After Independence, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar, architect of the Indian Constitution, with Nehru's support, brought Hindu Code Bill 1951 to remove gender discrimination from Hindu society and give equal status to Hindu women. The Bill gave women inheritance, divorce and maintenance rights. It raised the age of marriage for women and upheld monogamy. The Bill brought together all the reforms such as law allowing widow remarriage and banning child marriages. However, Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and Bharatiya Jan Sangh (now BJP) severely opposed the Bill saying it would destroy the Hindu way of life and shatter the magnificent architecture of the Hindu culture. The right wing organisations also got support of some conservative leaders in the Congress. The Sangh Parivar even spread rumours that Nehru was supporting the Bill to felicitate his daughter Indira's divorce. However, due to stiff opposition, Nehru was forced to defer the enactment, following which Ambedkar resigned in protest. Later, Nehru made Bill an election issue and won. The Bill was finally passed in 1956.
The BJP had also opposed the Commission of Sati (prevention) Act 1987 which made commission of sati and its glorification an offence. Several BJP leaders in Rajasthan had launched a campaign against the Act saying the Sati was a part of Rajput tradition and government should not interfere in it. They argued that a woman burning herself along with husband's body is a 'natural act' of devotion. The then Congress government was initially reluctant to bring a law but had to do so under public pressure and the Act was passed despite opposition. The Act was brought after Roop Kanwar, an 18-year-old young girl in Deorala village of Rajasthan was burnt alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. Many, including a couple of BJP leaders, were booked for glorifying Sati. However, all were acquitted in 2004 because of lack of evidence. The sloppy investigation and evidence collection by the police botched up the case. All eye-witnesses also turned hostile.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi may have spoken in favour of LGBT rights but the party (after Nehru) cannot take credit of being progressive. It was Rajiv Gandhi, who as prime minister, had overturned the Supreme Court judgment in Shah Bano case in 1986. The court had ruled that a Muslim woman was entitled for maintenance from her husband after divorce under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The verdict was a milestone for Muslim women rights. However, hardliner Muslims opposed the verdict saying it is against their civil code and attack on Islam. To appease Muslim hardliners, Rajiv Gandhi government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which nullified the court decision. The BJP described the move as Muslim appeasement and discriminatory to men of other communities, mainly Hindus. It also demanded implementation of the Common Civil Code.
Then, in order to please Hindus, Rajiv Gandhi opened locks of makeshift Ram Temple at disputed site in Ayodhya. It provided BJP an opportunity to launch a movement for construction of Ram Temple which helped party emerge as a major political force in the country. In 1988, in yet another balancing act, Rajiv Gandhi banned Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses to appease Muslims and in 1989 allowed shilanyas of Ram Temple in Ayodhya. These decisions were taken by Rajiv Gandhi at a time when he was facing corruption charges. The Congress government preferred to appease fundamentalists of both the communities instead of taking a progressive and secular stand. The Congress felt that such appeasement will help in elections but it lost in 1989 and has not been able to win absolute majority in Lok Sabha since then. Had Rajiv Gandhi stood for Muslim women's right at the first place, the country would have been saved from the communal turmoil.At times, double standards of the parties also confuse people. Take example of BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi who has used 'discrimination against woman's right to inheritance in Jammu and Kashmir' to attack Article 370 which provides special status to the state. The ulterior motive of Modi is to communalize atmosphere in the garb of Article 370. He may say that Article 370 is responsible for the 'separatist movement' in Kashmir but the motive behind it is to make it an issue of India (Hindus) and Pakistan (Muslims) and evoke jingoism. One can understand it in better way by putting all the issues raised by the Sangh Parivar together. The opposition to Hindu Code Bill and anti-sati law shows its anti-women mindset. The issues like the common civil code and Article 370 appear to be nationalist but have anti-minority agenda. Stand against gay sex, valentine's day, religious conversion, adolescence education in schools and freedom of expression in art and culture shows that the Parivar is against progressive thought and individual freedom. Adding to it are purely communal issues like construction of Ram Temple. Besides, Sangh Parivar has called upon Hindus not to adopt family planning measures. Instead, they want Hindus to increase population to counter Muslims who allegedly have plans to convert India into an Islamic country in next 100 years by increasing their population. The agenda also generates hate. Take the example of 'Love Jihad'. In the past two years, every incident of harassment of a Hindu girl by a Muslim boy was described as Love Jihad to whip up communal feelings in west Uttar Pradesh. Though the reality is that harassment victims and accused belong to both the communities and there is no proof to suggest that one community is targeting another, the hate propaganda resulted in one of the worst riots in the state. The ploy is to create 'vote bank' by dividing people on caste and communal lines and grab surplus votes by taking about development in terms of economic growth.
Congress's ambivalence is equally deceptive. It promptly take up caste, lingual, regional, sectarian and communal issues in the name of social justice and development for electoral gains. Similarly, all parties claim that they want to end harassment of women and girls but most of their leaders are seen advocating a certain dress code and code of conduct for women. Similarly, their stand is ambivalent over honour killings. A law has been made against dowry but most leaders take and give dowry. The law against female foeticide is not enforced properly fearing it might upset 'vote bank'. The questions is not about LGBT rights alone. The larger issue is who decides in the society as to what is right and wrong - an individual or fundamentalists who are self-appointed protectors of religion and culture. Most of the time parties end up appeasing fundamentalists who claim to hold sway over public at large. Such politics restricts choice before people who are forced to elect from among corrupt and criminal fielded by parties in elections, which harms India's assimilating culture more than anything else.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Tradition a mask for regressive ideology
Dengan url
http://osteoporosista.blogspot.com/2013/12/tradition-mask-for-regressive-ideology.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Tradition a mask for regressive ideology
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Tradition a mask for regressive ideology
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar