The Concept of Women in Communal Ideologies: A Study into the
ideologies of RSS and Jamat-e-Islami
Ish N Mishra
A communal organization derives its ideology, base and support
from religion and tradition, that is, from the past or the existing social order,
and functions as a bridge between religion and politics. Tradition is the
continuation of the ‘glorious past’ as perceived, and projected, by the
ideologies of such organizations, which may or may not bear any resemblance to
historical reality. They interpret, and limit, history, according to their
ideological purpose, which aims to mobilize people in defense of a communal or
religious identity, and the social order which protects and upholds that
identity. Such organizations, and ideologies tend to become more active in
transitional phase, i.e. , in times of rapid social change, partly in response
and partly in resistance to the forces of change, which are viewed as threats
to the communal and religious identity.
The Indian Freedom Struggle generated many ideologies-some that
sought to break the social and religious diversities to unite Indians as a
nation, and some that sought to perpetuate such diversities and divisions by
theorizing religion based nationalism parallel to the pan-India inclusive concept
evolving from the anti-colonial struggle. The women’s question-or the issue of
women’s rights and roles in the new nation that was being forged, was a crucial
issue that had to be taken note of by all these ideologies, as women’s position
and status formed a basic feature of the social order in each community.
Cultural values, religious norms and prescribed role models determined and
confined women’s lives within certain boundaries, considered to be sacrosanct for
these self-appointed upholders of religious traditions as defined by them.
While the dominant ideology of the nationalist movement
arrived-howsoever haltingly-at the concept of women’s equality in social,
economic and political life as essential for winning Swaraj and building an
Indian nation,
the communal ideologies proved more resistant to this concept. Unfortunately,
this aspect of the communal ideologies has received little attention from their
supporters or critics. I intend to present, briefly, the treatment of the
women’s question by two leading communal organizations, RSS and
Jamaat-e-Islami, by examining the texts written by the ideologues of these organizations.
And the women’s questing here means the equality of women-economic, social and political-with
men.
The practiced ideology of communal organizations, which is,
manifested in its standpoints and policy statements/acts on various issues, may
or may not be in total conformity with its stated ideology, which is derived
from scriptures and particular value systems, this paper deals with the stated
ideology. This paper attempts to analytically document ideological literature of these organizations.
THE RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEVAK SANGH
THE RASHTRIYA SWAYAM SEVAK SANGH (RSS) was founded by K.B.
Hedgewar in 1922 under the inspiration, and with the blessings of D.V Savarkar.
Savarkar was a believer in India’s salvation through a return to its ancient
rootssince the publication of his
book Hindutva in 1917. In this book he adopted a position
diametrically opposite of his earlier one, presented in his Indian War of
Independence published in 1907 which praised Hindu – Muslim unity in resistance
to the colonial power.
RSS. According to the preamble of its constitution, was founded
to organize the male Hindus in order to bring about ‘an all-round
regeneration of Hindu Samaj, so that the ‘might of the
regenerated Hindu Nation (Hindu Rashtra) strikes down the enemy’s
hosts’. After about 50 year of its inception it
agreed to organize its women’s wing, Rashtriys Sevika Samiti, which works
towards defending and perpetuating the “glorious cultural values” of the
ancestors, has remained paper organization and has non-existent for all
practical purposes.
The enemies of the Hindu Rashtra were identified as communists, Muslims and
Christians. The order of priority with
emphasis on Communists and Muslims as the primary enemies of Hindus, bears a
strange resemblance to Adolf Hitler’s identification of the enemies of the
German race-Jews, communists and the victors of the First World War i.e. the
Franco-British alliance.
The RSS participation in the freedom struggle did not go far
beyond scattered utterances as confessed by Nanaji Deshmukh, one of its
prominent leaders. “RSS as an organization did not take part in the National
Liberation Movement, but its members were free to take part in their individual
capacity. The ultimate goal of RSS, however, was to take the country to the heights
of glory”.
M. S. Golwalkar, the successor of Hedgewar as the
Sarasanghchalak from 1940 till his death in 1973, makes a plea for revival of Prakramvad,
the militant Hindutva, as opposed to revolutionary militancy and thought the
revolutionary as well as peaceful anti-British movements were bound to drift
into reactionary channels. Golwalkar is full of
praises for “unparalleled, undisputed German Empire” of Hitler for keeping up
“the purity of Race and its Culture… by purging the county of the Semetic Races
– the Jews”.
For him and for the RSS Swayam Sevaks,
the Nazi type of “Race spirit at its highest” is a “good lesson in Hindustan to
learn and profit by”.
M. A. Venkatrao in his introduction to Golwalkar’s Bunch of
Thoughts dumps the concepts of class war and irreconcilable class –
antagonism as destructive and maintains that “Indian Social Philosophy is
superior to current violent and muddy theories of Marxism and Freudianism”. He
further argues that state is not an agent of upper classes according to Indian Shastra’s,
nor an exploiting agency, but agent of morality or Dharma”.
RSS holds Savarkar as its ideological guide, who in his proposed
Hindu Rashtra, defines citizenship in terms of “fatherland” and “holy
land”, and hence rejects the
theory that Aryans came in the subcontinent from outside. It also eulogizes and idolizes Tilak for his
nationalism combined with militant Hindu revivalism and his defense of
‘traditions’ like child marriage etc. Golwalkar found it difficult to
refute Tilak’s proposition the that Aryans had come from the Arctic region, and
in order to defend his own view that Aryans aboriginals of this land and that this land had always belonged to
them, he claimed that in ancient days the Arctic region was in India. In his
‘We or Our Nationhood Defined’ he says, “Lok Manya Tilak propounded the Arctic
origin of Aryans. We may agree with him that originally the Aryans, that is,
Hindus lived in the regions of the North Pole. But he was not aware that in
ancient times the North Pole and with it the Arctic zone was not where it is
today… North Pole is not stationary and ling ago it was in that part of world,
which we find is called Bihar and Orissa at present…..”.
