‘Haq’ Turns Muslim Women’s Rights Into a Political Weapon

In 2025, when you learn another film about Muslims is being made, asking 'Is this propaganda?' is due diligence.

The protagonist is a caricature — an ego-driven patriarchal villain who changes spouses like he changes pressure cookers, has his wife pregnant most of the time she is with him, and refuses to give even Rs 400 as maintenance for his children.

(Photo: Vibhushita Singh/The Quint)

(This piece contains spoilers)

In 2025, when you learn that another film about Muslims is being made, asking 'Is this propaganda?' isn’t cynicism, it is due diligence.

When I went to watch Haq, a film “inspired by” a book “inspired by” about the Shah Bano case, I was deeply mindful, however, that I shouldn’t let my anxieties prevent a fair appraisal of the film.  

For want of a better analogy, the first question I was asking was, has there been a murder at all?  

The film near constantly tells you that Islam doesn’t approve of Triple Talaq. Islam wants everyone to study. Islam is not a bad religion. 

What about Muslim clergy? Homogeneously patriarchal. (Can’t complain here, the most faithful adherents of all religions are). 

What about Muslim men? The protagonist is a caricature — an ego-driven patriarchal villain who changes spouses like he changes pressure cookers, has his wife pregnant most of the time she is with him, and refuses to give even Rs 400 as maintenance for his children. His mother? Also unequivocally patriarchal. 

Bano’s father is the good Muslim caricature, who can do no wrong. He supports his daughter at great personal cost.

These are the primary vessels through which the film serves its arguments.

Selective Oppression

In this context, the only time when reference is made to Muslims being unfairly blamed for Partition long after it occurred, which vessel is chosen to express it?

The evil patriarchal husband, and only after he has been established as being completely bereft of any morality whatsoever. Moments after he makes mention of this, we have the Hindu lawyer representing Bano, saying “Victimhood ka alishaan khel khela hai (They have played a royal victim-card."

Evil villain refers to prejudice. Moral saviour categorises it as false victimhood. Bano herself echoes a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) talking point — only the marginalised castes within Muslims have faced prejudice and need support from the State. This isn’t countered by anyone, even though government data overwhelmingly tells us that Muslims face the worst socio-economic discrimination in Indian society across castes. Across class, also.

Yes, a Muslim suffering poverty will be hit worse than a wealthy Muslim. But before an employer, a homeowner, a parent of a lover, suspects a Muslim of being a terrorist, of “spreading covid” they don’t ask, "Are you upper caste or lower caste?" I have not read about anyone lynching a Muslim asking that question. Hindu mobs take down pants of Muslims to see if circumcision is present or not and not to check a caste certificate hidden in the crotch. 

Erasing Hindu Patriarchy

Hindu society is absent from the film. The fact that Hindu women did not have rights of divorce before 1956, equal rights in property till 2005, female foeticide, etc, nothing.  

Babasaheb Ambedkar, who, along with Jawaharlal Nehru, fought to get Hindu women rights of divorce, faced opposition from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the self-proclaimed Hindu saints who called the reforms an “Atom bomb” under Hindu religion. Even then, Muslim women had the right to divorce.

Till 1956, Hindu men were polygamous and fiercely, even if unsuccessfully opposed the right being taken away from them. Why? Muslims will now have more children than us.

The Indian Penal Code’s anti-domestic violence section, 498A, has 99 percent Indian men believing that women are evil conspirators hell bent on falsely framing their family. But only Hindu women are evil. Muslim women are victims who need to be saved from Muslim men, unless of course, Hindu men are “auctioning” them on X, issuing rape threats, of burning down thousands of homes where Muslim women also live.

In the 2002 Gujarat Riots, neither Muslim women, nor marginalised caste Muslim men were spared. 

What the Film Conveniently Forgets

The film sheds no light whatsoever on the role of communist parties and organisations in India in fighting the Triple Talaq, and even opposing the so-called reversal of Shah Bano judgment. It ends the movie with text falsely claiming that after the Shah Bano judgment, the then Central Government reversed it, and it is only the BJP which rescued Muslim women after Modi by passing a law.  

It makes no mention of how it was the Supreme Court of India which said Triple Talaq is null and void before the BJP passed a law criminalising it. Muslim husbands are now the only men in India for who abandoning a spouse is a non-bailable criminal offence.

It doesn’t tell you that in 2001, the Supreme Court described the law passed by the Rajiv Gandhi government in the following words: “Though it may look ironical, the enactment [Muslim Women Act] intended to reverse the decision in Shah Bano’s case actually codifies the very rationale contained therein”. It doesn’t tell you that the act found a way to grant Muslim women maintenance. 

Balanced? Or Carefully Tilted?

Now, someone could turn around and fairly defend the charge of insidious bigotry with the shield of creative freedom. Fair enough. They have no aspiration of creating a world as complex, complete, and layered as Paul Thomas Anderson’s recent One Battle After Another, which takes a battering ram to all sides of the political spectrum.  

Our intention was to make a fair, dignified film they may argue. They may call it “balanced,” like Emraan Hashmi did in an interview. Sure. Yami Gautam, who plays the protagonist, was also in Article 370 and Uri. Her spouse, Aditya Dhar, wrote and directed Uri, wrote and produced Article 370, wrote and produced Baramulla, which has been described by critic Rahul Desai as the most creative cultural propaganda film he has seen. I don’t think he has seen Haq yet. Aditya Dhar has also produced, written and directed the upcoming Dhurandhar.

In an interview given by Javed Akhtar to a news channel many years back, he mentioned going to some conference where he said that Osama Bin Laden’s photo was hanging on the wall. He asked the organisers, why is this terrorist’s picture here? They responded by saying no allegations against Laden have been proved, how can someone be declared guilty without a trial etc. Long story short, Akhtar responded by saying that it is because you believe he has done acts of terror that his picture is hanging here. Otherwise there is no reason to hang it. 

The film opens by thanking Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, and the two deputy CMs of Uttar Pradesh, all of who are known for preaching the message, "Islam is a great religion and it must be studied." It also thanks Navika Kumar, who is an indefatigable warrior of inter-faith harmony. Constitutional scholar Amit Malviya was also full of praise for the film. 

(The author is a lawyer and research consultant based in Mumbai. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)