The divisive politics of branding Indian Muslims as treacherous has gained a great deal of legitimacy in India today. More accurately, the extent to which groups driven by the Hindutva ideology have succeeded in spreading myths to demonise Muslims has emboldened communal forces in every way.
Call it propaganda or, to be more direct, Islamophobia, the fact is that this hatred is sponsored – and it has swiftly acquired the skill to even kill. No matter how strenuously Muslims protest, saying they are not who they are made out to be, their voices go unheard in the clamour of hatred.
The situation is such that anything can be distorted with a view to fashioning the next round of myths demonising Muslim citizens in India today.
Take a recent news report that the National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had taken up a complaint by Manushi Trust regarding “Darul Uloom Deoband’s teachings to young students on ways to legitimise and normalise rape, sexual intercourse with minors, animals, dead bodies, impotent persons as well as anal sex with men, women and children, which may be against International Conventions and/or the criminal laws of India.”
To think that such allegations would be pooh-poohed because they concerned a prominent, world-class institution is to be naïve in our times. Considering the propaganda that is unleashed against madrasas routinely, how difficult would it be to paint Muslims as mired in debauchery?
In any case, the propaganda succeeded in killing two birds with one stone – tarring the reputation of a prominent madrasa and projecting the “discreditable face” of Muslim society.
It did not matter that the complaint about a book titled Bahishti Zewar (Celestial Ornaments) being part of the curriculum was completely baseless. Written in the early 1900s, Bahishti Zewar is not part of the curriculum of any madrasa across the country, big or small, let alone the Darul Uloom Deoband. Nor any other publication of its kind.
While not part of any curriculum, Bahishti Zewar was often read by young women in their homes, especially after they got married. At one time, the book of instruction was an essential part of a bride’s trousseau.
But, untouched by facts, spiced up reports about the reprehensible teachings being imparted at the country’s prominent seminary appeared in many places and, by insinuation, became the horrific “truth” of the Muslim community, as it were.
In the same sequence of events, the RSS mouthpiece Organiser quoted Madhu Kishwar, founder and managing trustee of Manushi, and author of The Girl from Kathua: A Sacrificed Victim of Ghazwa-e-Hind, as saying that while a scrutiny of the entire curriculum of Darul Uloom was necessary, the seminary itself ought to be on the radar of intelligence agencies for playing with children’s minds.
The complainant noted that the textbooks used in madrasas are invariably in Arabic, Urdu or Persian – the implication being that the “strange material” it had highlighted was just a small glimpse of the “sexual perversions”; who knew what other, bigger, perversions were being legitimised through the teachings of madrasas.
Yet another point that was outlined in the complaint was that the author of Bahishti Zewar, Ashraf Ali Thanawi, had a following not only among Indian Muslims but also among members of organisations such as ISIS, Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Be it a question mark on the languages of instruction in madrasas or the mention of the above organisations, the intent of right-wing politics through this signalling is clear.
It is necessary to remember that the complainant, right-wing activist Kishwar, remains an outspoken supporter of Prime Minister Modi. Also, a year ago, a case was registered against her for allegedly spreading misinformation.
In a similar vein, Kishwar, in an offensive post had described Muslim men as “trained stud bulls” whose sexual prowess enables them to entice Hindu, Christian and Sikh women. She termed it “sex jihad” but took down the post later. She had also called the Pulitzer prize-winning Reuters photojournalist, late Danish Siddiqui, a “jihadi”. On July 16, 2021, Siddiqui, 38, was killed in Afghanistan while on assignment, in all probability by the Taliban or their supporters – the first journalist to lose his life while covering the Taliban offensive to seize control of Kabul.
This time, too, through the Trust a determined attempt was made to make Darul Uloom Deoband a target. However, the inquiry committee that was set up immediately to examine the allegations in the complaint, gave the institution a clean chit.
In its statement the Darul Uloom reiterated that from the go it had made it clear that the book named in the complaint was not part of its curriculum. The institution termed the entire episode as a conspiracy to tarnish its reputation.
Has the clean chit put an end to the controversy?
The entire sequence of events should also be seen as part of the ongoing campaign to demonise Muslim citizens.
One big question is, why did Kishwar’s Manushi Trust make a book that was not part of any madrasa’s curriculum, namely Bahishti Zewar, the centrepiece of its complaint?
The straightforward explanation is that Bahishti Zewar has always been a contested text. Several books have been written against it, fatwas given and many an article has stated that several parts of it should be done away with. That the mention of such a book would increase the believability quotient of the propaganda must have been a reason for its significant inclusion in the complaint.
The other big question is, does Bahishti Zewar actually validate “sexual perversions”? Is it everything that the long-winded complaint paints it to be?
The truth is that the Trust’s complaint is a perfect example of how a text should not be read so as to assume dangerous overtones. Then it becomes a question of intent.