The ideology of RSS is thus based on this kind of glorification
the Aryan Race Theory and its traditions. The aims and objectives of RSS as
defined in its constitution are “to weld together the diverse groups within
Hindu Samaj and to revitalize and rejuvenate the same on the basis of its
Dharma and Sankriti”. It defines a Swayamsevak as
“any male Hindu of 18 years or more, who subscribes to the rules and
regulations of the Sangh and takes its pledge”. Boys below 18 year come into
the category of Kishor (Adolescent); Bal(young boy) and Shishu (child) Swaymsevaks are
classified according to age groups. It seems it has heeded the
advice of ancient Greek Philosopher Plato to begin indoctrinating children from
the birth itself, as at that tender age they are like wax and can be molded in
a desired shape. It is to be noted that
Plato’s Ideal State perfectly resembles the Varnashram system, the
four-fold Brahmanical division of society with the intellectuals, the
custodians of the “highest knowledge” It
prescribes uniform to its members-white shirt, khaki knicker and black cap,
black boots and a Dand (Batton). Every early morning and evening many public
parks in most of the cities and towns and many villages witness disciplined
military like drill under the command of a Mukhya Shikshak (Chief
Educator), lowest official in the pyramidal hierarchy. At the top is Sarsangh
Chalak who nominates his successor in his life time. Officials (Adhikari)
of lower units are chosen by and/or in consultation with him. There are many other visible
similarities between the RSS and Nazi or Fascist parties, in terms of ideology,
organizational structure and the chauvinistic methods of mobilization, which
ought to be the subject matter of a separate study. Gandhiji had characterized
the RSS as a communal body with a totalitarian model.
On Women’s Question
This study, however, focusses mainly on the RSS attitude to the
women’s question. To study the women’s question in RSS ideology, one has to
look into the position of women in the sources of its ideology, the
socio-political systems it supports, and its ideals. Here again, we find strong
similarities with that of Nazism. Balasaheb Deorsa, chief of the RSS after
Golwalkar’s, justifies the exclusion of women from the RSS structure on the
grounds of domestic responsibilities: “How can women participate in Shakhas,
(the daily meeting and the drill) when they have domestic responsibilities?”This
view of Deoras about the role of women corresponds to that of Hitler that “a
woman’s role must be restricted to bearing children, to be in kitchen or to
pray in the church”.
The RSS identifies Vedas and Upanishads, the Vedic
and post Vedic Brahmanical scriptures as its ideological source and finds in
the Gita, Mahabharata and Ramcharitmanas, as the highest
examples of pragmatism. Deen Dayal Upadhya, another ideologue of the RSS
aspires for a Dharmarajya based on Dharma which sustains the society. Following the line of
Golwalkar, Deen Dayal Upadhyah argues the Post-Vedic republics in ancient India
had been failures and rejects the modern socialist systems on the grounds of
being foreign.
It is noticeable that in the republics of ancient India women enjoyed
relatively much better place in society and more freedom of participation in
socio-political activities. The ideology of socialist
systems stands for absolute equality between men and women. This further proves
our point that organizations opposed to democratic values and socialism are,
ipso facto opposed to even a better position for women, let alone accept the
concept of equality. Buddhism allowed women to its Sangha against the
Brahmanical norms of their exclusion from public places. Golwalkar considers
Buddhist influence responsible for the “degeneration” of Hindu society though
he accepts Buddha as one in the sequence of Hindu incarnations. According to
him, the Buddhist sect had turned traitor to the mother society and mother
religion which was fought out by Shankaracharya.
It seems that due to its conception of celibacy and belief that,
women can distract a man from his chosen path, that the Pracharks (the
whole timers of RSS) by set norms remain bachelors and present an example of
‘morality’
and sexual restraint which is one of the dominant parameters of character.
Pracharaks and other office-bearers of RSS are nominated by higher bodies.RSS
considers Manu as the first, the greatest and the wisest law-giver of mankind’, who held that “in childhood
a woman should be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, and when her
lord is dead, to her sons. A woman must never be independent”. Golwalkar’s Bunch of
Thoughts, which provides ideological guidelines to RSS, does not elaborate the
position and role of women in exalting the ‘glorious heritage’ from Manu to
Savarkar. The inability of RSS leaders to define the women’s role very explicitly,
stems from their prejudiced obsessions and taboos attached to sexuality in
general and female sexuality in particular with the structured patriarchal
values, and with over-emphasis on celibacy and chastity. Datto Pant Thengri, another
RSS think-tank, while discussing the sex-education, co-education and
intermixing of sexes, writes that “the Sangh is totally against – the concept
of sexual relations amongst willing partners.” When a group of women
activists asked for suggestions on a literacy campaign amongst women, Golwalkar
advised them to “first and foremost inculcate noble Sanskras (Set moral values)
in them (women). Then only think of literacy”. He goes on to suggest to ‘inspiring
them with the spirit of pure devotion to our motherland faith on our Dharma and
pride in our history. Show them the map or our sacred motherland, mountains, Tirthsa(
pilgrimage) and temples-introduce them to social tradition-sprit of our
national being”. He asks women to perform ‘recitations of prayers early in the
mornings’ and warns them to keep away from the “glare of western civilization
which would spell ruin to the matchless traditions of purity and chastity, set
up by the daughters of this soil….only then any literacy campaign may succeed”.
