LAST Saturday, we unveiled the Leaflet’s special issue on International Women’s Day, 2025. Our objective was to explore one phenomenon rigorously - the backlash against feminist organising in India. This backlash is a conglomeration of many phenomena, manifesting in myriad ways, and in response to diverse strands of feminist organising in the country. Women from the Muslim community have faced a particularly vigorous strand of backlash. As the majoritarian State instrumentalises the issues of Muslim women to intensify the structured oppression of minority communities, how does feminist assertion within the Muslim community navigate the complexity of challenges it confronts?
We sat down with Hasina Khan, an eminent feminist activist, and founder of the Bebaak Collective, a coalition of grassroots activists and autonomous women’s groups resisting discrimination, communalism, and patriarchal oppression, particularly against Muslim women in India. Hasina has been a strong voice for gender justice, legal reform, and the empowerment of marginalized women, challenging repressive practices. She was one of the most prominent petitioners campaigning against unilateral triple talaq in the Supreme Court of India. A long-time member of the Forum Against Oppression of Women, Hasina has dedicated decades to addressing the intersection of patriarchy, poverty, and socio-economic inequality, providing support to women in crisis while building spaces for education, employment, and joy.
Asmita Basu: Hasina, you have been involved with the Awaz-e-Niswan* for a very long time, you were part of the Shayara Bano case, you have strongly critiqued Triple Talaq. In your view, how has the legal framework in India evolved or failed to evolve in recognising and protecting the rights of Muslim women? How has this evolving framework either contributed to or reinforced backlash against Muslim women organising? Would you like to take us through the key legal developments in the last ten years, which have either reinforced the backlash, or protected the rights of Muslim women?
Hasina Khan: There was a phase when there was no space to talk about the struggles of Muslim women in India. Whenever we raised issues pertaining to the rights of Muslim women within the community, we were told - ‘Now is not the time’, or that the community is not ready and such.
At that time, we used to approach the State for problems faced by Muslim women. These were issues that a secular State, committed to constitutional rights would be obligated to take up. At least at that time, we had a space to talk about our constitutional rights.
Secondly, for Muslim women there is no one kind of identity that we occupy. Within the community, there are women in live-in relationships, women facing multiple realities. We tried to address the diversity of this identity and its associated struggles, and we got the strength and courage to talk about these diversities, while taking a stance against conservatism because the State was approachable, negotiable, and we had confidence in it.
But since this government came to power after 2014, the situation has worsened. Who do we talk to?
This government is bringing in laws, and using language which has fostered an atmosphere of hatred that endorses Muslims to be lynched, attacked, and Muslim women to be auctioned on the internet. In such a situation, if you go to the State, the latter will use the issue of women to target the Muslim community.
When we decided to raise the issue of triple talaq, we did so because it was a significant and necessary issue to address. Our decision was not influenced by which government was in power at the time. We continue to stand by that position. But when we went to Court, the government took the issue of Muslim women’s rights and polarised and politicised the issue. It created many divisions between Muslim women and the rest of the community.
Feminist organising on the ground is a very difficult issue. You have to interact with people on a day to day level, and build a sense of trust within women that justice is possible and it could come through our courts, or activism. Feminist organising on the ground is challenging. It requires daily engagement with people and the slow deliberate process of building trust—convincing women that justice is possible, whether through courts or activism. We encourage them to put their faith in the State, the media, and the judiciary. Yet, our own faith in these institutions is fading.
We are showing them dreams but we, ourselves, are disillusioned. Everyday, we are being targeted, being economically boycotted - our food, our dress, everything is under attack. Talking about Muslim women in such a situation is a huge challenge.
The State has completely hijacked the issues of Muslim women, and polarised it. After the Triple Talaq judgement came, when we went to the media, we noticed slowly that the nature of their questions became geared towards villainising the community. The State itself encouraged the rhetoric that Indian Muslims were conservative. We faced backlash there.
Another challenge we faced was that within the Muslim community, certain groups started to discourage women from engaging with non-governmental organisations or feminist groups. They encouraged women to only go to Muslim religious organisations which popped up around that time.
We stood with a principle. We understood that no matter which government it is, the issue was important. For years, Muslim women had been going to courts but the State had been looking at this issue only at an individual level. Then after Shayara Bano and Bebaak Collective went to Court, Triple Talaq was struck down. The credit has to go to those organisations that stood despite backlash.
