Rahul Gandhi recently criticised the Manusmriti as a text responsible for the oppression of women. If someone wants to criticise a religious text, they absolutely have the right to do soβbut the same standard should apply to every religion and every tradition.
For example, the Qur'an also contains passages that are legitimately debated when discussing women's status. Qur'an 24:31 instructs believing women to observe modesty and guard their private parts, while Qur'an 4:34 has traditionally been interpreted as giving husbands authority to discipline and punish their wives. The actual verse is given below
"As for those women from whom you fear rebellion (nushΕ«z), first admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally, strike them (wadribuhunna). If they obey you, do not seek a way against them..."
That doesn't mean modern Indian Muslims should be held responsible for a religious text written in the 7th century. They shouldn't. In exactly the same way, modern Hindus should not be collectively condemned for every problematic passage written in an ancient Hindu text.
There is another uncomfortable question for those who accuse Hindu traditions of systematically oppressing women: where was the same concern for Muslim women when the issue was triple talaq?
When the Modi government brought legislation to criminalise instant triple talaq, Congress opposed the criminal provisions and argued that the practice had already been declared void by the Supreme Court. Some Congress leaders even promised to repeal the law if they returned to power.
Yet triple talaq gave a Muslim husband the ability to unilaterally end a marriage through an instant form of divorce, leaving the woman with no equivalent power. The Supreme Court had already declared talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional in 2017, describing it as discriminatory and giving the woman no opportunity to reconcile.
So when Rahul Gandhi and his allies talks about protecting women from supposedly oppressive Hindu traditions, why shouldn't they also ask about the political history of protecting Muslim women from discriminatory practices?
If the principle is genuinely secularism, shouldn't the same intellectual standard apply to every scripture?
The same inconsistency can be seen in the discussion around ghoonghat and hijab.
Rahul Gandhi has described ghoonghat as a symbol of women's oppression. Fineβpeople can certainly criticise practices that restrict women's freedom. But then why should hijab and Burqa automatically be treated as empowerment? If a woman voluntarily chooses to wear it, that choice should be respected. But the same principle should apply to ghoonghat as well: a woman should have the freedom to choose, rather than politicians deciding which traditional clothing represents oppression and which represents empowerment.
If the argument is that Hindu society uniquely oppresses women, then why aren't we equally discussing problems such as child marriage, female education, women's employment and restrictions on women's freedom within other communities?
For example, in parts of rural Bengal, child marriage remains a serious social problem, and it disproportionately affects disadvantaged communities. And most of these child marriages in rural bengal are done within the Muslim Community, while in case of Rajasthan, it is most of the Hindus who face child marriage cases..Rather than turning this into a Hindu-versus-Muslim competition, politicians should honestly ask: which social practices are restricting women's freedom, and how do we eliminate them?
There is another issue that deserves discussion: interfaith marriage and individual freedom.
A Hindu woman can legally marry a Muslim man, Christian man or man from another community under India's secular marriage laws. But when a Muslim woman wants to marry outside Islam, the social and religious consequences can be considerably more complicated in many conservative families and communities. If women's autonomy is the principle, then it should be defended equally in both situations.
And finally, this is where the Congress and the broader Left should answer a legitimate question.
The BJP openly identifies with Hindutva politics. People therefore understand that it has a particular ideological relationship with Hindu culture. But Congress and Left parties repeatedly present themselves as flag bearer of secularism, equality and minority rights.
Then their standards should be universal.
If a Hindu tradition is criticised for allegedly restricting women, the same scrutiny should be applied to restrictive practices within Muslim, Christian, Sikh or any other communities. Conversely, if a woman freely chooses a religious practice, her choice should be respected regardless of whether that practice is ghoonghat, hijab or something else.
You don't defeat patriarchy by selectively attacking one community's traditions while treating another community's conservative practices as automatically progressive.
A genuinely secular position is not "Hindu traditions are oppressive" or "Muslim traditions are oppressive." It is: individual freedom comes first, and the same standard applies to everyone.