RSS does not find any place for women in its organizational
set-up for ‘national regeneration’. The preamble to its constitution specifies
the need for an organization like RSS ‘to make them (the Hindus) realize the
greatness of their past, to inculcate in them the spirit of service, sacrifice
and selfless devotion to the Hindu Samaj and to build up an organized and well-disciplined
corporate life”.
Greatness of the past for RSS is the greatness of Mahabharata where Draupadi, a
women, is considered to be a ‘jewel’ to be distributed among the five Pandavas,
and of Ramayana where Sita, again a woman, is won by Lord Ram in a
weightlifting competition and is thrown out of the house by Lord Ram, the
perceived ideal of virtue, despite her passing the Agni Pariksha (trial by
fire) for her chastity and fidelity.
As the RSS ideology is not very explicit in its definition of
women’s role and position, a study on women’s question in its ideology has to
look into implicit and latent definitions through the types of socio-political
structures that the RSS advocates, and the ideals it preaches. RSS supports the
institutionalized inequality of Hindu society, which includes gender inequality
as an important component. Golwalkar claims quite loudly that RSS does not
stand for equality but for harmony and assigns the responsibility for ‘inherent
disparities’ to nature. “Man is different from animal by his Dharma” which,
according to Golwalkar is ‘the state of highest harmony in spite of inherent
disparities in nature’ According to him agitations
against these ‘inherent disparities’ are not ‘born out of real awakening but
out of darkness and ignorance’. Golwalkar feels that ‘total
good of all beings’ is in contrast to ‘greatest good to greatest being’. RSS claims that it is
“neither against nor for the Varna Vyavastha (caste system) though it (Varna
Vyavastha) has served great purpose at critical times”. For Golwalkar the
monarchy is the best form of political system which “was found to be a highly
beneficial institution continuing for thousands of years”. Politics, according
to RSS ideology, is just a part of religion. Indeed, politics itself becomes in
the case of such Religion (Hindu), a small factor, to be considered and
followed solely as one of the commands of religion, and in accord with such
commands.
In his Bunch of thoughts, Golwalkar describes Hedgewar as
the incarnation of Yudhishthira of Mahabharata, projected by RSS as the ideal
man. Yudhishthira, according to the Mahabharata, thought that women were the
vilest creatures on the earth and at the root of all evil. Bhishma, another ideal of
the RSS, held similar opinion about women. The highest ideal character for the
RSS is that of Rama of the Ramayana.
Advocating the Dharmic ideology, RSS pleads for the revival of
the glorious tradition of Vishwamitra, Kautilya, Vidyaranya, Ram and
Chandragupta, Krishna Dev Arya and Shivaji, the tradition of the Gurus and the
Kings, of Dronacharya and Arjun, and not of Eklavya. The few studies on the
position of women in these hierarchically stratified monarchical political
systems indicate that women in these societies had been reduced to ornamental
or commodity status. Golwalkar assigns to the RSS the function to ‘mould the
man’ (and not woman) and ‘instill in him the strength to overcome human frailties
and stand up as a shining symbol of Hindu Manhood’ He further shows his sexist
bias while describing the family as the first stage of self-expansion. Making
and appeal to uphold the ideal of the family he talks about sons, brothers,
husbands or fathers and never about daughters, sister, or mothers. Rama is
found to be ideal in all aspects.
For the Hindu wife, Golwalkar prescribes restraint of emotions,
and the practice of the Dharma. RSS visualizes only two roles for women-that of
a wife and a mother, Sita Savitri , Draupadi and Ahalya, constitute the ideal
images and role models for women. While talking about women, Golwalkar
maintains the ‘except his wife, a Hindu considers all the rest (women) as
mothers’. While emphasising the domestic role for women, fidelity-and chastity
as her virtues and opposing any question of their equality with men, Golwalkar
finds justification for institutionalized prostitution, because it has been
prevalent in Indian society since ancient days. In answer to a question on
prostitution, Golwalkar says, “This practice (prostitution) stems from a human
weakness, which has made this profession a social need for thousands of years.
As such, it is well-nigh impossible to root out this profession completely.
Then the only approach to this profession, give them education, make them
devoted to Dharma and God. Golwalkar talks of
prostitution as stemming from human weakness and does not make it clear that it
is man’s weakness; on the contrary, suggests devotion to God and Dharma by
women as its remedy but has no suggestion about what men should do to get over
this weakness.
The status and role of women, as emerges from the perusal of the
RSS ideology, is mainly that of a devoted wife and mother, that is strict
adherence to chastity, celibacy and absolute fidelity, the traits and virtues
Manu prescribed centuries ago. Their role and function are
confined within the domestic sphere. RSS ideology assigns women strict
observation of Sanskaras (moral conduct), whereby she is forbidden from
undertaking any independent role in the sphere of social, political and
economic processes in the social structure envisaged by RSS.
JAMMAT-E-ISLAMI
Jamat-e-Islami(Jamat) was founded on August 26, 1941 through a
conference attended by 70 delegates at Pathankot with Maulana Abul Ala Maududi
as its president. Maulana Maududi, after partition, migrated to Pakistan an led
the Jamaat-e-Islami there’; Maulana Abdul Lais Islahi became the president of
its counterpart in India (Amir-e-Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.
