Owaisi Should Show Quran Citing Hijab; by Muslim Law, Mehbooba Won't Be A Leader: Arif Mohammad Khan

Kerala governor Arif Mohammad Khan has been vocal on the hijab row. On a day when the Karnataka High Court ruled that the headscarf is not a part of the essential religious practice in Islam, he spoke to CNN-News18 in an exhaustive interview about the row itself, the narrative of majority vs minority, Muslim liberals and radicals, and the road ahead for the community. Edited excerpts:

This is being seen as a defining judgement. How are you viewing it?

I don’t like to use the words. My stand has been vindicated by those who were debating the issue. What was at stake is the future of the young Muslim girls. I am so happy and I welcome the decision. These young Muslim girls, who are very competent, who are very consistent…Now, the sort of ceiling, which some people were trying to impose…They were trying to impose restrictions on career prospects…That has come to naught.

Why did this issue become about majority vs minority?

This was so clear from the beginning. I would say the Karnataka HC has pronounced their opinion in a very high manner. Otherwise, as far as the common man is concerned, that hand is not really unseen. Everybody knows who were the people behind the controversy. The vested interests, people whose hearts are full of hatred, they are here to create this type of controversy. Whatever opportunity they get, they will take it and destabilise society. They want to create disharmony in society.

Hatred against whom?

This hatred is against the current government. This is an attempt to unsettle the government. This is an attempt to disturb the government and they can go up to any extent.

What was the role of the commissions?

I never questioned their role. I always emphasised that it shouldn’t be happening. I always said that the human rights commission and all other agencies should be given the power to uphold the rights of humans. The constitution during the British was based on religion. The Indian constitution is based on equality. Our constitution strengthens our civic rights. We are also the original signatory of the UN commission. Our fundamental rights are based on that.

What is your reaction to the arguments made by Asaduddin Owaisi and others?

I shall be very grateful to him if he can show me any line from the Quran which says so. The problem is not about Allah’s command. The problem is that people like him, they feel that they are Allah. Whatever command they give should be followed. I have seen him quoting the Quran that this is the command given by Allah. I have repeatedly said that I do not want to challenge you, but I shall be grateful to you if you can point out one single line from the Quran or about the kaban for hijab. Just show me one line where the term hijab has been used in the context of dress for a woman. It has not been. Which Allah’s command are they talking about? Islam required adherence to submit to the will of God. They are projecting their own commands and projecting as the will of God. this can’t be accepted.

I am taking that argument a little forward, that what is essentially a practice should be left between God and the believer. The argument is that any devout Muslim should not be told what is essential and what is not essential…

Islam itself says what is essential, and how you will not discuss that issue…Islam says (quotes Quran) these are the essential things and non-essential things. What are the essential things? First, oral affirmation; second, prayer; third, fasting for a month; fourth, charity, alms-giving; fifth, doesn’t apply to everybody, it is only for those who have enough resources to travel to Haj. Islam itself says that these are the essentials, it means everything else is non-essential.

There are certain sets of people who are radicals, perhaps hardliners within the community, who are saying that this judgement is an interference in the practise of Islam. What about those who are seen as liberals? The liberal Muslim voices like Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti?

I only feel sympathy for them in the sense that in their own personal lives they behave differently. I would not like to name, but there are so many prominent Muslim leaders, who always refer to Jinnah. Jinnah in his personal life was a different person but he spoke in a language that was acceptable to the Muslims of India. So whatever we do personally is different but to the common Muslim, we must appeal…they have this deep-seated understanding that Muslims respond only to communal appeals and in fact, Maulana Azad has also said, if you permit me, I will quote him. He has spoken in Urdu, I will translate it because to my mind it is very important because this is how the Muslim mind is being made up by the leaders: by the clerics by the political leaders. Maulana Azad lamented about it, why? Because he was a sincere man. These people, they exploit him, because they just want to take political advantage. Quran does not even use the word hijab in the context of women, but it is true that Muslim law does. It prescribes what a Muslim woman should wear. But the same law also says that the leadership of any people can’t be entrusted to women. It clearly says if you entrust the leadership of a particular country… By law hijab should be applied, why not…If she (Mehbooba) is a true follower of the law.

You are making a very important point, perhaps Muhbooba Mufti should respond to that. I have seen the reactions coming on social media. A lot of people have a lot of things to say. But the important thing is slowly and steadily, there is an interference in Muslim religious affairs when it should be an individual’s equation with the religion.

It is so unfortunate and full of ignorance when they say there is an interference with Muslims. Now whatever is happening in Saudi Arabia, is it they are interfering in religion or they are slowly realising that with change in times, we must change? The Muslim countries themselves, do they make it compulsory for women to wear hijab? Just to single out and try to create a situation there is interference with the religion…Wasn’t Sati thought essential by the followers of a religion? It was abolished. There are so many things, not just Sati. Like untouchability. What did Mahatma Gandhi say? Mahatma Gandhi said, I do not believe that untouchability is essential by Shastras, but if you say it is essential by Shastra, I refuse to believe in Shastras.

People like you who are voices of reason are often criticised. Then who is failing the Muslim community, especially the women?

