Talaq absolutely irrational !

Anuradha Dutt

Ensuring gender parity and upholding human rights and dignity across the vast population spectrum are integral to good governance. Such crucial issues often get derailed by political rhetoric and stratagems, to the detriment of the democratic ideal. The current impasse over framing a law against triple talaq so as to protect vulnerable Muslim women from the machinations of callous spouses, who can expel wives from their life by uttering the word 'talaq' thrice, even over the phone, or convey their intent via email, SMS, other means via the unfair practice of instant divorce, is a case in point.
Talaq e biddat or irregular divorce, banned by many Islamic nations, apparently did not have the sanction of Prophet Mohammad. But here, in India, it continues to be deployed with impunity though jurists, human rights proponents and progressive Muslims all agree that the act severely erodes females' dignity and rights.
The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, passed in the Lok Sabha where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has a majority, was stalled by the Congress and like-minded parties in the Rajya Sabha since the BJP-led coalition lacks sufficient numbers in the Upper House to ensure passage of the bill. However, the Union government is determined to spike this premedieval practice that has no validity under secular law, largely prevalent and applicable to

Muslim women suffer from the machinations of callous spouses, who can expel wives from their life by uttering the word 'talaq' thrice, even over the phone, or convey their intent via email, SMS, other means via the unfair practice of instant divorce. Talaq e biddat or irregular divorce, banned by many Islamic nations, apparently did not have the sanction of Prophet Mohammad. But here, in India, it continues to be deployed with impunity though jurists, human rights proponents and progressive Muslims all agree that the act severely erodes females' dignity and rights.

Hindus who comprise the majority community. The Supreme Court, in fact, banned triple talaq via its August 2017 verdict while ruling on pleas filed by victims of the practice. It had also directed that a law in this regard be framed by Parliament within six months.
The stalemate reportedly is over the penal provisions in the bill, which criminalise instant talaq and provide for up to three years' imprisonment for the offender, and even enable the presiding magistrate to impose a hefty fine. The victim can apply for maintenance for her children and herself as well as their custody. It was passed by the Lower House on December 28, 2017.
Opponents of the bill want these penalties diluted. The Congress's stonewalling tactics are being ascribed to its minority appeasement policy, in force since Independence when the Jawaharlal Nehruheaded government chose to retain Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, instituted by the British. In its own defence the party avers that it supports abolishing triple talaq but wants the bill to be modified. The ruling dispensation will now try to get the bill passed in the Rajya Sabha during the budget session.
Conservative Muslims aver that reforms need to be initiated from within the community, as if the endeavours to bring about gender parity by victims of reprehensible customs such as instant divorce and nikah halala are invalid.

The former's obduracy underlines the subordinate position accorded to females under personal law, which is contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equality of all citizens. Three decades ago, the reforms bid fell through when the Rajiv Gandhi-headed government chose to revoke the Supreme Court directive for payment of maintenance – a meagre Rs 125 a month after the threemonth iddat period - by a man who had divorced his 70-year-old wife Shah Bano via talaq e biddat. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 scuttled the reforms attempt.

Under Hindu customary laws too females were accorded an inferior position until the British Raj and free India's rulers intervened. Regressive customs such as child marriage, sati and female infanticide were banned by the British, who also promoted widow remarriage and girls' education among Hindus. Sati was banned in Bengal Presidency in 1829 and in gradual stages in other parts. In 1929 the Child Marriage Restraint Act was passed. And, polygamy was outlawed almost three decades later, in 1955-1956, with enactment of Hindu Code Bill. Every initiative was strongly opposed by custodians of the old order.

The difficult task of codifying Hindu laws of marriage and divorce, adoption, succession and related matters on secular and equitable lines was accomplished under the supervision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, first law minister of free India. The constitutional pledge of equal rights to citizens, irrespective of caste, religion and gender, was meant to ensure parity.
Monogamy was made the rule for adult Hindu males; child marriage and sati banned; divorce and widow remarriage allowed; alimony provided to women by former spouses; daughters accorded coparcenary right, at par with sons', to father's self-acquired property, and under Hindu Succession Act 1956, wherever Dayabhag law was followed, to ancestral property. Daughters' right to ancestral property, at par with sons', was extended to other parts by the 2005 amendment to the act at the behest of the Congress regime at the Centre.

Duplicity is inherent in the retention of the savarna pyramid – that is caste system of graded inequality – formulated in Laws of Manu, a repressive Christian millennium law book that has outlived its time, as the fulcrum of identity politics and policy of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. Since Manusmriti's criminal code has been discarded, there is no rationale for factoring caste into the planning and development process, which is better driven by economic indices.

Demanding dowry and female infanticide were made cognisable offences. Caste-based discrimination and untouchability were also banned. Violations incurred punishment. Hindu law applied also to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, minority groups. They were entitled to follow their own customs. Interestingly, giving and receiving dowry, considered unIslamic, is now common among Muslims.
The 2011 national census estimated Muslim numbers at 17.22 crore, comprising 14.23 per cent of the population. In denying justice to numerous victims of archaic laws that weigh against females - originating in West Asia and prevalent mainly among Sunni Muslims - policymakers would be defaulting on their duty to help a vulnerable segment integrate into the mainstream. The Shah Bano case is still cited as one of the most glaring instances of missed opportunity for the Rajiv Gandhi government to bring the Muslim community under the ambit of secular law, which would have paved the way for implementing the constitutional directive for a uniform civil code.
To quote English poet John Donne, "No Man is an island, entire of itself; / every man is a piece of the continent, / a part of the main".
Fortunately, customary criminal laws are not implemented. Otherwise, death by stoning for adultery, as enjoined by the Islamic Shariah, and an adulterous wife being eaten up by dogs or paraded on donkeys, prescribed by Manusmriti, would have been the norm. Similarly, Manusmriti condemns homosexuality. It recommends atonement for sex between members of the same gender.
Depending on the nature of the act, these vary from a purifying bath while clothed; payment of a fine; to shaving of the head; or chopping of two fingers and being paraded on a donkey. Proponents of revoking Article 377 who cite India's supposed past liberality in support of their case should take note of this.
Duplicity is inherent in the retention of the savarna pyramid – that is caste system of graded inequality – formulated in Laws of Manu, a repressive Christian millennium law book that has outlived its time, as the fulcrum of identity politics and policy of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. Since Manusmriti's criminal code has been discarded, there is no rationale for factoring caste into the planning and development process, which is better driven by economic indices.

The writer is a seasoned journalist and author.