Jamaat-e-Islami was formed with the aim of organizing those
Muslims “who understand the real significance of Islam and its implications”. The objective of Jamat, as
written in its constitution, is to establish the Hukumat – e – Illahia, the
Kingdom of God. In 1962, the Jamaat in India as well as in Pakistan changed
objective to Eqaamat – e – Din – the establishment of Din (creed). It
aims at the reconstruction of state and society so as to conform to the Din
of Islam. Amir – e – Jamat is on top in the RSS type of pyramidal structure of
its organizational hierarchy. As Jamat has professed opposition to the concept
of democracy and election, Amir – e – Jamaat is chosen on the basis of the
‘virtues’, the ‘understanding’ of the creed, and teachings and life of the Holy
Prophet. Amirs of lower units are appointed by him. Like RSS Jamat also
prescribes that ‘dress of Muslims should bear some distinguishing mark, so that
they do not get mixed up with non – Muslims”.
Jamaat is quite vocal and
categorically explicit in its definition of position and role of women, their
tights and duties. As the question of gender inequality is not an exclusive and
isolated one, it is determined by the basic ideological understanding of a
particular organization in terms of its creeds, aims and objectives, the value
systems it advocates and understanding of society. Jamat, as will be clear from
the discussion, is a totalitarian organization with strict hierarchy which does
not have any place for women in its organisational structure, though,
officially it has its women’s wing which undertakes to educate the Muslim women
and children about their Islamic duties. According to Maulana Maududi, the
founder president and chief ideologue of Jamat, in organisational matters,
final authority lies with the Amir – e – Jamat, who will be completely relied
upon and will be fully obeyed so long as he follows the laws of God and His
prophet.
The women’s question in its ideology can better be understood by placing it in
the context of its creed, aims and objectives and the value systems it
supports.
The basic creed of the Jamat, as enunciated in its constitution,
is “the divine being is solely Allah, there being no God except him, and
Muhammad is Allah’s sole messenger”. It is imperative on its member “to accept
without demur every teaching and guidance that is proved to emanate from
Muhammad”.
“The beliefs, goals, organisational structure and methods of working of Jamat
are “the same as have been traditionally those of Islam”.
Maududi holds “the opinion of a single person may be sounder
than the unanimous opinion of the entire council of Jamat. Hence the leader
(Amir –e – Jamat) has the right to concur either with the majority or with
minority and is further entitled to disagree with the whole council and decide
the matter according to his own judgement”. The Jamat identifies the
Quran and Hadith as its ideological sources. It (the Jamat) is of the view that
“a Muslim is born in the world to become a living symbol of Godliness, nobility
and humanity”.
And it is only “Islam which can provide wholesome atmosphere for the
development of high morals and noble traits of character”. The ideology of the Jamat is
opposed to any change in way of life or social norms and asserts that Islamic
laws provide “detailed code of conduct, standards of morals and life and the
laws that allow and prescribe that judges between right and wrong” and that
“Muhammad brought with him the final code”. It believes that “God is the
creator and sole ruler who alone possesses the power to control the affairs of
this vast universe”, and goes on to assert that “man does not have the right to
choose a way of life for himself or assume whatever duties he liked”. According
to Maulana Maududi, “results of our action in this world do not, in any way,
determine the rightness or wrongness of an action or a way of life and cannot
therefore become the criterion of our rejection or acceptance of it”.
The Jamat’s criticism of institutions like nationalism,
secularism, democracy, socialism or communism is based on its thesis that man
is, by nature incapable of making changes in laws and systems made by God and
sent to earth with finalities through his last prophet, Muhammed. Jamat is opposed to the very
notion of equality, let alone the quality of sexes. Maulana Maududi maintains
that “social disparities are inherent in nature equality is against nature
itself” He further argues that
“equality n distribution of wealth and means of production is meaningless”, and
finds that “the right to private property is necessary to safeguard human
freedom: political and economic. If the right to private property is snatched
away and collective ownership is imposed on economic resources, individual
liberty will inevitably come to an end. Maududi asserts quite emphatically that
“Islam does not try to remove the distinction of rich and poor through some
artificial brutal enforcement”.
In his speech in May 1947 at Pathankot, Maulana Maududi, in no
uncertain terms identifies enemies of the Jamat as secularism, nationalism and
democracy, which, according to him must be destroyed. He further argues, “…In
our view all these three principles are wrong. It is our firm belief that not
only they are wrong but they are the real troubles which afflict human race today.
Our opposition is to these principles and we would wage a struggle against them
with all our might.” About secularism he opines
that “whoever follows this path (of secularism), whether an individual, a
group, a country, a nation or a group of nations would lead an unrestrained and
irresponsible life and will become a slave of sexual desires.” In the same
speech he goes on the say, “First secularism freed the people from the fear of
God and the eternal moral laws. Then nationalism moved in to make them selfish
in their blind patriotism…and now democracy has given these selfish
irresponsible people the power to make laws. As opposed to a selfishly
national, secular and democratic system of government prevalent in contemporary
culture, we want to have a national and humanist vice-royalty as our goal” Maulana Maududi and Jamatis would prefer a
Hindu state as envisaged by RSS in preference to a secular state, if the
Islamic state is not possible. To quote Maulana Maududi, “If a Hindu government
based on Hindu laws came to India and the Law of Manu become the law of the land
as a result of which Muslims were treated as untouchable and were not given any
share in the government, they did not even get the citizenship rights, I have
no objections.”
In May 1947 when the independence and the partition both were
quite certain, the Maulana in his speech at Pathankot called for theocratic
states in both the parts, “It is practically certain now, the country will be partitioned,
a part of it will be handed over to the Muslims and another will be under the
control of a non- Muslim majority. In the first one we shell try to arouse the
popular sentiments to lay the foundation of constitution and government on what
we call the laws laid down by Allah. And in the other part you will be in
majority. Then we will beseech you…for God’s sake analyze the teachings and
lives of Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Nanak…. Minutely study Vedas, Puranas and The
Granthas and found the constitution of India on the instructions contained
therein”.
