In a recent article, prominent Indian author and reformist Muslim activist Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer examined the roles of the state and religion in the difficulties faced in reforming Islamic societies. The article, titled "State Religion and Social Reforms," was published on the website of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. The organization is devoted to furthering the cause of Islamic reform in India.
In the article, Asghar Ali Engineer argues that the religious clergy accept the changes brought by modern life when it suits them, while any demand for change that could potentially undermine their authority, especially with regard to individual choices and gender justice, is rejected. He studies the complexity of the state's role in reforming societies in authoritarian and democratic regimes, and argues that the civil society groups and the state need to concentrate on different spheres of life to ensure social reforms.
However, noting that obstacles to social reform originate both from the secular and religious sections, Asghar Ali Engineer, adds: "There are powerful vested interests who resist change. On the one hand, we have an economic elite that feels threatened if serious attempts are made to eradicate poverty, as it brings about redistribution of resources and more taxes and state intervention; and a religious elite that feels threatened by increased awareness among the masses."
Following are excerpts from the article:[1]
"There are People Who Insist that the State Should Play an Active Role and Usher in... Reforms; There are People Who Think Religion... Becomes an Obstacle to Social Change"
"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 the state; and 2) what is the role of religion? There are people who insist that the 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 to social change.
"Those who demand an active role of the state could either be politically motivated, or may feel that the state, as an agency, is powerful enough to bring needed reforms. Also, it depends on whether the state is authoritarian in nature, or democratic. If the state is authoritarian [then] the ruler, even if enlightened enough to bring about change, cannot succeed in its mission. There are several examples before us.
"Afghan king Amanullah Khan was an enlightened ruler and tried to enforce modern reforms in Afghan society in the late 1920s and early 1930s 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, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. He also tried to force people to accept modern reforms and invited the ire of Ayatollahs on one hand, and of the conservative peasantry on the other. He also lost his throne, though there were several other factors, including acting as an American stooge in the Middle East and exiling Ayatollah Khomeini and some other factors.
"The democratic state, on the other hand, has to keep the 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 [first Indian Prime Minister] Jawaharlal Nehru and [architect of the Indian constitution] Dr. B. R. 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 Bharatiya Janata Party [now the rightwing main opposition party] has implementation of the Common Civil Code as part of its Hindutva [orthodox Hindu] agenda, and tried its best to create a majoritarian ethos around it when in power, but did not succeed except among the urban middle class, and it was precisely for this reason that though it led the National Democratic Alliance coalition for six years in power, it could not bring in a common civil code which was its own agenda. Thus in a democratic state too, there are obvious constraints in bringing about social reform.
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"The state can only actively intervene where customary law involves human life, and a law-and-order problem. For example, the British outlawed sati [the custom of widow burning], though it was the Hindu customary law as human life was involved. Recently, instances of honor killings (or dishonorable killings?) are surfacing, and though customary law may not permit marriage within gotra [within a clan/sub-caste] or in another caste, no one has a right to take anyone's life, and hence the state has to intervene and legislate against such shameful killings.
"If in such cases,the 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 a 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 one's religion like personal laws involving marriage, divorce, etc. There are problems pertaining to certain grey areas as well like observing purdah [covering one's body] or a dress code, which some treat as religious and some as purely socio-cultural but nevertheless quite sensitive.
"Can the state lay down any dress code? Whenever this has happened, the state has not succeeded. As already referred to, King Amanullah Khan of Afghanistan and the Shah of Iran miserably failed in abolishing purdah. And the latest example is of burqa controversy in Europe. France is trying to legislate against the burqa, and Belgium has already banned it. But human rights organizations and activists have raised serious objections to such a ban and the 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 it for reasons of identity, 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 the burqa is banned who will bear the brunt? Of course the woman who wears it. On the 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."
"When It Comes to Issues Like Marriage, Divorce, Individual Choices, Freedom to Act, Gender Justice, There is Great Resistance; It becomes for... [the Clerics a] 'Threat to Religion' as... It Threatens Their Leadership and Domination"
"It would be appropriate to throw some light here on the causes of resistance to change. When the modern era began in the nineteenth century, rationalism seemed to be triumphant and the educated elite benefited most from it; and hence it was thought that religion and traditions had had their day, and now science will have its day. But this educated elite had a very narrow social base, and the society at large in India and other backward countries, continued to be quite backward and traditional.
"Also, the process of change was complex. On the 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 cell phones are accepted as part of life, and after initial resistance even the 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 cell phones, which are being used for marriage and divorce. Once the 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, and gender justice, there is great resistance and even fierce opposition. It becomes for... [the clerics a] '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 the state becomes totally helpless in these matters.
"Thus religion and social change become intertwined in a negative way, and the perception that religion is an obstacle for social change appears to be 'correct' to the social elite. However, here too the relationship is more complex than it appears. Religious texts 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 understandings can be evolved. This is what Hindu social reform Raja Rammohan Roy did while challenging the practice of sati. Indian Muslim reform Sir Syed Ahmad Khan re-interpreted the Koran to persuade Muslims to go for modern education and scientific outlook. He coined a phrase that the word of God (i.e. Koran) cannot contradict work of God (i.e. his creation, that is the universe), and science is nothing but the 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 Islamic scholars like Maulavi Chiragh Ali and Maulavi Mumtaz Ali Khan in India and Muhammad Abduh and others in Egypt developed alternative interpretations of the Koran and hadith [sayings of the prophet] to give women their due.
"However, two challenges remain in all these countries; mass poverty and illiteracy, and the narrow base on which reformists usually work. The base can be widened only if education and awareness increase. Thus the state, instead of legislating in these areas, if it concentrates on eradicating poverty and illiteracy, and civil society concentrates on creating awareness for change among people, it can prove to be a very useful combination.
"However, it is easier said than done. There are powerful vested interests who resist change. On the one hand, we have an economic elite that feels threatened if serious attempts are made to eradicate poverty, as it brings about re-distribution of resources and more taxes and state intervention; and a religious elite that feels threatened by increased awareness among the 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."
Endnote:
[1] www.csss-isla.com/arch-JULY1-15-10.htm (India), accessed July 4, 2010. The article has been lightly edited for clarity.
