I was shocked to read a statement sent to me by a journalist friend.
Mufti Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliyar, General Secretary of the Samastha Kerala Jam’iyyathul Ulama, has called for women to remain confined to their homes and suggested that women’s presence on public platforms causes “great destruction.”
Before claiming the authority to speak as an Islamic scholar, Mufti Kanthapuram should seriously reconsider his understanding of the Indian Constitution—and, indeed, of the Quran and Islamic history.
This is not about “protecting” women. It is about controlling them.
When women are described as objects who should not be “displayed” in public, or when their very presence in public life is presented as dangerous, the language is not merely offensive. It is dehumanising.
Women are not property. They are not possessions. They do not require permission from religious authorities to move freely, study, work, travel, speak, organise or participate in public life.
The Constitution guarantees equality, dignity and freedom of movement to every citizen, regardless of gender, caste or religion. No cleric, religious institution or self-appointed guardian of morality has the authority to place itself above these constitutional guarantees.
What Does Islamic History Tell Us?
If Mufti Kanthapuram wishes to invoke Islam to justify restricting women, he should revisit Islamic history.
Muslim women have, throughout history, been scholars, educators, traders, writers, political actors, patrons of knowledge and influential participants in public life.
Kerala itself has produced Muslim women writers who have challenged patriarchal interpretations of women’s lives. Khadija Mumtaz, the acclaimed Malayalam writer, has written with remarkable clarity about the restrictions imposed on Muslim women.
From neighbouring Karnataka comes Banu Mushtaq, the celebrated Kannada writer, activist and lawyer whose Heart Lamp won the International Booker Prize. Her writing gives voice to the everyday lives and struggles of women and girls in Muslim communities.
These women have done something far more valuable than claiming authority over women: they have listened to women, written about their lives and questioned power.
That is the difference between speaking about women and standing with women.
Kerala Cannot Be Dragged Backwards
Kerala, with its remarkable history of literacy, social reform and women’s participation in public life, deserves better than a return to feudal notions of female seclusion.
The state produced pioneers such as Justice Fathima Beevi, the first woman judge of the Supreme Court of India. Her life itself stands as a powerful rebuttal to the idea that women belong only within the confines of their homes.
At a time when the country is preparing to commemorate the 200th birth anniversary of Jyotirao Phule, we should also remember the revolutionary vision of Jyotirao Phule, Savitribai Phule and Fatima Sheikh.
In 1848, they came together to open one of the first schools for girls in India in Pune.
They understood nearly two centuries ago what some still refuse to understand today: educating girls and breaking the restrictions imposed on women are essential to building a just society.
It is a matter of shame that nearly two centuries later, we are still having to argue against voices telling women that they belong inside their homes.
History moved forward.
Women moved forward.
India moved forward.
It is these regressive voices that seek to drag us backwards.
The choice before us is stark. Do we want the India of Savitribai Phule and Fatima Sheikh, who opened the doors of education to girls? Or do we want an India in which clerics claim the right to close those doors again?
There can be no going backwards.
The Politics Of Distraction
The political timing of such statements is equally disturbing.
Whenever the BJP faces political pressure, there is enormous convenience in shifting public attention towards manufactured battles over women’s clothing, mobility, morality, religion and “tradition.”
These controversies can become useful ammunition for forces that thrive on communal polarisation. We have seen this politics repeatedly, including in Gujarat.
It is deeply unfortunate when religious leaders make provocative statements that can be weaponised to create yet another Hindu-Muslim confrontation.
And the timing today is particularly revealing.
Gen Z and Gen Alpha are raising their voices across the country. Young people are questioning authority, demanding accountability and refusing to accept the politics of fear, control and silence.
At precisely such a moment, attempts to drag public discourse back towards controlling women’s mobility, education and presence in public life should be recognised for what they are: an assertion of patriarchal authority that can also serve the interests of fascist forces seeking to consolidate power.
Women do not need to be “protected” from freedom.
Women need to be protected from those who seek to take their freedom away.
There is a larger political question we should ask:
Who benefits when such inflammatory statements dominate public discourse?
When the country should be debating unemployment, economic insecurity, education, social justice, democratic freedoms and the accountability of those in power, we are once again being pushed into a manufactured argument about whether women should be allowed to appear in public.
We should refuse to be distracted.
Women Will Not Be Pawns
Whether the speaker is a cleric, politician or anyone else, women’s freedom is not a bargaining chip.
Muslim women are not pawns.
Hindu women are not pawns.
No woman is property.
We reject both patriarchal control and the cynical politics that weaponises it.
Religious authority is not a licence to violate constitutional morality.
And when public figures use their authority to promote ideas that deny women equality and autonomy, they must be challenged—not deferred to merely because they occupy positions of religious authority.
It is time for such leaders to make way for a younger generation that understands that faith and freedom need not be enemies; that women are equal citizens; and that dignity and self-determination are not privileges to be granted by men.
Women will not quietly accept attempts to push us back into the home.
We will not take this lying down.
Our freedom is not negotiable.
Our equality is not negotiable.
Our constitutional rights are not negotiable.
Women will decide where we go, what we study, how we live and what kind of future we want.
No cleric. No politician. No patriarch will decide that for us.
There can be no going back.
---
*Senior Human Rights Activist
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor