Justice Katju Questions Muslim Leadership, Secular Politics and Silence on Kashmir Pandits
- Indian Muslims, Kashmir Pandits and the Debate on Secularism: Justice Katju’s Intervention
- From Shah Bano to Triple Talaq: Justice Katju Calls for Reform Within Indian Muslim Society
- “Secularism Has to Be Two-Way Traffic”: Justice Katju on Muslims and Kashmir Pandits
Justice Markandey Katju Writes on Muslim Marginalisation, Reform and Historical Accountability
Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju examines the condition of Indian Muslims, the Kashmir Pandit exodus, the Shah Bano case, the triple talaq debate, and the need for social reform and modernisation within the Muslim community.
Indian Muslims
By Justice Markandey Katju
I had written an article about the plight of Indian Muslims who have been marginalised in India's political life, and various atrocities and discrimination committed against them.
Thereafter, I posted this on Facebook and Twitter:
"Jab bhi Musalmanon par zulm hota hai, tab meri awaaz iske khilaaf uthati hai. Par jab Kashmiri Panditon par zulm hua tab Bharat ke sabhi Musalmanon ke munh par taala laga hua tha. Iska matlab Musalmanon par zulm buri cheez hai, par Hinduon par zulm nahin.
Aisa nahin chalega. Secularism cannot be a one-way traffic. It has to be a two-way traffic."
i.e.
Whenever injustice is done to Muslims, my voice rises against it. But when injustice was done to Kashmiri Pandits, the mouths of all Muslims in India were locked shut. This means that injustice against Muslims is a bad thing, but injustice against Hindus is not.
This won't do. Secularism cannot be a one-way traffic. It has to be a two-way traffic.
When I posted this, many Muslims abused, vilified me, calumniated, and maligned me, and said that I was communal and a secret BJP agent, that I was trying to please the BJP to get a Rajya Sabha seat or Governor's post, and what I wrote was false. Many comments were so filthy that I had to delete them.
The truth is that no Muslim spoke against the atrocities on Kashmiri Pandits in the 1990s when such atrocities were being committed. Now expressing regrets 3 decades later will only be shedding crocodile tears, which will serve no purpose since 'ab pachtaaye hot kya, jab chidiyaan chug gayin khet'.
This is the truth about what happened in Kashmir in the 1990s ( which my own relatives who suffered and had to flee from Kashmir, told me ) : (1) Loudspeakers in mosques would blare out loudly in Srinagar and elsewhere in Kashmir that Kashmiri Pandits should either convert to Islam or get out of Kashmir (2) Notices were posted on the doors of the houses of Kashmiri Pandits that they should convert or be killed (3) Crowds of Muslims would gather in front of houses of Kashmiri Pandits, and shout that KP males should leave Kashmir, but their females will not be allowed to leave with them (4) Many KPs were killed ( see on google ), and this create panic among the rest, who fled out of fear. But many Muslims created the false narrative that Governor Jagmohan made them leave (5) KPs were a tiny minority in Kashmir, about 4-5 lacs. They had to flee to Jammu for their lives, and most lived there for years in tents. They will never return
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/30-years-of-exodus-four-reasons-why-kashmiri-pandits-will-never-return-to-kashmir-29010
I have always condemned the atrocities and oppression of Muslims ( or anyone ) in India. But who is to blame for the present plight of Indian Muslims? Of course, the anti-Muslim acts and propaganda of the BJP are partly responsible. But what about the behaviour of Indian Muslims themselves?
As mentioned in my article above, Indian Muslims never opposed the policy of Muslim appeasement of the Congress and other 'secular' parties to get Muslim votes, and always opposed modernization of Muslims, as was done by the great Turkish leader, Mustafa Kemal.
Innumerable examples of such appeasement and opposition to modernisation can be given. For instance, when the Supreme Court gave the Shah Bano judgment in 1985 ( that a Muslim husband must give maintenance to his divorced wife ), all Indian Muslims should have supported this progressive and humanitarian verdict. After all, what will a divorced woman, having no independent source of income, and her children, eat if not given maintenance by her ex-husband? Everywhere in the world, such maintenance has to be given.
But almost all Indian Muslims, particularly the reactionary Muslim clerics, strongly opposed it at that time, saying it was against the sharia. I was shocked to see on the TV even Muslim women clad in a burqa shouting on the streets that when the husband divorces his wife, he is haraam for her, so she must not accept any money from him. So, according to such women, a divorced Muslim woman ( who is usually financially dependent on her husband ) and her children must starve to death, because the sharia says it is haraam to take any money from one's ex-husband.
Take another example. In 2011, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerji announced that Rs 2500 will be paid monthly to every imam of a mosque in the state, and Rs 1500 to every muezzin. All Muslims in the state should have seen through this ploy to get Muslim votes, and should have condemned and denounced it. But no one did, and later the Calcutta High Court quashed it.
Take a third example. All Muslims should have demanded the abolition of the inhuman practice of triple talaq or talaq halala, but hardly anyone did ( possibly out of fear that if he did the local maulana would pronounce a fatwa against him )
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board, dominated by reactionary maulanas, opposed the abolition of triple talaq by the Supreme Court, but by a 3-2 verdict, the Court abolished it.
I am a well-wisher of Muslims and would like them to prosper. So I told them several times to get rid of 3 things which have kept them backwards: (1) sharia, (2) burqa, and (3) maulanas.
As regards sharia, I explained to Muslims that law is a reflection of human society at a particular stage of its historical development. So when society changes, the law too must change. Sharia was a law that arose in Arabia in the 7th century AD. So how can it be applied after 1400 years when society has totally changed? Can we have the Manusmriti, which was written about 2000 years ago, today?
As regards the burqa, I strongly condemned it as a feudal custom that puts a woman in a cage, and should be condemned by Muslims.
Regarding maulanas, I said there were no maulanas at the time of the Prophet. These excrescences and aberrations arose subsequently to fool Muslims and exploit them. So Muslims should get rid of these parasites.
I am a well-wisher of Muslims and want them to prosper. But when I said all this, most Muslims ridiculed, castigated, insulted and excoriated me, and branded me a communal person, and a secret BJP agent.
So it is high time that Muslims start introspecting and doing self-criticism, instead of only blaming the BJP for their woes, agonies, and tribulations. Unless they modernise, their situation will never improve.
(Justice Katju is a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India and a former Chairman of the Press Council of India. These are his personal views.)
