Taliban, women’s equality, Hindutva nationalism and selective interpretations of religious traditions

By Ram Puniyani* 

Tavleen Singh, a prominent columnist, recently expressed her dismay over the Taliban’s decision to bar women from studying medicine in Afghanistan (Indian Express, December 8, 2024). Rightly appalled by this regressive move, Singh also criticized left-leaning liberals, accusing them of being empathetic towards the Taliban, as few have openly condemned this action. However, this assertion about left-liberal attitudes toward the Taliban or regimes like Iran’s might not fully capture the reality. She further takes issue with comparisons between Hindu nationalist policies and those of the Taliban, suggesting that such parallels are misplaced.

While the degree of intensity between the two is indeed different, a closer examination reveals fundamental similarities in their political ideologies. Taliban policies toward women and similar attitudes in countries like Iran and parts of the Gulf share a common thread, even if expressed differently. Fundamentalism in these contexts surged during the 1980s, particularly after Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power in Iran, drastically reshaping social norms. Fundamentally, such movements aim to impose selective interpretations of religious traditions through state or dominant political power, often resulting in oppressive, conservative measures targeting women and marginalized communities.

Fundamentalist ideologies, like fascism, thrive on creating internal or external enemies. In many Gulf states, women bear the brunt of these ideologies, while external foes like "Satanic" America are often blamed for societal problems. This mirrors the Nazi regime's demonization of Jews in Germany, where antisemitism was used to consolidate power, culminating in genocide. Similarly, both fascism and fundamentalism impose strict gender roles, relegating women to limited societal functions—be it under Hitler’s vision of "Church, Kitchen, and Children" or under various fundamentalist regimes.

In India, Hindu nationalism has primarily targeted Muslims and, more recently, Christians. The past few decades have seen escalating communal violence, beginning with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and its aftermath. Today, the persecution of Muslims manifests in various forms, such as cow-related lynchings, the spread of terms like "love jihad," and more recently, "land jihad."

While the focus of Hindu nationalist policies has been on targeting Muslims, their implications for women are also significant. Practices like Sati, though legally abolished, reveal the deeply entrenched patriarchal mindset. In the Bhavari Devi case, for instance, caste prejudice allowed rapists to escape justice, as the court questioned the possibility of upper-caste men assaulting a lower-caste woman.

The notion of "love jihad" is another example of anti-women rhetoric, as it curtails women’s agency and reinforces male control over their choices. Similarly, campaigns opposing women wearing jeans reflect this regressive mindset. The Bilkis Bano case, where convicted rapists and murderers were initially honored upon release, highlights the normalization of violence against women. Furthermore, incidents like the harassment of a Goa professor for likening the mangalsutra to a chain for women, or the glorification of Manusmriti, underscore this misogynistic ethos.

Labeling these actions as "Hindu religiosity," as Singh does, misrepresents the issue. Hindu religiosity, as practiced by millions of Hindus, coexists harmoniously with India’s diverse, pluralistic traditions. What we see today under Hindu nationalism stems not from religiosity but from an ideological framework rooted in the works of Savarkar and Golwalkar. This ideology, diametrically opposed to the inclusive nationalism of the Indian freedom struggle, prioritizes a homogenized Hindu identity over India’s pluralistic heritage.

Singh is right to decry these regressive developments but must recognize their parallels with global fundamentalist movements. Whether it is Islamic fundamentalism or Hindu nationalism, both exploit religion to legitimize oppressive political agendas. In India, this is evident in the growing claims over mosques, the use of bulldozers to target minority neighborhoods, or incidents like a teacher asking students to beat a Muslim child or punishing another for bringing non-vegetarian food to school. Such actions are part of a larger pattern of intolerance masquerading as religious righteousness.

---

*Political commentator