|
No one will dispute the
fact that social reforms are urgently needed with breath
taking changes taking place all around in our society.
But two questions become important in this respect: 1)
what is the role of state and 2) what is the role of
religion? There are people who insist that state should
play an active role and usher in these reforms. Secondly
there are people who think religion can hardly be
helpful and instead it becomes an obstacle in social
change.
Those who demand active
role of the state could either be politically motivated
or may feel state as an agency is a powerful enough to
bring needed reforms. Also, it depends whether state is
authoritarian in nature of democratic. If the state is
authoritarian and the ruler, even if enlightened enough
to bring about change, cannot succeed in its mission.
There are several examples before us.
The Afghan king Amanullah
was an enlightened ruler and tried to enforce modern
reforms in Afghan society in late twenties and early
thirties of the last century in an extremely
conservative tribal society. He invited rebellion and
lost his throne. Of course British colonialists also
played their role in dethroning him. The other example
is of the Shah of Iran. He also tried to force people to
accept modern reforms and invited ire of Ayatullahs on
one hand, and conservative peasantry, on the other. He
also lost his throne though there were several other
factors including acting as an American stooge in Middle
East and exiling Ayatullah Khomeini and some other
factors.
The democratic state, on
the other hand, has to keep religious sensitivities of
voters in mind. Also, there may be, and often there are,
contradictory political pressures to be encountered. A
section of enlightened liberal Hindu leadership led by
Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar, for example, drafted
the Hindu code Bill after independence to bring about
urgently needed social reforms in the Hindu Law but had
to withdraw it in the face of stiff opposition from
orthodox Hindus and water it down considerably. Dr.
Ambedkar had to resign as a law minister in frustration.
Even Nehru’s political charisma did not help.
The BJP, the Hindu Right
Party has implementation of Common Civil Code as part of
its Hindutva Agenda and tried its best to create
majoritarian ethos around it but did not succeed except
among urban middle class and it was precisely for this
reason that though it led NDA coalition for six years
but could not bring in common civil code which was its
own agenda. Thus in a democratic state too there are
obvious constraints in bringing about social reform.
The state can only
actively intervene where customary law involves human
life and law and order problem. For example the British
outlawed sati though it was the Hindu customary law as
human life was involved. Recently, instances of honour
killings (or dishonorable killings?) are surfacing and
though customary law may not permit marriage within
gotra or in other castes but no one has right to take
any ones life and hence state has to intervene and
legislate against such shameful killings.
If in such cases state
does not intervene more lives are likely to be lost and
hence state intervention is a must. But all cases of
social reforms do not fall in this category and
therefore, need very careful and sensitive handling.
There is question of gender justice, for example. Now
there are age–old customs and traditions in this respect
and what is more problematic is that it is treated as
part of religion.
Thus in the field of
social reform there are two aspects: one, those reforms
which pertain to purely social matters likes dowry,
social boycott or ex-communication and similar other
problems and those which are thought to be part of ones
religion like personal laws involving marriage, divorce
etc. There are problems pertaining to certain grey areas
as well like observing purdah or dress code which some
treat as religious and some as purely socio-cultural but
nevertheless quite sensitive.
Can state lay down any
dress code? Whenever this has happened state has not
succeeded. As already referred to, King Amanullah of
Afghanistan and Shah of Iran miserably failed in
abolishing purdah. And the latest example is of burqa
controversy in Europe. France is trying to legislate
against burqa and Belgium has already banned it. But
human rights organizations and activists have raised
serious objections to such a ban and European
Parliamentary Committee on Human rights has recently
declared it as illegal.
What to wear and what not
to wear must be an individual decision. Of course it is
not always so and women come under severe social
pressure to do so but many also wear for identity
reasons or as a cultural practice. It is hard to
determine. Some action could be taken only if it is
proved that she is being pressured or threatened but
certainly cannot be banned. Also, if burqa is banned who
will bear the brunt? Of course the woman who wears it.
On one hand, she is being pressured to wear it and on
the other if she wears it she will be fined or jailed.
Is it fair? Both ways she has to suffer.
It would be appropriate
here to throw some light here on the causes of
resistance to change. When the modern era began in
nineteenth century, rationalism seem to be triumphant
and the educated elite benefited most from it and hence
it thought religion and traditions had its day and now
science will have its day. But this educated elite had a
very narrow social base and society at large in India
and other backward countries, continued to be quite
backward and traditional.
Also, the process of
change was complex. On one hand modernity brought
technological change and on the other, changes in
approach to social and traditional issues which included
gender issues. There was hardly any resistance to
technological change as it benefited much larger
sections of society. Railways, cars, clocks, radio,
television, computers and now mobiles were accepted as
part of life and after initial resistance even
ultra-orthodox priesthood began to use these tools to
perpetrate their orthodoxy.
Today computers are being
used by orthodox priesthood to spread their ideas and
they have set up their own websites and telephones and
mobiles are being used for marriage and divorce. Once
priesthood even resisted railways in England thinking
that rapid transportation would be misused by students
and others to travel to cities to drink and gamble.
However, today orthodox priests use jets and planes to
fly to most parts of the world. What is thought to be
beneficial is readily accepted.
But when it comes to
issues like marriage, divorce, individual choices,
freedom to act, gender justice there is great resistance
and even fierce opposition. It becomes for them ‘threat
to religion’ as instead of benefiting it threatens their
leadership and domination. And due to mass poverty and
illiteracy they wield great influence. The poverty
ridden masses are mired in these age-old traditions and
can hardly benefit from such changes. On the contrary,
they feel their customary and traditional practices are
being tempered with and hence any change becomes very
difficult and state becomes totally helpless in these
matters.
Thus religion and social
change become intertwined in a negative way and
perception that religion is an obstacle for social
change appears to be ‘correct’ to social elite. However,
here too relationship is more complex than it appears.
Religious text can also become a resource for change, if
handled sensitively and creatively. One does not have to
accept the prevalent interpretations and monopoly of
priesthood.
These interpretations can
be creatively contested and new interpretations and
alternative understanding can be evolved. This is what
Raja Rammohan Roy did while challenging the practice of
sati. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan re-interpreted Qur’an to
persuade Muslims to go for modern education and
scientific outlook. He coined a phrase that word of God
(i.e. Qur’an) cannot contradict work of God (i.e. his
creation that is universe) and science is nothing but
systematic study of work of God.
Similarly, in matters of
gender justice several reformers in all religious
communities used religious text as a rich resource to
bring about change. Among Muslims several scholars like
Maulavi Chiragh Ali, Maulavi Mumtaz Ali Khan in India
and Muhammad Abduh and others in Egypt developed
alternate interpretations of Qur’an and hadith to give
women their due.
However, two challenges
remain in all these countries; mass poverty and
illiteracy and narrow base on which reformists usually
work. The base can be widened only if education and
awareness increases. Thus state, instead of legislating
in these areas, if concentrates on eradicating poverty
and illiteracy and civil society concentrates on
creating awareness for change among people, it can prove
very useful combination.
However, it is easier said
than done. There are powerful vested interests who
resist change. On one hand, we have economic elite who
feel threatened if serious attempts are made to
eradicate poverty as it brings about re-distribution of
resources and more taxes and state intervention and
religious elite who feel threatened with increased
awareness among masses.
This is not to say no
change is possible but only to point out what lies in
store for reformists and what tremendous
challenges they will have to face. Only hope, faith
patience and proper strategies will help.
View Archive »
|
