Like many who followed the poignant story of young Gudiya on a television network last fortnight, I felt the script reminiscent of a predetermined finale. What struck me most was the fact that the programme, slated to help a young woman in a terrible predicament, actively pandered to the orthodoxies of Islamic clergymen. Scuttling even the pretense of a humanistic approach, the anchor facilitated a narrow view of Sharia as the solution to the crisis, and a pre-selected, overwhelmingly male audience, did the rest.
The secular media and hawkers of human rights must realize they lose credibility when fear of Islam prevents them from commenting on the merits of a case. Those who pontificate about the wonderful rights Islam bestows upon women must explain why these liberties unfold as oppression in the lives of individual women. Muslim scholars who expound upon the “evils” of Hindu society, such as the genuine menace of dowry and the largely non-existent sati, must help us understand how this failure to uphold basic human decencies is peddled as justice.
The main events of the tragedy are by now well known. A young soldier, Mr. Mohammad Arif, was captured by Pakistani forces and, unknown to his family, spent five years as a prisoner of war. His newly wedded wife was then aged 14, according to her sister. After a few years, Gudiya’s father arranged her marriage to her cousin, Taufiq. Gudiya settled into her new home exceptionally well, and was heavily pregnant with her first child when Arif unexpectedly returned. This automatically resurrected the first marriage.
Media reports suggest Arif sensibly planned to divorce Gudiya. But when her father demanded Rs. Five lakhs as mehr, he decided to assert his conjugal rights while insisting that the child be returned to Taufiq or given to Gudiya’s father. He voiced extremely tasteless views to the effect that Gudiya could breastfeed the child for ten days, before giving it to its biological father.
The culpability of Indian secularists lies in the fact that no one made the slightest attempt to respect the sentiments of Gudiya, her unborn child, or her new family. Shrill advocates of human, women’s, and minority rights, such as SAHMAT, Shahbana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, Javed Anand, Teesta Setalvad, Arundhati Roy, or Mallika Sarabhai, were nowhere to be seen.
Instead, television facilitated Islamic scholars and ulema to browbeat the young girl to return to Arif to claim a victory for Sharia. Since I had strongly felt the show had all the ingredients of a mock trial, I was not surprised to see Taufiq’s comment to rediff.com: “The MLA of my area told me that he was taking me to his house in NOIDA. But he took me to the television studio… I saw that the religious scholars were also there. The discussion started all of a sudden. I didn't know how to react. I was quite upset… When Gudiya said she wanted to go with Arif, I was out of my mind. I stopped thinking. I don't know what happened after that… But I am sure she was pressured. I didn't get time to speak. She also could not express herself. There was a women's group. They wanted to speak to her alone. But the TV guys didn't allow it. Finally the decision was taken and we all returned home. When the clerics gave their verdict, what could I do? The TV people cheated me. This is not the way to settle disputes.”
Gudiya’s uncle, Mr. Riyasat Ali, expressed dissatisfaction with the Naurangabad panchayat which said she should return to Arif. He said: “She was pressured by the people there. She was not allowed to speak. The clerics told her that she had to follow the Shariat and go to Arif. They said her son would become illegitimate if she did not. She was left with no option. Can a woman express herself in front of so many men?”
Islam, unlike Christianity or Hindu dharma, views marriage as a contract and not as a sacrament. Hence divorce is easy in Islam. Hence it was both logical and proper for Arif to divorce Gudiya so she could remain with the family which gave her so much love and affection. If the greed of Gudiya’s father made him play with his own daughter’s happiness, the community leaders should have taken him to task and instructed Gudiya to surrender the mehr.
As Dr. Sughra Menhdi and Ms. Naheed Taban of the All India Muslim Women’s Forum later alleged (Pioneer, 22 September 2004), Gudiya was pressured to return to Arif as the ulema and her family did not tell her about the Sharia provision for divorce and the possibility of legalizing her union with Taufiq. Instead, Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and Mufti Ejaz Arshad of the Dar-ul-Uloom, Deoband, quoted archaic judgments and refused to entertain the legitimacy of human sensitivities and decencies. The Mufti denied Gudiya was paying for mistakes made by her father, saying her consent was taken at the time of nikaah. I, however, am unable to agree that a village girl is a free agent at the time of marriage.
Gudiya was deconstructed into a piece of recovered property, with the ulema and studio audience determined to return her to Arif. As the television network played ball with fundamentalists, the pressure on the young girl, burning with fever and denied support from any quarter, was too obvious. Her decision was a travesty of justice.
The only concession to public opinion was the declaration that Arif would keep the newborn child. But Arif was explicit that he did not want to do so: “It is Taufiq’s child. If he doesn’t want to take care of the child, then I will. When it grows up, Taufiq can take over.” It seems likely that after weaning, the child may return to its real father, and this may be for the best since it is unlikely to get affection in Arif’s home. Gudiya herself was eloquent about her so-called free choice: “who knows what will happen to me. I may die or the child also may die. No one can say anything about it.”
Little wonder that even the Muslim villagers of Mundali, where Taufiq lives, were unhappy with the verdict. Elders openly told journalists that Gudiya should live with Taufiq as she was carrying his child. They were furious that Arif wanted his wife, but not her unborn child. This was valiantly stated by Ms. Nahid in the studio, but hers was a voice in the wilderness, and her sense of helplessness at the façade of free will being imposed upon the unfortunate Gudiya made for sad viewing. Both she and the audience outside the studio knew the outcome of the debate as a foregone conclusion.
It is high time that Muslim religious and secular leaders begin to appreciate that many perceive the Sharia as an institutional mechanism of totalitarian control over the community. In this sense, it is at odds with the modern world’s striving for a justice that conforms to society’s sense of what is just. This quest for a just solution remained unmet in Gudiya’s case, and therefore left an enduring impression that justice was not done. This dissatisfaction is fairly pervasive in the Muslim community today.
The Pioneer, 5 October 2004