On August 22, 2017, the Triple Talaq judgement came. We started working on thinking about what would happen if Teen Talaq is given in violation of the judgement. We prepared a draft of suggestions regarding how the government should respond to those who violate the judgement. The National Commission for Minorities informed us that the government was considering bringing a bill in this regard. The commission set up a meeting between us and the then Union Minister of Minority Affairs, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. When we met him, we informed him that while we were all celebrating the judgement, we were also concerned about how the decision would be implemented. If someone violates the judgement, how would the State respond to it?
He told us that if anybody violates the judgement he would be punished. I asked him if by ‘punishment’, he meant compensation for the Muslim women. He did not say a single word. Some days later, the news came that the State has brought in the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalised Triple Talaq. The moment I got to know, I called everyone in Bombay, I called every Muslim activist and I told them that this bill is dangerous and we need to protest.
Within twenty-four hours, we did a press conference and distributed our press statements. In a press conference in Delhi, I tore a copy of the bill. Our statement went worldwide. We met several Members of Parliament with our documents. One Muslim MP called around thirty five other MPs and we presented our contentions against the bill.
When I came back to Mumbai, I agreed to appear for an interview with a national mainstream news channel. They also called a minister to join in. But they grossly misbehaved with me. Firstly, they put up these distorted statements claiming that ‘Hasina Khan was returning after holding a ‘silent meeting’ with several MPs’. They also put my face alongside a picture of a prominent rights activist facing immense scrutiny from the BJP government. Further, they did not let me speak, they stopped my microphone and cut me out without informing me. In the final broadcast, I appeared as if I am unable to speak, not being given a chance to speak. After I prepared and sent a statement to the media outlet, expressing that they had presented me in a biased manner and conducted politics in the name of Muslim women, they invited me again for another interview. But I refused.
Asmita Basu: There are some strands coming out of the conversation. The State’s protective agenda is coming head to head with the dominant narrative of discrimination towards the Muslim community as a whole. It also laid bare some of the contradictions within the movement. The women’s movement initially advocated the Uniform Civil Code (‘UCC’) but later withdrew its support due to right-wing forces taking over the agenda. Now, the debate has resurfaced. Building on your experiences with Triple Talaq, how will you address these complex issues, considering the contradictions within the women’s movement and its inability to provide the solidarity it should? In this context, given the challenges that will arise, how do you think the organisation of these movements will change?
Hasina Khan: First of all, the UCC has always been a demand of the women's movement since the 1980s. After 1989, when L.K. Advani's Rath Yatra started and he began demanding the UCC, women's groups changed their position, claiming that the BJP's UCC and the women's movement's UCC were different. Only MARG**, founded by Dr. Vasudha Vasanti Dhagamwar, was talking about UCC at that time.
Secondly, we, at Bebaak, are actually talking about a gender-just and inclusive law—one that considers the rights of those in live-in relationships, of all gender identities, and diversities. As per our view, personal laws should address everyone’s rights, not just focus on marriage and blood relationships. When the Law Commission was constituted regarding the UCC in 2018 and again in 2022, we submitted our recommendations both times, emphasizing the need for changes in laws—whether it be Triple Talaq, polygamy, or divorce laws. There should be changes across the board, ensuring diversity and inclusivity.
Regardless of the time, discussions on gender rights, feminism, and especially the rights of Muslim women should continue. People often ask whether we are referring to the Uttarakhand UCC only because, in essence, a gender-just law is itself a UCC. In a way, yes, but not like the UCC of Uttarakhand. What we are saying is that before enforcing uniformity in personal laws, we need to address existing inequalities. When inequality is eliminated, uniformity will follow. Uniformity does not mean simply elevating what already exists but improving what is lacking.
Vrinda Grover and others have approached the Supreme Court regarding the Uttarakhand UCC. It has stated that polygamy should not be allowed and that halala has ended, which is a positive step. But overall, the Uttarakhand UCC is problematic.
The current government’s agenda is to bring in UCC in the name of Muslims, but they are not targeting Muslims only—they have a problem with live-in relationships, diversity, transgender individuals, and much more. They rejected same-sex marriage. Banning live-in relationships is absolutely unconstitutional because, under fundamental rights, we have the freedom to choose our partners. That is why we oppose it. Because of the political advantage they gained from the Triple Talaq issue, they are now targeting live-in relationships and property rights as well. This is their successive move. Initially, the aim was to target the Muslim community under the guise of protecting women from mistreatment. Now, the focus has shifted to controlling people’s personal lives, making this an even more dangerous ideology. However, such ideology stems from Manusmriti, and the government cannot act based on that. The State cannot impose their ideology on everyone. That is why we need to campaign against such actions. The current government is exploiting women’s names, identities, and bodies for its political agenda. The Court should intervene. The CJI should investigate whether the Uttarakhand UCC is unconstitutional, particularly concerning live-in relationships and property rights. There is a significant difference between the women's movement of the past and the demand for UCC today.
