Shaheen Bagh protest in Delhi

Shaheen Bagh protest in Delhi

I have gone through this whole protest on both print and electronic media as well as in social media like Facebook, Twitter and even Quora. From what I gathered, that a group of protesters (mostly elderly ladies and small kids) gathered at the tri-junction of Delhi, Noida and UP, a place called Shaheenbag to protest against the newly formed Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 and also National Population Register (NPR) as well as yet to be formulated National Register of Citizens (NRC). These protesters claim that these laws are unconstitutional in nature and should be revoked. They shout slogans in the name of Constitutional Rights and protection of (so-called) minorities in the country. The slogan shouted ‘Vande Maataram’ (which was till yesterday was against their religion), sing our National Anthem and waved the national flag crying got justice.

I am not going to the aspect of why the protesters are not filing an appeal in the Court if the Act is unconstitutional or why a majority of the protesters gathered there for about a month don’t even know or haven’t read the Act. Neither I am delving into the aspect of how little kids were brainwashed to the extent of them saying that they would want to kill Modi and Amit Shah. I will also refrain from the question (at least now) about how the so-called peaceful demonstration become hijacked into religious sentiments of a peaceful community. All I want is to pose a few questions to these protesters who are protesting in the name of equality and justice from such unconstitutional laws that are being enacted. Of how people of this peaceful community abide by the constitution and whether, according to their demand, migrants from that community who want refuge in India will abide by the Indian Constitutional values without caring what is written in their Holy Book.

So, let us assume (for the time being) that CAA/NPR is hurting some community rights and is unjust. We also assume that people residing in neighbouring countries who belong from a specific community want to migrate in India. In these scenarios, I pose some questions to them as to whether they are ready to abide by the laws of the land that are being laid down by the Constitution of India.

Question:

1. As per Indian Constitution, slavery is seen as against the basic principle of our Fundamental Rights and thereby severely punishable by law. Now those who abide by this Act in our Constitution (or willing to abide for seeking asylum), would they shun any writings which speak in favor of slavery?

Problem:

Quran (Chapter 4 verse 92) states “And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity. ”

Quran (Chapter 33 verse 50) states ““O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”

Quran (4:24) and Quran (33:50) - A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage. Note that the verse distinguishes wives from captives (those whom they right hand possesses).

2. Indian Constitution never discriminates on the basis any religion, sex, caste or creed, especially the Indian Witness Act. So, are you willing to shun any book which speaks about discrimination?

Problem:

Quran (4:11) states (Inheritance) "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (see also verse 4:176).

Quran (2:282) states (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women."

3) Indian Constitution forbade any man beating his wife. It would amount to domestic violence and the wife can recourse to law if such an incident happens. Would you support this Act and shun any teachings which say otherwise?

Problem:

Quran (4:34) states “Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand “

4) The Constitution states that there will be no discrimination between ‘believers’ or ‘non-believer’ of their respective religion. Under our constitution, it is a fundamental right for every person to either practice or not practice his faith and no one is supposed to be prosecuted for his/her belief system. So, if you believe the Indian Constitution and embrace respective laws of the land, are you ready to shun any teachings that are against this fundamental right?

Problem:

Quran (2:28) states “How can you disbelieve in Allah when you were lifeless and He brought you to life; then He will cause you to die, then He will bring you [back] to life, and then to Him you will be returned.” which essentially means that you cannot dis-believe in the Almighty Allah.

Quran[4:89] "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

5) Child marriage is strictly forbidden in Indian law and the offender would be punished. The minimum age of marriage is 18 years. Do you despise any saying in any book that favors (or led by example) about child marriage?

Problem:

Quran (65:4) “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease.”. This essentially means it is legal to have sex with girls not have their menstrual cycle started.

6) Our Constitution, by nature, being secular and majority population believe in worshipping some sort of deity/s, made it a fundamental right to worship in whatever faith they believe in. So, in order to embrace Indian Citizenship, one must have to embrace our Constitution. Do you wholeheartedly believe in the right to worship whatever faith we chose to worship and have temples built for performing puja of deities other than what you believe?

Problem:

Quran (31:31) “That is because it is only the one God alone Who is the True God, and whatever they call upon beside Him is falsehood, and because it is the one God alone Who is the Most High, the Incomparably Great.”

Quran (51:61) “Woe, then, to those who disbelieve, because of that day of theirs which they have been promised!”

So, we can go on and on where the Indian Constitution is in direct discontent with the Holy Book. Those who actually believe that Holy Book will definitely have a hard time sinking the Acts of the Indian Constitution. The rules of equality, justice and fraternity have a very different meaning altogether between our Constitution and the Holy Book. So holding protests, citing the Constitution in hand and waving our national flag (with kalma written instead of the Ashoke Chakra) while singing national anthem looks oxymoron in the face of what the peaceful community actually wants.

To me, it seems a vent of their frustration of abolishing triple talaq, plus Article 370 as well as Ayodha verdict along with the fear to introducing Uniform Civil Code and deporting illegal trespassers from neighbouring countries who sneaked into our country illegally and becoming a burden in our economy.

Also, if Muslims of the three countries want to join the Indian Union, then what is the need of the border among us? Why not Pakistan and Bangladesh just re-unite with India just like it was before the transfer of power in 1947? The subcontinent was actually divided upon religious difference and protesting for Muslim immigrants to give residential status negates the ‘two-nation theory’ that the neighbour’s so voraciously supported till today. You just can’t have the pie and eat it too..

Lastly, I would end by saying that the protest at Shaheenbag has already been hijacked by the peaceful extremists when they mixed religion with politics. The very essence of peaceful protest fell flat when parents started to teach their children that it is right to think about killing an elected Prime Minister of the country or placards showing Fuck Hindutvah and the likes. The protest just emanated from rights and justice to hatred towards believers of certain other faith who, by the way, constitute 80% of the population.

What these people don’t understand (or do they..) that by raising radical slogans and threatening majority faith, they are alienating themselves further in the eyes of the majority people who still don’t (well most..) look everyone wearing a religious lens. The more these people shout for Khilafat 2.0 and ‘Hinduo se aazadi.’. type slogans, the majority of people will feel the need to stand polarized and start looking at the religion of peace with a skeptical eye. Polarization is already taking place and the more such things would happen, the more it will hurt the social fabric of our land.

So my appeal to all these protesters. You do have the right to protest in what you think is wrong but don’t let religious bigots hijack your protest. Don’t give it a religious face and stay away (help them) from creating problems for people who are deprived of their daily living with your month-long protest. It is still time that we should promote religious harmony and not be downright critical to people who might differ with you or your belief system.

Let peace prevail…