Leaders of Jamat are of the opinion that ‘nationalism is a curse against
Islam”. In the first conference
after partition held at Rampur in April 1951, Maulana Abdul Lais Islahi
expressed similar views that Islamic laws have “nothing to do with nationalism
or patriotism.
The Jamat launched a systematic campaign against Muslims participating in the
struggle for national independence. Amir – e – Jamat Maulana Maududi exhorted
the Muslims through a series of articles not to join the Congress or the
anti-imperialist struggle. Like Golwalker of RSS,
Maududi of the Jamat, also has all the praise for the “virtuous”. He is of the
opinion that the “virtuous people have the right to rule”. In the process he
justifies the existence of British rule in India. According to the Jamat
ideology, “only God has the right to appoint or dismiss a ruler….. The list of their (Britain’s) constructive achievements is longer than
their misdeeds”.
Maududi in his book, Islam Today,
makes his choice for the type of leadership clear: “A leader who is devoted to
his nation, who is adept in varying his plans and strategy and who is so gifted
by nature that he can get his commands obeyed, is always fit to lead a nation
on the path of ambition, whether he is Moonje or Savarkar, Hitler or
Mussolini.”
The Jamat feels that the people should be obedient and loyal to
God and thereby to His human vice-regents i.e., the mullahs and the rulers “who
are appointed by God”. Thus obedience and loyalty should follow the pattern of
slave-master relationships. It pleads for total submission. Like in the case of
secularism, the Jamaat is opposed to the institution of democracy also.
Maududi’s Political
Theory of Islam, categorically denies the charge of being democratic. The
Islamic state envisaged by the Jamaat could be “in accordance with the book of
God and the example of His prophet.” Even by unanimous agreement
they cannot prohibit anything which Allah has permitted or permit anything
which Allah has prohibited”.
Maududi defends his undemocratic political theory on the plea
that “the great mass of common people themselves is incapable of perceiving
their true interests”, and “legislatures based on people’s will are
un-Islamic.” Instead, he pleads for the establishment of “Godhood of man over
man”. Its strong opposition to the concepts of socialism and communism, which
according the Jamaat are un-Islamic, its opposition to the institutions of
secularism, nationalism and democracy, further add to the totalitarian and
fundamentalist character of the Jamaat. In its view, the principles of
communism, socialism and atheism are responsible for corrupting the youth.
On The Women’s Question
The Women’s question in the stated ideology of Jamaat-e- Islami
should be treated in the context of its organisational structure,
socio-political vision, and other ideological standpoints. In the most
categorical manner Jamaat supports and justifies the patriarchal social
structures.
Hence, pursuing a study on the question of gender- equality as such, will be
meaningless. What this paper aims at is, to look into the nature of gender-
inequality. Gender- inequality as professed and propagated by the Jamaat can be
studied in terms of moral, social, economic and political inequalities. The
Jamaat in its treatment of women’s position and role in the society puts
disproportionate emphasis on the sexual aspects of a woman’s personality, and
it is this aspect only which is used as the basis, by Jamat ideologues, for strict
segregation of sexes, and non- participation of women in non - domestic
affairs.
In its interpretation of history, it observes that the downfall
of great civilizations had been due to relatively less restrictions on the
movement of, and relatively more freedom of participation to women, than
standards decided by Jamaat ideologues. Maulana Maududi regretfully observes
about the post-French Revolution debate on the question of gender equality.
"Equality between sexes was taken to mean that the man and woman were
equal not only in moral status and human rights, but that the woman was also
free to undertake the same sort of jobs as were done by the man and that moral
restrictions on her needed to be slackened as they were for him. This wrong
concept of equality led women astray and made them unmindful of their natural
functions. She became wholly absorbed in her social, economic and political
pursuits. The bringing up of children and care of home ceased to be her special
care, destroying the family system which is the basis of civilization. Maududi
compares the Shariah – the Islamic code of conduct with the law of Manu.
The Jamaat holds that the idea of equality in general, and of
sexes in particular, is an “unnatural, artificial and abnormal product of
contemporary social disintegration, which in turn is the inevitable result of
rejection of all transcendental, absolute moral and spiritual values”. It
categorically maintains that “from Islamic point of view the question of
equality of men and women is meaningless”. It is of the firm belief
that ‘by nature’ man stands a step above woman. It argues that it is “in the
very nature of a women that she wants a powerful, just wise, and considerate
husband who is capable of taking all the decisions”. And it holds that “the
movement for female emancipation’ is a conspiracy to destroy the home and
family and eventually wreak the entire society”.
Family,
according to the Jamat is the primary unit of socialization and ‘the whole-sole
cradle of human society’, in which, the husband, “according to patriarchal
nature of Islam is the Imam”, who must “uphold the tenets of faith and his
authority symbolizes that of God in the world.” The Jamaat ideology considers the husband as head of the
family and confines women to household activities and orders them “to remain in
their houses and perform the duties assigned to them”. In the family set-up man
is assigned the “responsibility for earning and providing the necessities of
life for his wife and children and for protecting them from all the
vicissitudes of life. To the woman, it assigns the duty of “managing the
household, training and bringing up children in the best possible way and
providing her husband and children with the greatest possible with the greatest
possible comfort and contentment”. According to the Jamat
ideology, the best role a woman can play in keeping marital tie intact and
strong is to recognize her husband as the person responsible for running the
affairs of the family and thus to obey him “even if his judgement is not
acceptable to her in a particular matter.” It believes in “man’s
natural superiority in every field” and maintains that “nowhere in life has,
the woman been able to equal the man”. Maulana Maududi’s understanding
of history “dose not present the record of any nation which made the woman the
ruler of its affairs and won honor and glory or, performed a work of
distinction”. A girl cannot marry out of her free will and choice
whereas man- can marry out of his choices. A Muslim girl does not
have “opportunity of selecting her own spouse but must accept the husband her
parents or guardians choose for her”. A young girl who chose a husband, of whom
her parents disapproved, “would be courting disaster leading to the ruin of the
family”.
