By P Sreekumaran
The remarks made by Sunni leader Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musaliar, that women should stay away from public functions and confine themselves to home, has sparked a major controversy in the State.
Keralam Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan led the chorus of criticism by stating that his comments are unsuitable for a modern and progressive state like Keralam. Addressing a press conference after a cabinet meeting, Satheesan said neither the Congress nor the Keralam government can agree with such a stand which belongs to the 19th century.
Even Islamic history and scriptures, the Chief Minister said, say that women have a place in public spaces. Such crude comments amount to a misinterpretation of Islam. Khadija, the first wife of the Prophet, was a businesswomen, while Ayesha, another wife, had led an army in a war. Women’s voices were respected in the court of Khalifa Umar, he pointed out.
In his controversial remarks, Kanthapuram, general secretary of the Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama and Grand Mufti of India, had asked mahals and madrasas under Samastha to ensure that religious programmes follow Islamic norms. The circular asked them to prevent women from sharing the stage or public space with unrelated men during religious celebrations. It also advised against incorporating customs from other cultures into Islamic festivals.
Kanthapuram followed it up with another speech at an Islamic conference in Kochi which saw him remarking that bringing women onto public platforms would lead to “great destruction” and that Islam prescribed purdah for women to prevent this.
Expectedly, Kanthapuram’s comments have triggered a huge uproar with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as well as Congress leaders and women’s organisations levelling sharp criticism against him. CPI(M) Central Committee member P. K. Sreemathy called for withdrawal of the circular, while former health minister K. K. Shailaja said that keeping women confined to their homes was a feudal practice. Women and Child Development Minister Bindu Krishna felt that such views could push women “centuries back” and asserted their right to participate in public life. Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala also lent his voice to the criticism by stating that he did not support restricting women in public spaces.
Other organisations which strongly criticized Kanthapuram are All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) and the Students Federation of India (SFI).
Meanwhile, the CM’s strongly-worded comment has evoked criticism from the Kerala Muslim Jamaat. It demanded that the Chief Minister withdraw the statement and apologise to the Muslim community! Satheesan, the Muslim Jamaat said, had misunderstood Islamic history and commented on them without properly considering their context. Such remarks, it said, were unbecoming of the office of the Chief Minister. There is nothing new in what Kanthapuram said, the Muslim Jamaat said, adding that it was intended for its followers. As Islamic scholars, they are only doing their duty. It was only a reminder to the faithful not to deviate from their religious path. Everyone has the freedom to live and preach according to their faith, commented Jamal Karulai, Kerala Muslim Jamaat’s Malappuram district secretary.
The circular was issued against the backdrop of Milad-e-Sharif celebrations expanding beyond their traditional settings in some places. In some mahals, the festivities had moved beyond mosques, madrasas and mahal committees, with youth clubs also taking up the celebrations.
Meanwhile, former higher education minister and CPI(M) leader K. T. Jaleel sprang a surprise by defending the Kanthapuram circular. By taking a stand which is clearly at odds with the position of the CPI(M), Jaleel said the Sunni scholar’s remarks came amid a debate among Muslims, particularly Sunnis, over the conduct of the Indian Union Muslim League’s (IUML) women leaders and the activities of Haritha.
In its reaction, the IUML sought to defend Kanthapuram. A statement made by its chief Sadikali Thangal tried to soft-pedal the whole issue. Kanthapuram made the comment with the sole intention of ensuring women’s protection and safety. Nothing more needed to be read into it, he added. Other IUML leaders like P. K. Kunhalikutty and K.M.Shaji, both ministers, refused to comment.
Be that as it may, Kanthapuram’s stand poses a fundamental question: women’s participation in public life. It is not confined to how Muslims should celebrate Prophet Muhammad’s 1,501st birth anniversary. That such a comment should be made in a State that prides itself on its progressive social history is a matter of grave concern. Kanthapuram says he was only reminding followers of established religious norms. Scholars, Kanthapuram’s supporters argue, have a duty to caution against departures from such norms. They are on a weak wicket. Of course, communities have a right to preserve traditions and regulate religious practices. But problems arise when they go against the values enshrined in the Constitution. Telling women to stay at home to avoid “great destruction” is no longer about religious observance. Such opinions militate against Constitutional equality and Keralam’s protracted struggle to ensure women, disadvantaged by social customs and religious traditions, their well-deserved space in public life. Keralam, a progressive state, cannot afford the luxury of making exceptions for orthodoxy. That tendency must be fought with all the force at the command of the people. (IPA Service)
