New hurdle

Sir — The reaction of Muslim clerics following the conviction of Imrana’s father-in-law, Ali Mohammad, is shocking to say the least (“Imrana fights for marriage”, Oct 22). The imams are saying that Imrana is now barred by the shariat (Islamic Laws) from remaining as Illahi’s wife. Such a declaration would undoubtedly threaten the existence of Imrana as well as her children. The ruling reveals the conservatism of the clerics. The problem is that their mindset is seeped in patriarchy. Worse, their logic is irrational and it is mired in ignorance. This is borne out by the fact that these men keep on invoking the shariat without going into the merit of a particular case. It is doubtful whether the shariat will spell out the course of action in a case where a woman has been raped by her father-in-law. Given the uniqueness of the case, the maulvis should have evolved a new principle to deliver their judgement in keeping with the teachings of the shariat. But such ingenuity is not expected of Muslim clerics who have been conditioned to cloak their thoughts in conservatism. Therefore, it is imperative that civil society and the state intervene to save Muslim women from the erroneous judgments of illiterate clerics.

Yours faithfully,
Masood Md. Sohail, Calcutta

Sir — The courts have sentenced Imrana Bibi’s father-in-law to prison for 10 years on charges of raping her. Following this verdict, a section of Muslim clerics declared that the court conviction now decisively favours an annulment of Imrana’s marriage with her husband, Illahi. This only goes to show that the maulvis have little or no knowledge of the shariat. Marriage, in Islam, is a contract between two individuals, which can only be nullified when the husband opts for talaq, or by the death of a partner. This implies that Imrana’s marriage can only be called off when her husband divorces her. Nothing, not even the rape of a woman, can spoil a pious act such as marriage under Islamic law. The women’s organizations and the Muslim intellectuals who are on Imrana’s side should also drag these clerics to court for interfering in the poor woman’s life unnecessarily.

Yours faithfully,
Md. Aslam Parvez, Calcutta

Sir — It took a decade to punish the guilty in the Priyadarshini Mattoo case. Thankfully, Imrana has not had to wait that long for justice. One wonders whether justice was delayed in Mattoo’s case as the accused was the son of a police officer. It is difficult to punish the rich and the powerful, fast track courts notwithstanding. When it comes to sentencing someone who is related to a politician, justice inevitably gets delayed. Another case that comes to mind is that of Jessica Lal. The chances of the courts passing a quick verdict in this case are rather slim.

Yours faithfully,
Rahul Roy, Calcutta

Parting shot

Sir — Deepa Mehta’s, Water, the last film of her “elements” trilogy, has been widely acclaimed in the Americas. A powerful, disturbing and deeply moving film, Water once again proves that Mehta is a very talented film-maker. Interestingly, Bapsi Sidhwa’s recently published novel, Water, used the screenplay of Mehta’s film as its plot summary. Generally, printed literature is translated into visual text. This reversal is a significant fact in itself.

Many will remember Sidhwa’s Ice-candy Man inspired the making of Mehta’s film, Earth. The emotionally charged, sentimental narrative of the misery of widows in Water, presents Mahatma Gandhi as the pathfinder and and the saviour of the wretched Hindu widows of India. However, it left me rather sad as I felt that a great opportunity to re-visit history had been missed. Although Rammohan Roy and his efforts to stop the practice of sati had been cursorily referred to in the film, there was total silence about the extraordinary contribution of the Bengali intellectual Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, who had devoted his energies towards alleviating the sufferings of widows and child brides. It was the single-minded determination of Vidyasagar that had made the Widow Remarriage Act a reality in 1856. His initiative to abolish child marriage and polygamy are too well known and therefore the silence seems rather strange.

Vidyasagar not only protested incessantly against child marriage and polygamy, but also urged his son to marry a widow. The film has a single reference by a priest to a new law recently introduced permitting widow remarriage. The historical time as stated in the film is 1938. When Vidyasagar died in 1891, Gandhi was about 22 years old. The Widow Remarriage Act of 1856 came into being when Gandhi was thirteen. Gandhi continued with determination and compassion what Vidyasagar had begun.

Yours faithfully,
Sanjukta Dasgupta, Oswego, US