Triple Talaq and Question of Social Reform for Muslims
- In Current Affairs
- 01:20 PM, Oct 19, 2016
- Sagar Kinhekar
In response to various public interest litigations (PILs) on rights on Muslim women, Supreme court had asked government’s stand on Triple Talaq and polygamy allowed for Muslims under Muslim Personal Law. The government has filed a response opposing both polygamy and Triple Talaq. Government’s stand is befitting for a progressive democracy of India which upholds every individual as equal and therefore nothing can be allowed to block Muslim woman’s fundamental rights.
This is not the first time that the practice of triple Talaq has come into discussion. In 1985, a Muslim lady Shah Bano Begum won a case against her husband who had divorced her in 1978. Shah Bano was married to Mohammad Ahmed Khan, a well-known and affluent lawyer from Indore, in 1932. Later, after 14 years into marriage he married a younger woman as a second wife. He lived with both of them until he threw out Shah Bano with her 5 children. Shah Bano was 62 that time. He paid them Rupees 200 per month for maintenance, which he stopped paying in 1978. Shah Bano went to court appealing for an alimony and won it in Supreme court. Later under pressure from Islamic Clergy Parliament passed an act overturning court’s decision.
Understanding Triple Talaq
If a husband of any faith other than Muslim needs to divorce his wife, he needs to approach the court. The procedure may take anywhere between 6 months to 3 years for court to approve the divorce. If the divorce is approved, the court decides on alimony which husband needs to pay. This may be a lump sum amount or a monthly maintenance. While deciding this, court takes various parameters into account like financial condition of both parties, custody of children etc.
Muslim men are not required to go to a court for divorce. This can be done either on own accord of man or by reaching to a Qazi. The man is just needed to pronounce Talaq three times. There is a minimum number of days between two pronouncements mandated. This minimum duration between pronouncements prescribed is one menstrual cycle of wife. After third pronouncement the divorce becomes irrevocable. This period is called Iddah. There are two other ways of divorce, Ila and Zihar. In these two types, husband stops having any physical relationship with wife for a consecutive period of 4 months and then the divorce is assumed to be confirmed.
The problem however is not so much of methodology of divorce, but that of rights of women. A Muslim woman does not have any right to divorce, unless the husband delegates his authority to her for divorcing. Woman can demand this only under three circumstances, false charges of adultery, insanity or impotency of husband.
A Muslim woman, in contrast to women of other faiths, only gets what was promised to her as Meher at the time of marriage and maintenance for the period of Iddah only. Meher is an arbitrary sum agreed and is generally a paltry amount. Muslim women do not hold any right for a maintenance irrespective of her financial or physical condition. Like what we saw in Shah Bano’s case divorcing husband is not responsible even for the children’s maintenance if they are in woman’s custody. The question is why should Muslim Woman be treated like second rate citizens when Indian constitution upholds equal fundamental rights.
Muslim Personal Law Board’s Stand
All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is a non-government organization formed to guide the provisions of Muslim Personal Law. The board was set up in 1973 and since then has become a de-facto representative of all Muslims in India. Given that the board is run mostly by clerics of a specific sect within Muslims, the jury is out whether AIMPLB truly represents all Indian Muslims which are divided into hundreds of sects. There are two biggest sects Sunnis and Shias which differ in their religious practices to a large extent. Even within Sunnis there are at least 7 sects like Barelavi, Deobandi, Shafi, Maliki, Wahabi etc. These sects differ in their religious beliefs and practices.
Leaving the question of representation aside, we move forward to board’s stand on the issue of Triple Talaq. The board has opposed government’s stand in supreme court on Triple Talaq and polygamy giving some interesting arguments in favor of these practices. Let’s examine those arguments here –
-
“If triple talaq is denied, the person may kill his wife to get rid of her.”
So this means that if one can’t divorce his wife given the cost of alimony is high, he will kill the wife. Does the AIMPLB assume that there is no rule of law in India and people can go on a killing spree without any fear? Extending AIMPLB’s logic husbands of other faiths should have been killing their wives in thousands everyday as they already have this issue of high cost of alimony.
-
Polygamy is a “social need” and a “blessing” for women because “an unlawful mistress is more harmful for social fabric than a lawful second wife”
So a man is presumed by AIMPLB to be lustful creature who cannot survive with one wife and needs multiple wives and if not allowed will need an unlawful mistress. Even if that considered true, how does it matter for a woman whether the woman, she is sharing her husband with, is a lawful wife or a mistress. The love and faith in marriage is broken as soon as husband has relationship with another lady anyways.
Even if looking at it from “social need” angle, it would have made sense if we had a very high women-to-men ratio and polygamy was really a need. In history many faiths did allow polygamy including Hinduism. However, looking at current gender ratio in India polygamy doesn’t make sense at all. If there is any argument for polygamy, it would be a reverse polygamy as there are fewer women than men today.
-
Personal laws of a community cannot be rewritten in the name of social reform. And that “uniform civil code is attack on right of practicing religion”
The argument given by supporters of uniform civil code is that everyone is equal before the law, while detractors say it’s forcing majority’s will on minority. This argument of majority-forcing-it’s-will-on-minority does not stand on the closure investigation. The current Hindu Code Bill is not based on any religious text but is aimed at social reform. After initial opposition Hindus accepted the bill. If such a reform is possible through law for Hindus why it should be any different for other faiths. There are countries like Iran, Indonesia or even Pakistan with Muslim majority which have banned Triple Talaq system. If there are reforms possible in these countries, why India needs to be an exception?
Conclusion
If there are reforms in Muslim Personal Law or agreement on uniform civil code, the dependency on interpretations of Sharia will be reduced and that will directly impact the relevance of AIMPLB. The boards sole purpose of existence is Muslim Personal Law. It there is an abolition or even dilution of this, board’s reason for existence will be in danger. This means that the control enjoyed by handful of clergy on large Indian Muslim population will come to an end. With this end of control, the clergy will lose their political importance and financial perks provided by many political parties. Board losing its relevance will also mean much lesser number of “block votes” for “secular” political parties. Hence the parties like Congress, along with media ecosystem go on overdrive opposing any reforms to Muslim Personal Law.
Is it any surprise that the board and liberal eco-system are vociferously opposing the reforms, even if reforms clearly help improve lives of common Muslims?
Comments