What is Bahishti Zewar all about?
As stated earlier on, this book, written at the turn of the 20th century by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi, was meant to be given to young women once they had read the Quran. It provides advice on the various aspects of life that shape the journey from birth to death – from aspects such as conduct in daily life to matters of faith. Instructions about the proper way to write letters sit alongside advice on hygiene, cures for illnesses and making household items.
The book also discusses aspects of women’s life cycle such as menstruation and sexual intercourse – aspects that had been criticised from the very beginning for being too explicit. In fact, when iconic Urdu writer Ismat Chughtai was facing charges of obscenity, questions were raised about her religious upbringing, or lack of it. This is what she had to say:
I have read Bahishti Zewar, it is so open about everything…When I read it in childhood it sounded jarring, dirty. When I read it after my BA I realised that the things discussed [in it] were not dirty; rather they were relevant matters that every sensible person ought to know about. Although, if people have a mind to do it, they would label books taught in psychology and medical courses as obscene, too.
Was Ismat Chughtai’s statement simply a defence tactic or is it true that texts like Bahishti Zewar have to be read at an appropriate age when the individual has attained the maturity to understand it?
Even if someone were to argue that Ismat Chughtai’s statement was simply a defence tactic, the larger and more important point, namely that texts like Bahishti Zewar have to be read at an appropriate age when the individual has attained the maturity to understand it, hold true.
Perhaps that is why the well-known litterateur, prose stylist and journalist, Khwaja Hasan Nizami (1879-1955), initially described Bahishti Zewar as the first obscene book in Urdu but withdrew his statement later. And that may be the reason why so many critics warn against even glancing at it, saying it is haram, or forbidden.
However, apart from those who may have valid objections against some sections of Bahishti Zewar, there are those whose deliberate act of mis-reading takes them to another terrain altogether.
One of the sections in the book deals with hypothetical situations such as the necessity, or not, of a bath following reprehensible acts such as paedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia. The question is, would anyone indulging in such reprehensible acts be bothered about the importance, or not, of taking a bath?
In any case, no sensible person would consider this advice as part of any guide of personal conduct or religion. And if someone indulging in acts beyond the pale were to seek validity from any religious source or text, that person’s search would be fruitless.
The fundamental question then is whether the author of Bahishti Zewar should have chosen to write hypothetically about such matters. But to accuse him of legitimising such acts would be stretching things too far.
What one can and should say is that if there was a reason why the author wrote about these matters, then a footnote was necessary to avoid the dangers of mis-reading.
Ironically, there have also been attempts to tar with the same brush even those sections in which the author mentions women’s literacy or means to empower them.
It can safely be said that every possible barb of criticism has already been aimed at Bahishti Zewar, that too long ago.
In a nutshell, this early 20th century text was meant to be an attempt to educate women. However, it should have come with a cautionary statement that all 10 sections of it were not universally appropriate. Otherwise, it would appear dirty, as it did to a young Ismat Chughtai.
A text that is not a stranger to controversy
While it is a first for Darul Uloom Deoband to come within the range of controversy that has always surrounded Bahishti Zewar, the latter has been criticised frequently. At times so-called religious matters discussed in it have been called misleading in many quarters.
Even on the issue of the pervasive existence of caste among Muslims in India, several critics have described Bahishti Zewar as the Manusmriti of Indian Muslims. In fact, the question of caste arises in the book in connection with the subject of marriage, where the text openly speaks of the Sayyids being right on top of the hierarchical scale on account of birth, stating that a marriage between a so-called upper caste man and a so-called lower caste woman would be a mismatch. The author then goes on to determine the status of other castes as well. It can be said that the book displays an upper-caste mindset.
In conclusion, a few words about Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanawi (1863-1943), the author of Bahishti Zewar. He was considered a prominent scholar of his time, and apart from being known for some significant articles of criticism in the context of literary works, he has authored several texts on issues of religion.
As regards his political stance, he was a staunch supporter of the Muslim League. In fact, he considered the Indian National Congress and Gandhi to be enemies of Muslims. When support for the Congress grew in Darul Uloom and Deoband decided to openly support the Congress, Thanawi lost no time in resigning from the institution.
What would right-wing activists hope to gain by spotlighting a contested text by such an author other than creating a climate of opinion against Muslims? If the complainants had the well-being of fellow Muslim citizens in mind, all they had to do was demonstrate the manner in which the text validated caste hierarchy among Muslims, for that part of the book was not couched in hypothetical terms. But in doing that, the complainants would have been going against their own ideology. It is all well to mouth support for Pasmanda Muslims, but when it comes to doing something right by them, it’s a no-no.
No wonder the complainant fell back upon Bahishti Zewar. It’s always nice to have low-hanging fruit within arm’s distance.
Translated from the Hindi original by Chitra Padmanabhan.