Maududi forbids women from loving a man of her choice which
according to him it would lead to “sexual perversion” and “social anarchy”. The Jamaat’s interpretation
of Islam finds women to be inherently and naturally inferior to men. It
mentions, “Islam has placed man at a higher grade than woman in social order
but this is in accordance with the natural and distinct characteristic of man
against woman… it is because of this that the power of severance of marriage
has been conferred on men and the woman has been given the limited right of Khula.
Similarly, a daughter is awarded half of the share of her brother in
inheritance.
Maududi argues emphatically that in the
sphere of family life “God has defined and prescribed the purdah, recognized
man’s guardianship over woman”, and the this cannot be changed owing to its
eternity and finality.
The Jamat criticizes the ‘modern democratic systems’ which ,
according to Maududi, has “opened new avenues for women, of participating in
social and political activities on the one hand and on other, it has
established institutions that have created countless opportunities for free
intermingling of the sexes”, which is against the basic
ideological tenets of the Jamat. It disapproves of women’s participation in
socio-political activities as it is not her role. It criticizes co-educational
schools to receive the “worst possible preparation for marriage and
motherhood”, which according to Jamat ideology, is her only justifiable role. It maintains that Islamic
teaching cannot tolerate “the perverted cultural values” of women’s
participation in socio-political activities. “In Islam the role of a woman is
not ballot box but maintenance of home and family. Her success as a person is
judged according to her fidelity to her husband and rearing of worthy
children.”
Thus the division of labor prescribed by the Jamaat is in accordance with its
patriarchal and totalitarian ideology which puts the role of a woman within the
confines of the home. The demand of a woman to be financially independent and
that no profession or occupation should be barred to her on account of her sex,
is “objectionable” according to Jamat ideology. It urges women, “to perform
even devotions in the privacy of their own homes”, which it finds “most
pleasing in the sight of Allah, how then can a Muslim women work as a secretary
or bank clerk”
In his criticism of women’s participation in non-domestic affairs, Maududi
regrets that the limited and conditional freedom that woman had been allowed by
Islam in matters other than home- sciences is being used as argument to
encourage the Muslim women to abandon home-life and its responsibilities and
make their lives miserable by running after political, economic, social and
other activities shoulder to shoulder with men.
According to the Jamaat ideology, “the economic independence of
woman has made her independent of man”, which has “shaken the foundation of
social life” because it has flung to winds the great time honored principle “man
for field and woman for hearth”, held so dear by Jamaat ideology. It criticizes
the ideas which “try to, raise the status of woman and bestow on her the
freedom of thought to an extent the family system is completely ruined” The Jamat’s objection to
woman’s participation in socio- political and economic affairs of society, her
economic independence, that is objection to her movement as such, leading to
its support of the strict segregation of sexes and confinement of woman within
the domestic boundaries-stems from its basic notion of ‘natural’ historical
superiority of man over woman, its obsession regarding sexual relationships and
its over emphasis on sexual aspects of a woman’s personality. “Intermingling of
sexes”, according to Jamat, leads to “sexual perversion”. The Jamat holds that
the sexual urge of man as natural and justifiable which must be satisfied by “enjoying
women through marriages”. It does not attach the same
importance to the existence of similar urge in women, which they are required
to restrain. The Jamaat criticizes Muslim reformists for questioning, the
institutions of ‘harem, purdah and veil’. Maududi assails French Revolution and
post- Revolution literature for “perpetuating the plea of individual liberty
and freedom of sexes”, which according to him, “destroys the social system”.
Defending the existence of the institutions of veil and purdah, the Jamaat
holds that “a woman can easily be seductive. Her gaze can be seductive, so is
her voice, her gait, her bosom; that is why it holds that women’s chastity
should, be protected under all circumstances. That is why a young girl studying
with boys or a woman’s participation in all walks of life, shoulder to shoulder
with man is held ‘objectionable’. Maududi regrets that as a result of modern
education, “a young girl in the school possesses such knowledge about sex as
could never be imagined by married woman before.” Maulana Maududi apprehends that in the
process of acquiring success in non-domestic affaris, a girl “must have lost
her chastity”
The Jamaat ideology forbids a man from having sexual relationship outside
marriage ‘whether the woman is a willing or an unwilling partner’. The Jamaat
stands for disciplined channelization of sexual energy through marriage and not
waste it in wilderness. According to Maulana Maududi, “sexual urge is an
anti-social urge which lends to produce selfishness and anarchy ….. Law of
marriage and family system alone can tame this monster.”