Asmita Basu: Himanta Biswa Sarma is using the Child Marriage Act, a secular law, to target the minority community under the guise of combating so-called love jihad. What are your thoughts on this? Firstly, there is the creation of laws that can be used to target specific communities, and secondly, the use of secular laws to target a particular community. Do you see any commonalities in the State's approach, any backlash, or was this something expected?
Hasina Khan: I feel that one community is being targeted after another. Muslim women, being vulnerable, were easy targets because there are indeed significant issues within Muslim personal laws. The community is largely controlled by men, and political parties exploit these dynamics. So, to some extent, the criticism is valid. However, the way certain practices were criminalised was deeply problematic. People failed to fully grasp the implications of this criminalisation, which needed to be understood.
With respect to the discussion around child marriage in Assam, if child marriage is to be eradicated, then before banning it, essential factors such as children's education, financial support, security, and the economic condition of families must be addressed. In many cases, marriage also serves as a form of rehabilitation. Child marriage is indeed a serious issue, but simply arresting people and putting them in jail is not the right approach. This should not be the government’s policy. Through such actions, the government seeks to reinforce the perception among the majority community that all social problems exist solely within this particular minority community. If the State truly wants to address child marriage, it should focus on creating support structures to impart education and economic development. Family counseling should be implemented, and the issue should be examined in the broader context of patriarchy.
Child labour is also a serious issue, and it exists across all communities. When addressing child exploitation, discussions should focus on the rights of all children. However, instead of doing this, the government is selectively targeting Muslims. Criminalising child marriage alone will not necessarily reduce it. For example, when dance bars were shut down in Bombay, the bars reopened, but only the dance was banned leading to the further exploitation of women. Dance was a skill, a livelihood, and when such avenues are forcefully taken away, exploitation only increases. This is a major concern. The way the government is handling these issues by disrupting families and implementing punitive measures does not lead to anyone’s upliftment. Hence, it is clear that their intention is to just target the Muslims.
The majority must recognize that things are spiraling out of control. If this is not checked, anyone could become the next target. One example could be their targeting of live-in couples, as it applies across all communities. When a political party starts interfering in people’s bedrooms and kitchens, there is no limit to how far it can go. People should learn from Iran’s example—this is not a country that can be governed by the ideology of the Manusmriti.
Asmita Basu: Muslim women have been instrumentalised to serve political agendas that specifically target the Muslim community. Given this, there is resistance from your side to what is happening. But are there voices of solidarity from the human rights movement? Are there voices of support from the Muslim community as a whole, not just from women? What is the broader public perception? Where are you receiving support from?
Hasina Khan: We are unable to talk, think, or respond as much because the State’s actions actively keep us occupied. What can we even talk about? Even now, there are calls for boycotts, lynchings are taking place, and new laws are being introduced that specifically target and seek to marginalise women. How are we supposed to address all these issues? At this point, the women’s movement lacks the strength to effectively advocate for gender laws and gender-sensitive personal laws because these issues require public discourse. Not everyone is willing to take a public stand. However, discussions do happen. For example, the Forum group, Saheli group and people like Uma Chakravarti openly talk about it. Even the members of the Uttarakhand Mahila Manch have taken their fight to the Supreme Court. While only a few people are speaking out, their voices are significant. Indira Jaising, in a memorial lecture, spoke about constitutional rights and gender, emphasizing that we must continue to engage and keep these conversations alive. It is crucial to involve as many young people as possible because we are in an era where discussions and movements are diminishing due to the hostile atmosphere. There are simply too many pressing issues—constitutional integrity, existence, secularism, and diversity all need to be safeguarded. These are immense challenges, and there is an urgent need for continuous dialogue.
Asmita Basu: What strategies are you considering when organising Muslim women? Given the numerous challenges, how do you plan to sustain this activism in the future?
Hasina Khan: In response to NRC, the Shaheen Bagh sit-in was organised, and following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, we built a national level solidarity group in collaboration with both the INDIA Alliance and civil rights groups. This coalition included diverse Muslim communities, who aimed to remove this government. Our current focus is on engaging with the same political alliances and initiating dialogues with them. We had never anticipated the need for such a strategy, but now it has become necessary. If we approach the courts, our names, identities, and religion will be scrutinised and weaponized against us. People must understand that personal laws are not divine laws and they require reform. If we fail to push for these changes, this government will continue to marginalise us, targeting one group after another, ultimately turning us into a spectacle on the global stage. Therefore, it is crucial for the entire community to raise its voice and demand change at the grassroots level.