of that. I will wear kohl if I wish to and if my dark gaze is a problem for you then don’t glance at me! If your eyes stray regardless and if your manhood causes you too much hardship then hide your eyes behind a thick blindfold. There will be no better solution than that. You don’t have to witness something that excites you. That way you will live and so will I!’

Some are saying that if the burqa is banned in India then the ghoonghat, the veil or headscarf prevalent among Hindus and other non-Muslims, needs to be banned too. I say let it! Women’s heads, faces and hair have to covered so that no one other than their husbands can see them, because wives are the private properties of their husbands – such dangerous beliefs are still so prevalent among people in the twenty-first century. Till the day women continue to don the burqa or the ghoonghat, they will continue to be regarded as sexual objects, as slaves dedicated to men.