[Reader-list] No Burqa, No teaching in West bengal

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Anupam

To just state my point:

a) In any society, we always do live by some basic conventions, norms or
ideas which we value as a society, or individual or both. It's important and
imperative for us to come to a consensus on these based on rational and
informed discussions. Mind you, these can change over a period of time too,
to a point where what was considered right now may be considered wrong
later.

For example, a woman may herself feel that she wants to commit Sati earlier
(not to say that Sati was not forcible in India), but today as a society we
may not consider it appropriate for a woman to get flown away in emotion and
kill herself. Or for that matter, in Indian society about 40-50 years ago,
gay and lesbians would not have been accepted, but today they are. Partly
this may be because there was lack of rationality and informed discussions
taking place, but partly in certain cases it may be because certain
situations may not have arisen earlier.

b) These conventions or ideas however are arrived at on basis of certain
bias. And the conclusion or consensus we do reach may still not be
acceptable to some. That however does not mean that those people should not
be allowed to speak. And at the same time, it should be clear to them that
freedom is one thing we should all value, in both individual and in communal
sense. This means that individuals should have the freedom to take decisions
for themselves, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other
individuals or society as a whole. Now to arrive on what takes freedom away
or not, is in itself a matter of subjective debate.

For example when I asked once my friend if parents have the freedom to
decide the bride for their son or not, he said that it's for the son to
decide if the prospective girl is suitable for him or not and the same also
is true for the girl, and that parents should not force their sons to wed
certain girls, as the boy's freedom is being taken away. I however had a
doubt if the parents' freedom is not being taken away by the boy's decision
to not marry the girl of their choice. To which he answered that the boy has
the freedom and the parents just have the will of forcing their son to marry
the girl of their choice. On the other hand, I looked at this situation as a
clash of freedoms of two parties or entities who are worried at the loss of
their freedom. And while I do agree that the boy being an adult can decide
which girl to marry or not (as can the girl also), I do feel it's a
subjective assessment of who must decide which freedom to value here, or
which freedom must be valued. To me, the decision of the boy deciding upon
the girl (or vice-versa) is bound by the fact that while the two families
may have to live together, it's the boy and the girl who have to spend the
maximum time with each other, understanding and talking to each other. And
if they are incompatible with each other, it's a wastage of their times and
emotions, something we as a society can ill-afford (as also individuals).

Sometimes, individual freedom may have to be sacrificed for social freedom
also. I may have the right to cut off the supply of water from my well
(which may be the only source of water in my village), but the society may
value water as an essential commodity to which every human being has a
right, and hence my individual freedom would have to be curtailed to ensure
that every human being has the freedom to use water to satisfy his needs.

c) The words 'misuse of a religious text' in this context mean that
religious texts should not be used for misinterpretation in order to take
away freedoms which are valued in a society. For example, women in a society
may value freedom to move out without any restrictions, and they may value
also not putting the purdah. To force them by misinterpreting the Koran in a
wrong way would be wrong and should be criticized.

Now who will decide whether there is misuse or not. The question may have to
be decided by someone who knows the religious text well. But as you know
(which is why you raised this question), opinions can be subjective and also
can vary across texts. Therefore we come to two things here which I
mentioned in a) and b).

It's for our society to determine what are the conventions or things to be
observed (which are valued) by us, and this can take into consideration
religious ideas as well. But equally the decision of valuing which things
itself requires debates and discussions (rational and informed) which would
require the nature of the discussions to be democratic as well, i.e., free
and fair. Free because everybody must be able to express their views. Fair
because everyone should be heard patiently and opinions must be put for
counter-questions without any bullying or submission and decisions must be
arrived at through some consensus if possible.

So the misuse of a religious text too will have to be decided on the basis
of some debate or discussion on a larger level among people who have read
that text completely (not those who have read the text selectively or not at
all). And to that I would add again that those who misuse the religious text
to infringe upon the freedoms of other individuals (which we value) must be
questioned and subjected to punishment, particularly when the right to life
is being threatened (as in the case of Hafiz Sayeed and the RSS-VHP)

Rakesh