They have been failing. Don’t forget in 1920 we had the Khilafat movement. All the Arab Muslim population was against the Khilafat. The Turks themselves have abolished the Khilafat. But in India, they always made these emotional appeals—Boli Amma, Mohammad Ali ki jaan, beta Khilafat pe de do. What was the reason? Finally, they gave the call, issued a fatwa that now India has become…. because of the abolition of Khilafat, India has become Dar al-Harb. India has nothing to do with Turkey, but India has now become Dar al-Harb because Britishers are responsible, they are ruling over here. This is very important. It was the duty of every Muslim to migrate from India to another place. So many people bought their homes, and innocent people, following their fatwa…they left the country. They asked where to go. They said, go to Afghanistan. We were always under the impression that 30,000 people were killed on the border of India and Afghanistan. But recently, a book has come from Pakistan. They have documented the numbers. More than 5 lakh people were killed. Those who had issued the fatwa, they didn’t travel from their homes to another city. Poor Muslims were made victims. Likewise, in the Pakistan movement, what was the argument that was given? Do you know what Jinnah had said? Jinnah had said, to liberate the Muslims of North West and North East, if Muslims in West of India are smashed totally, I don’t care. Maulana Shabbir Usmani made speeches everywhere. In UP and Bihar, people asked the question that Pakistan will not be formed here then what will be our future? Then he said, India was Dar al-Islam under Muslim rule, Britishers took over the government, now India is going to be a democratic country. These are the arguments of Shabbir Usmani, very well documented. He said that there is no hope of India becoming Dar al-Islam again. But if the Muslims of the North are ready to make sacrifices, then one part of India can become Dar al-Islam. How people in UP and Bihar were persuaded to vote for the Muslim League, and Jinnah said if they are smashed totally… So we have developed this special knack to hurt ourselves. Likewise, the Shah Bano movement; what happened? I totally believe and anyone will believe that what the Muslim Personal Law Board said in 2017 in their affidavit to the SC where they admitted that triple talaq is an innovation. Triple talaq is an evil practice. Triple talaq should go away…

You think that was a desperate attempt because they were trying to be relevant?

Whatever! I feel that in 1986, instead of saying, as you used, divine command…ye Shariat hai, ye Allah ka qanoon hai…instead of saying that in 1986, if they said this much what they had said in 2017, the country would have been spared of so many troubles.

Arif sahab, we are meeting at a time when elections in five states have concluded. The BJP has won decisively and comprehensively. Election after election, one thing which is becoming clear is about the minority vote bank. The Muslims of India in states like UP and Bihar, where they almost at a time, you know, several years ago they had the balance of power, are becoming inconsequential and irrelevant. What will you be telling them?

I would say that the situation is never static. Democracy is not merely the process of electing a government. Democracy is also a great source of education. If a small group, you are using the word minority, if generally, people come to view that country is being held to ransom by them…You were saying that they were holding the balance of power. When will they hold the balance of power? If the other society is totally divided. When they felt, this is not what I am saying, this is what has been written by so many people, that after Shah Bano, a very strong feeling developed among the country that a small community, so-called minority, is holding the country to ransom. They are saying that if you do not change the judgement of the SC then we will create unrest. Then people forgot about their own differences to save the country from the repetition of all such things…Do you realise…you must have been a very small child…I don’t know when you were born. In 1985 outside Parliament…these protests were not held at Jantar Mantar. They were held at India Gate. At India Gate, a Muslim Personal Law Board meeting was held, where calls were made to break the legs of “MPs who are opposing us”. They went scot-free, no action was taken against them. Will it create repulsion in the minds of people or not? Who is responsible for creating this situation? If you are behaving in a particular manner and you do not realise what kind of reaction it will provoke, I can only sympathise with you.

Then do you think the time has come for Indian Muslims to recalibrate their equation towards the current establishment?

As long as the dominant identity will be Muslim, the Constitution doesn’t give me any right as a Muslim. Article 25 of the right to religion is not a community right, unlike the British days. It is an individual right. The word used there is freedom of conscience; in legal terms, conscience concerns the individual. As long as you will be flaunting this Muslim identity…I am a Muslim, that is no problem, but in public life I am Indian. If I will try to assert my rights as a Muslim, which right has been given to a Hindu or a Muslim or any religion? Hardly any, because the Constitution even when minority was used…Britishers used Hindu and Muslim, Sikh and Christian. Now our Constitution does not allow that. Although the Constitution talks about the protection of culture, identity, lingual and religious rights, but not in the context of minority. Everybody is entitled to that. The same thing which has been said. Only Muslims have educational institutions and they are guaranteed by Articles 29 and 30. The non-Muslims, the so-called majority community, don’t have the educational right? Everybody has the right, but you are insisting. You are so fond of it that you want everything to be defined specifically for you. Taking that mindset into consideration and this long history of communal conflict in India, they gave this concession. But fortunately, they did not define in the Constitution who is a minority. The people of UP living in Andhra Pradesh, they can claim to be minority. Kashmiris living in UP, they can claim to be minority. Constitution makers were very conscious that it is not religion; any lingual, any cultural group can avail these rights. But you will have to come forward and say we are minority. The Constitution doesn’t define it. How do you feel in my own country, my Constitution gives me full rights as a citizen of India, and I am insisting on my Muslim identity. What mindset will it create? Minority means I am lesser than others. Don’t you find it insulting? I should live with this feeling because politically the party which is elected is the majority. The party which is losing is a minority and this changes in the next election. But as far as Muslims are concerned, I am a permanent minority. Permanent minority means I should suffer from an inferiority complex. I refused to support this argument. Even in 1980 when I was just 29 years old, my first interview was published by Calcutta Magazine and in that too I said, I refused to accept that I am lesser than anybody else.

Read all the Latest News India and Breaking News here