Last month Muslim women from around India met at the third annual convention at the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) – the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement. The BMMA exemplifies the reality that women’s rights movements face in addressing the numerous issues and challenges of both the struggle of women and the upliftment of entire communities to which women belong.
Last month Muslim women from around India met at the third annual convention at the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) – the Indian Muslim Women’s Movement. Led by their founders, Zakia Soman, Naish Hasan, and Noorjahan Niaz – the 1500 women met to bring their issues to the fore of discussion and debate on women’s rights in India. The BMMA exemplifies the reality that women’s rights movements face in addressing the numerous issues and challenges of both the struggle of women and the upliftment of entire communities to which women belong.
For women who actively occupy some other minority status choosing between these two or more identities is ongoing – whether it is defending these multiple identities or understanding oppression within them. Muslim women in India occupy this space. As a religious minority Muslims are given particular deference with regard to family and personal law. For Muslim women this means dealing with the reality of ill treatment being both justified by religion (often manifesting through informal court mechanisms) and supported by the state who does little to ensure that the Muslim community, and especially Muslim women, are able to access the basic services they desperately need and further marginalize the Muslim community. On the other hand, being Muslim and marginalized mean that women are constantly defending their faith and their freedom to practice.
The women of the BMMA gathered under the meeting theme: “When Will We Become Full Citizens?” harkening to the exclusion of Muslim women from both secular and religious spheres of power and decision making. The women of the BMMA called for an ongoing examination of the Sachar Committee Report, a study commissioned by the Prime Ministers Office, highlighting the problems of the Muslim community in India including access to education (less than 4% of Muslims graduate from school and literacy rates are far below the national average for Muslims), health, and sanitation. Alongside these issues of basic needs the report acknowledges the ongoing political targeting of Muslims– the high presence of police in Muslim localities, the disappearance and questioning of Muslim boys and men, and the isolation of Muslim communities connected to political marginalization. The active mistreatment of Muslims in India came to fore in the horrific genocide in Gujarat in 2002, in which amongst other gruesome acts of violence women were specifically targeted as the bearers of Muslim culture, community, and religion.
Recognizing that women’s rights, especially for Muslim women, are often dependent on the upliftment the Muslim community, and that women’s issues cannot be addressed in isolation the BMMA made a series of requests to the government of India. These demands of the BMMA were drafted and compiled through consultation with the broader membership of the network. These requests include increased access to education, increased access to basic infrastructure, an end to communal violence, and end to the targeting of Muslims as terrorists including constant surveillance, and reformation of personal law.
The broad approach that the BMMA takes to women’s rights is illustrative of an underlying questions within women’s rights activism – is focusing on only women’s rights enough? Do we need to have a broader focus on social and economic inequality in order to really transform society (for everyone including women)? How do we do this given resource constraints? In the case of the Indian Muslim women’s movement, the BMMA has made clear that the rights of women are nestled within and will only be realized when both the basic needs of the Muslim community are met and Muslims are no longer seen as suspect citizens.
Aziza Ahmed is a human rights lawyer working on issues of women’s rights. She received her law degree from the University of California, Berkeley Law School and her Masters of Science in Population and International Health from the Harvard School of Public Health. This article was originally published by RHRealityCheck and is reprinted with permission under a Creative Commons license.
“As a religious minority Muslims are given particular deference with regard to family and personal law. For Muslim women this means dealing with the reality of ill treatment being both justified by religion (often manifesting through informal court mechanisms) and supported by the state who does little to ensure that the Muslim community, and especially Muslim women, are able to access the basic services they desperately need and further marginalize the Muslim community. On the other hand, being Muslim and marginalized mean that women are constantly defending their faith and their freedom to practice.”
This point stood out for me, although the whole article was very good. While women and ethnic/religious minority groups often expect, or struggle for, basic protections from their government, simply deferring to religious communities to deal with women or others may or may not further individual liberties. This is also true if one definition of liberty is being able to choose one’s own path and juggle between various aspects of identity and facets of society (internal to a group and external to it). Instead, it can be marginalizing and does not make sense in societies that are inherently diverse and pluralistic.
I also agree that it puts women in the odd position of having to choose between calling for real social justice and reforms within a group of people, and having to defend their faith. Perhaps it is because minorities can feel that they are so much on the defense and already are critiqued, added critique seems to be a insult against religious identity. In this way, reforms can be hindered because people have less space for introspection. It would seem that enhanced civil rights could facilitate more natural desire for internal progress – a project launched with the will of the people.
Governments may also help by providing more options – for example, civic alternatives to group-based codes and laws. After all, within a community there are so many variables and modes of expression as well. (Notably, the Ottoman Empire also had both a civic law and a religious law.)
This is often the norm in many countries, but from time to time a reminder is needed, particularly when diplomacy is often conducted between groups. Despite opposition to this notion, since groups may feel they already have the right answers, it could actually enhance integration by allowing for a better exchange of ideas.
Historically, this has lead to great things like the Renaissance – a movement originating from the East, not of ideological domination, but rather of influence and appetite for knowledge.
Naturally, as a current contractor I’m not considered a full-fledged Fed so I can still lobby during off-hours :).