This brings out in the open the contradictions and confusions of
the Jamat. At one place it says that sexual urge (of men and not women) is
human and natural, and at another place it holds it to be anti-social. Maududi
argues that “since in sexual life man has been made active and woman passive,
she has been endowed with those very qualities alone which help her for passive
role in life”. In order to prove its proposition of inherent inferiority of
woman, he argues that “the nature of sex-relationship implies that one partner
in the pair should be active and the other receptive and passive, one prompt to
influence and other ready to be influenced, one prepared to act another willing
to be acted upon” He further argues that Excellence of an active partner is
that he should possess the ability to act and other masculine qualities, so
that he may effectively perform the active part of his duty in sex-relation. In
contrast to this, the excellence of passive partner is that she possesses the
feminine qualities to an extent that she may carry out the passive part of
sex-relation well. And then he argues that “activity” in itself is naturally
superior to ‘passivity’ and femininity. Thus the active partner in human pair
should naturally have the qualities of distance, vehemence and authority,
called manliness. In contrast to this, the passive partner should naturally be
soft, tender, elegant and impressionable, in short, womanly. The circular logic
of defining differences in terms of inequalities and prove the inequalities
with the same definition. Maududi compares the woman with a farm and man with a
cultivator and this farm should be protected from ‘animals sowing seed into
her’. It seems that with this view in the mind ‘freedom of and adult female is
restricted as compared to that of an adult male’. This ‘natural superiority’ of
man entitles him to “marry any woman… and keep a slave girl, but the woman is
not free in this regard.” In defense of the institution of polygamy the Jamat
maintains that it is easier to share a husband when it is an established and
publicly recognized practice. It is of the opinion that
the institution of polygamy in a patriarchal set-up can operate effectively but
“the setup will disintegrate under polyandry.” Marriage for the Jamat is mainly
for sexual reasons and procreation. In support of its acceptance of polygamy
and rejection of polyandry it forwards a male chauvinist argument. It is
possible for a man to have sexual relations with all his wives… and impregnate
them. But if a wife has more than one husband, she can, even in that case, be
impregnated only by one. More over once a woman is pregnant she is not
available for sexual relations for some time. From the above discussion one can
see that the Jamaal is not only opposed to gender equality in political,
social, economic realms but it is for strict segregation of sexes and
confinement of woman to home in purdah and veil; and that family is the only
cradle of society in which division of work, according to Islamic laws,
provides the husband with a superior position over the wife and the wife should
maintain strict fidelity, loyalty and obedience to him. Her chastity is most
valuable and should be protected in all circumstances.
We may conclude our discussion on the women’s question in the
Jamaat ideology by quoting the concluding sentences from Maududi’s book Purdah
and Status of women in Islam. "Let us not weaken purdah, which
is a bulwark against the sex anarchy, especially of the present age. Before we
ever think of relaxing purdah, we should have mustered enough strength to pluck
out those eyes that stare at a Muslim woman who has to come out of her house
for a genuine piece of business.”
Conclusion
The process of forging a
common identity by the Indian people against the colonial rule brought together
multiple identities, ideologies, and levels of consciousness within the ambit
of anti-colonial nationalism. This unity was antithetical to the interest of
colonial rulers and hence made protracted efforts to propel countervailing
forces to the ideology of anti-colonial nationalism and found allies in the
reactionary sections of the society, who began the mobilization on the false
notions of religious nationalism. On the
one hand, this process gave birth to nationalist, revolutionary and secular
forces which sought to emphasize unity in the diversity of Indian people, and
on the other hand, in reaction rose communal, divisive forces that tried to mobilize people round the
limited concepts of their identities as followers of a religions, a community,,
a caste, a language etc. The impact of this second trend diluted, even weakened
the efforts of the first one. The former based itself on the modern values of
secularism and democracy, the later based itself on religion and theology to
counter them. The RSS and the Jamat, the organizations under discussion bear
tremendous similarities in terms of their ideological standpoints on
socio-political and economic issues as also in their treatment of women’s question.
From the above study of
the ideological texts of the RSS and the Jamat reveals many similarities and congruence.
·
Both the organization came up during the freedom movement and
both of them were opposed to certain trends in the nationalist movement. They
distracted a sizeable section of the Indian population from the secular,
democratic and socialist movements.
- Both the organizations were critical of the national movement and their chauvinistic mobilization in the name of an imagined religious insecurity and false concept of religion based nationalism, distracted a sizable section of youth from the anti-colonial struggle. The rage of discontent against the oppressive colonial rule was diverted by them, though to a negligible extent then owing to dominant anti-colonial sentiments, but sowed the seed of long term communal diffidence leading to painful partition, wounds of which continue to bleed. Thus both acted as the auxiliaries of colonial strategy of divide and rule and as their fifth column simultaneously.
·
Both the organizations emphasise the awakening of the race sprit
in one or the other form.
·
Both prefer a centralized, absolutist and theocratic political
system.
- On the question of equality of sexes also, their views are
identical. They regard gender-equality as against the law of nature. They,
both, condemn the women’s movement for equal rights and the notion of women’s
participation in affairs outside the family as evil and borrowed from the West.
Both the organizations uphold the domestic sphere as the best and most natural for
women. The concept of the gender-equality, in their view, will destabilize the
family system, “the basic cradle of society” and will lead to sexual anarchy.
Both the organizations over-emphasize the sexual aspect of women’s personality,
and see gender-equality as a threat to the established social order which is
based on hierarchy and inequality.
Their basic ideology is reflected in the pyramidal
organizational structure common to both the organizations, with no place for
women in their hierarchy or ranks, though both have their women’s wings. Jamat’s
women’s wing has no social, political or economic relevance, as its members
have to observe purdah and segregation and are expected to indoctrinate other
Muslim women and their children with similar values and preach them about their
Islamic duties. As far as RSS is concerned, it started with the aim to organize
only male Hindus but at a later stage, it formed its women’s wing Rashtriya
Sevika Samiti which is practically non-functional. The inclusion of women’s
wing in the RSS can be compared with the inclusion of Muslims in BJP, the parliamentary wing of RSS, as show
pieces.