		EDITOR'S MAIL FROM THE EDITOR Rajdharma National Security The Road Ahead Leadership Public discourse Foreign policy Economic reforms Aam Aadmi Public Health Gandhian perspective Armed forces Koregaon Bhima clashes Realpolitik My Lords ! Muslim Youth Gender justice Crimes against women Signs of the times Issue:Feb' 2018 Subscribe Now	Gender justice Talaq absolutely irrational ! Anuradha Dutt Ensuring gender parity and upholding human rights and dignity across the vast population spectrum are integral to good governance. Such crucial issues often get derailed by political rhetoric and stratagems, to the detriment of the democratic ideal. The current impasse over framing a law against triple talaq so as to protect vulnerable Muslim women from the machinations of callous spouses, who can expel wives from their life by uttering the word 'talaq' thrice, even over the phone, or convey their intent via email, SMS, other means via the unfair practice of instant divorce, is a case in point. Talaq e biddat or irregular divorce, banned by many Islamic nations, apparently did not have the sanction of Prophet Mohammad. But here, in India, it continues to be deployed with impunity though jurists, human rights proponents and progressive Muslims all agree that the act severely erodes females' dignity and rights. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, passed in the Lok Sabha where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has a majority, was stalled by the Congress and like-minded parties in the Rajya Sabha since the BJP-led coalition lacks sufficient numbers in the Upper House to ensure passage of the bill. However, the Union government is determined to spike this premedieval practice that has no validity under secular law, largely prevalent and applicable to Muslim women suffer from the machinations of callous spouses, who can expel wives from their life by uttering the word 'talaq' thrice, even over the phone, or convey their intent via email, SMS, other means via the unfair practice of instant divorce. Talaq e biddat or irregular divorce, banned by many Islamic nations, apparently did not have the sanction of Prophet Mohammad. But here, in India, it continues to be deployed with impunity though jurists, human rights proponents and progressive Muslims all agree that the act severely erodes females' dignity and rights. Hindus who comprise the majority community. The Supreme Court, in fact, banned triple talaq via its August 2017 verdict while ruling on pleas filed by victims of the practice. It had also directed that a law in this regard be framed by Parliament within six months. The stalemate reportedly is over the penal provisions in the bill, which criminalise instant talaq and provide for up to three years' imprisonment for the offender, and even enable the presiding magistrate to impose a hefty fine. The victim can apply for maintenance for her children and herself as well as their custody. It was passed by the Lower House on December 28, 2017. Opponents of the bill want these penalties diluted. The Congress's stonewalling tactics are being ascribed to its minority appeasement policy, in force since Independence when the Jawaharlal Nehruheaded government chose to retain Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, instituted by the British. In its own defence the party avers that it supports abolishing triple talaq but wants the bill to be modified. The ruling dispensation will now try to get the bill passed in the Rajya Sabha during the budget session. Conservative Muslims aver that reforms need to be initiated from within the community, as if the endeavours to bring about gender parity by victims of reprehensible customs such as instant divorce and nikah halala are invalid. The former's obduracy underlines the subordinate position accorded to females under personal law, which is contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equality of all citizens. Three decades ago, the reforms bid fell through when the Rajiv Gandhi-headed government chose to revoke the Supreme Court directive for payment of maintenance – a meagre Rs 125 a month after the threemonth iddat period - by a man who had divorced his 70-year-old wife Shah Bano via talaq e biddat. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 scuttled the reforms attempt. Under Hindu customary laws too females were accorded an inferior position until the British Raj and free India's rulers intervened. Regressive customs such as child marriage, sati and female infanticide were banned by the British, who also promoted widow remarriage and girls' education among Hindus. Sati was banned in Bengal Presidency in 1829 and in gradual stages in other parts. In 1929 the Child Marriage Restraint Act was passed. And, polygamy was outlawed almost three decades later, in 1955-1956, with enactment of Hindu Code Bill. Every initiative was strongly opposed by custodians of the old order. The difficult task of codifying Hindu laws of marriage and divorce, adoption, succession and related matters on secular and equitable lines was accomplished under the supervision of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, first law minister of free India. The constitutional pledge of equal rights to citizens, irrespective of caste, religion and gender, was meant to ensure parity. Monogamy was made the rule for adult Hindu males; child marriage and sati banned; divorce and widow remarriage allowed; alimony provided to women by former spouses; daughters accorded coparcenary right, at par with sons', to father's self-acquired property, and under Hindu Succession Act 1956, wherever Dayabhag law was followed, to ancestral property. Daughters' right to ancestral property, at par with sons', was extended to other parts by the 2005 amendment to the act at the behest of the Congress regime at the Centre. Duplicity is inherent in the retention of the savarna pyramid – that is caste system of graded inequality – formulated in Laws of Manu, a repressive Christian millennium law book that has outlived its time, as the fulcrum of identity politics and policy of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. Since Manusmriti's criminal code has been discarded, there is no rationale for factoring caste into the planning and development process, which is better driven by economic indices. Demanding dowry and female infanticide were made cognisable offences. Caste-based discrimination and untouchability were also banned. Violations incurred punishment. Hindu law applied also to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists, minority groups. They were entitled to follow their own customs. Interestingly, giving and receiving dowry, considered unIslamic, is now common among Muslims. The 2011 national census estimated Muslim numbers at 17.22 crore, comprising 14.23 per cent of the population. In denying justice to numerous victims of archaic laws that weigh against females - originating in West Asia and prevalent mainly among Sunni Muslims - policymakers would be defaulting on their duty to help a vulnerable segment integrate into the mainstream. The Shah Bano case is still cited as one of the most glaring instances of missed opportunity for the Rajiv Gandhi government to bring the Muslim community under the ambit of secular law, which would have paved the way for implementing the constitutional directive for a uniform civil code. To quote English poet John Donne, "No Man is an island, entire of itself; / every man is a piece of the continent, / a part of the main". Fortunately, customary criminal laws are not implemented. Otherwise, death by stoning for adultery, as enjoined by the Islamic Shariah, and an adulterous wife being eaten up by dogs or paraded on donkeys, prescribed by Manusmriti, would have been the norm. Similarly, Manusmriti condemns homosexuality. It recommends atonement for sex between members of the same gender. Depending on the nature of the act, these vary from a purifying bath while clothed; payment of a fine; to shaving of the head; or chopping of two fingers and being paraded on a donkey. Proponents of revoking Article 377 who cite India's supposed past liberality in support of their case should take note of this. Duplicity is inherent in the retention of the savarna pyramid – that is caste system of graded inequality – formulated in Laws of Manu, a repressive Christian millennium law book that has outlived its time, as the fulcrum of identity politics and policy of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. Since Manusmriti's criminal code has been discarded, there is no rationale for factoring caste into the planning and development process, which is better driven by economic indices. The writer is a seasoned journalist and author.