DNA Edit: Abu Azmi, the apostle of misogyny

The Samajwadi Party’s face in Maharashtra Abu Asim Azmi is a class apart. When women across India recoiled in horror, fear and disgust over the incidents of mass molestation in Bengaluru on New Year’s eve caught on camera, this man chose to blame the victims for the crimes committed on them. This is not new: political, social and religious leaders of all hues are quick to blame women, their clothes and their personal liberties for anything that goes wrong with them. Azmi hails from a mentality that is uncomfortable with the freedoms that our Constitution gave our women at the dawn of Independence. In his own words, the Bengaluru incidents were bound to happen because women in “half dress came out on streets late at night with their friends”. He also added that it was not “right for my sister or daughter to go out at night without male members of the family”.

If the likes of Azmi come to power, it is not difficult to ascertain what the fate of women would be. In 2014, Azmi reportedly demanded the death penalty for women who were raped or engaged in consensual sex. He cited the existence of similar laws in some Islamic nations to back his stance. Back then, Azmi did not have to look too far for sanction and inspiration. His mentor Mulayam Singh Yadav had laid down the Samajwadi Party line with his “boys will be boys” comment to excuse young men accused of sexual offences. It is hardly surprising that the Samajwadi Party, which champions identity politics, attracted the likes of Azmi, who was born in Azamgarh in UP, and migrated to Mumbai, where he made his fortune. Azmi’s initiation into politics happened comparatively late. He was jailed for a year under the draconian Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act for alleged involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial blasts case but the Supreme Court discharged him. For Azmi, a successful businessman, the realisation dawned that political power, and not money power alone, mattered in the polarised Mumbai of the 1990s.

Azmi joined the Samajwadi Party at a time when the twin issues of mistreatment of North Indians and the jailing of young Muslim men in terror-related cases created a political space for the SP. By hitting the streets regularly to protest instances of alleged injustice against Muslims, Azmi earned a following among the city’s Muslims. After representing UP in the Rajya Sabha from 2002 to 2008, he has won successive elections to the Maharashtra assembly. His knack for stoking the communal cesspool also earned him a court conviction for hate speech. In 2012, a magistrate court sentenced him under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code for creating enmity among various groups for a speech at a rally in Nagpada in 2000 where he raised the “Islam in danger” bogie. Thanks to a stay on the order, Azmi’s political career continues unimpeded. 

Azmi’s 2014 Lok Sabha election affidavit reveals he has assets valued at Rs 142 crore, making him one of Maharashtra’s richest politicians. Further, the affidavit reveals other criminal cases on charges of extortion, sales tax irregularities, and rioting pending against him. To give him his due, some of these cases would be political in nature. But it is unfortunate that the affluent are also some of the most narrow-minded. Azmi has used his wealth to enlarge his social clout among Muslims and raise injustices dogging the community. But his attitude towards women reveal the limited extent of his politics. The Muslim community requires leaders who speak for both men and women and for progressive changes in social mores. India is a free country guaranteeing the freedom of expression to all its citizens. So Azmi is free to thrust his patriarchal mindset on the rest of us. Azmi has subsequently retreated from his stated positions, condemned the Bengaluru incident, and claimed he was misquoted by the media. But with a catch: “My opinion is we should follow our culture,” he tweeted. 

Mr Azmi, please get this clear: cultures evolve and a woman’s right to socialise, work, party, dance, copulate, marry or divorce is an irrevocable part of contemporary culture.