These organizations are vehemently opposed to any ideology which
aims at breaking the ‘inherent’ gender-inegalitarianism at one level or the
other. Through their plea for unquestioned faith in traditional, religious
values and glorification of the past of their own choice, such communal organizations
commonly seek to perpetuate the values of inegalitarianism and segregation of
all types, including gender. They follow different paths to the same
destination. Their common opposition to the ideologies of socialism, secularism
and democracy spring from their acceptance of inequalities as natural and
inherent, justified by their prejudiced and ahistorical interpretation of the
past.
Ish
N Mishra
Associate
Professor
Department
of Political Science
Hindu
College, University of Delhi
Delhi
110007
Residence:
17
B, University Road
University
of Delhi
Delhi
110007
. Golwalkar,
M.S. We or our Nationhood Defined, Bharat Publication, Nagpur, 1939, p.
12.
For details see Goyal op.cit,
and Mishra op.cit
Golwalkar,
N. op.cit. p 14
Adolf
Hitler, My Struggle, Pater Noster Library, London, 1936
Nana
Deshmuch, Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh: A Victim of Slander, Vision
Books, New Delhi 1979, P.29
.
Golwalkar , MS, Bunch of Thoughts,
Vikram Prakashan, Bangalore, 1969 p.
133.
Golwalkar, We Or Our Nationhood Defined,
p. 8
Pyare
Lal, Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 2,Sevak Praksahan, Bombay, 1989, p. 44.
Quoted
in Mishra, op.cit. p.136.
Deen
Dayal Upadhyay, Integral Humanism, Bhartiya Jan Sangh, New Delhi, 1965),
Ibid,
p.58. The legendary thinker, Rahul Sanskrityayan has dealt in detail with the
condition of women and their freedom of participation in different
socio-political and economic affairs including warfare in ancient Indian
republics. Singh Senapati (सिंह
सेनापति) Kitabmahal, New Delhi, 2012
Golwalkar, We or Our Nationhood Defined p.10
& Bunch of Thoughts, p. 66
Towards
Equality, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, 1972, N0. 21 p. 40 &
Prabhati, Mukherji, Hindu Women, Orient Longman, New Delhi 1978.
Golwalkar
MS, Spot Lights, Sahitya Sandhu, New Delhi, 1974 pp. 123-129.
The story from the
popular epic Ramayan. Mukherji op.cit
Golwalkar, Spot Lights, p. 110
Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, p. 21.
Z. A.
Nizami, Jamat-e-Islami: Spearhead of Separatism, Ministry of Information
and Broadcadcasting, Govt. of India, 1975, p. I and p. 15.
Constitution
of Jamat-e-Islami Hind, Markazi Maktaba Islami, Delhi 1980, p. 4
Abul Ala
Maududi, Question of Dress, Markazi Maktaba, Delhi, 1976, p.21
Constitution
of Jamaat – e – Islami, p. 1 and p. 3
AA
Maududi,
Towards Understanding Islam., Islamic Foundation, Leicester, 1980, p. 33
Maududi, Purdah And Status of Women in
Islam, Markazi Maktaba, Delhi 1974, p, 83
.
Maududi: Islamic Economic System: Principles and Objectives, Markazi
Maktaba, Delhi, p. 6
Quoted
in Nizami, op.cit. p. 7
Munir
Committee Roport, Lahore 1954, quoted in Nizami, ibid p. 11
Maududi, A.A., Call of Jammat, Makazi
Maktaba, 1948, pp. 8-9. ; Qasim Ishaq Hussain, Jamaat-e-Islami and
secularism, (Sampradayikta Virodhi Committee, Delhi, 1967), p. 6.
AA Maududi, Nationalism in India, Markazi
Maktaba n.d p.29
Nizami,
op. cit pp. 12-13
Maududi, Abul Ala : Nation’s Rise and Fall Why?, Markazi Maktaba, 1980,
p. 14
Maududi,
Abul Ala: Islam Today, Markazi Maktaba Delhi, p. 16
Maududi,
Political Theory of Islam, op.cit.
p. 28
Maududi.
Challenge of the Modern Age and the Youth, Crescent Press. Aligarh, 1979, p.2
Lemu. B. Aisha and Fatima, Hiren : Women in
Islam, Markazi Maktaba, Delhi 1971, p . 38
Maududi,
A Call of Jamat, op.cit. p. 96.
Jameela,
Maryam, Islam and The Muslim Women today, Crescent, Delhi, 1976, p. 37-
4
Lemu and Hiren, op.cit, pp. 39 & 43
Ibid p.
32 &36; Maududi, Towards understanding Islam, op. cit. p.105.
Lemu and Hiren, op.cit, p. 18
Maududi,
Purdah and Status of Women in Islam, op. cit. pp. 112-1 3
Maududi, Purdah and Status of Women in
Islam, op.cit., p. 33
Peerzada,
Shama, Muslim Personal Law and Unifrom Civil Code, Markazi Maktaba, Delhi,
1972
Maududi, Purdah and Status of Women in
Islam, op.cit., p. 79
Jameela, op.cit. , pp. 23 – 24 &34.
Maududi, Purdah and Status of Women in Islam, op.cit., p. 25
Mohd.,Abdul
Rauf, Islamic View of Women and Family, Robert Speller & Sons, New
York, 1977, p. 43
Maududi, Purdah and Status of Women in
Islam, op.cit. p 52 &83
.
Maududi, Purdah And Status of Women in Islam, p. 224
