Search This Website


Friday, April 07, 2006

Man who changed Indian politics forever dies: Shah Bano's husband

Shah Bano
Mohammad Ahmad Khan, the husband of the legendary Shahbano died in Indore this week. Khan was 94.

Khan, a lawyer, had given divorce to his 62-year-old wife Shah Bano in 1978 after she had given birth to five children from him.

Shahbano went to the court seeking maintenance and fought up to the Supreme Court that also ruled in her favour. But the turbulent decade of 1980s brought Muslims on the streets.

It was in the backdrop of the Shilanyas and Hindus saw it as another minority appeasement when Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress brought an amendment and enacted the Muslim Women [Protection of Rights] Act.

From here, came the word 'appeasement' or 'tushtikaran'. The word was coined by right-wing to prove that in case of Muslims, even court's judgement is overturned, while Hindus don't get a fair deal despite being the majority community.

The Shahbano case saw the birth of the fiery Syed Shahabuddin and several other leaders. He made several irresponsible comments and gave suc speeches that angered Hindus. Already middle-class was getting lumpenised.

LK Advani seized the opportunity. The rise in communal feelings led to the resurgence of BJP that increased its number from 2 seats to 86 in Parliament. This later caused the demolition of Babri Masjid. The heat is felt till today. Shahbano case was a watershed.

She died a couple of years back in Indore, lonely with almost no media attention. Her husband died now. Their eldest son is a senior lawyer now.


Diganta said...

I ask everyone the same question, are you for or against the Supreme court verdict?

Anonymous said...

He can either say yes or no. If favorable, would it mean all secular muslims think that way, otherwise, would it mean he is a fundamentalist!

Diganta said...

I am not interested in Yes/No. I want to know what's his logic behind NO. If he says it is NO because Islam says it NO, then I'll mark him as fundamentalist. If he comes up with some social perspective of the case and argues and tries to defend NO, I'll say that's the way EVERYONE should behave.

Diganta said...

It's not the answer that matters, it's the way of argument that matters. If you try to argue logically, you can't be a fundamentalist. That means you're not 'hardliner'.

indscribe said...

Come on. Of course, I am in favour of the Supreme Court verdict. No doubt about that.

Rohit said...

Diganta, you could have read the rest of Adnan's blog entries, and used them to make up your mind.

I say this because I feel it is rude to people when random strangers expect to be given proof of the former's loyalty / tolerance. Please try to introspect and gauge how you would feel in a similar situation.


Diganta said...

It's not a proof for loyalty. It's between a hardliner and flexible. A am not saying that a hardliner can not be loyal. Anyway, he replied and that ended all.

Anonymous said...

The thing is you that have already made your mind. If he is compliant he is desirable, otherwise he is subject to intolerance. Why do you pretend to be looking for logic???

What is it that makes all non-muslims loyals, without proof?
May be either being anti-muslims or not being muslims!

Don't you intend to say that Muslims rejecting Islam are neither fundamentalists, nor hardliners!
That's exactly what is called secularism, tolerance and loyalty.

Lastly, Loyal to?

Diganta said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Diganta said...

"Why do you pretend to be looking for logic???" - I always look for logic because somebody who talks logically can change his view and doesn't assume something to be eternal - that's what was assumed to be the baseline of Science.

"Don't you intend to say that Muslims rejecting Islam are neither fundamentalists, nor hardliners!" - I prefer logic and humanity over religion and holy scripts. I am a Hindu and I don't believe in Sati-burnings though it's written in some Hindu holy scripts, because that is against Humanity. Now if I said that whatever is written on Hindu Holy scripts is true forever (that's what Raja Rammohan faced when he tried to introduce laws against it) - then I become a hardliner. It's true that I am not always correct but I am always happy to see people around are like me, be them Muslims/Hindus/Christians. Loyalty is another thing, that I never have discussed. I am sorry to say that you have a lot of complex thoughts in your mind, so you fail to understand simple things simply and even fail to write out comments with your name.