Banning the abhorrent triple talaq needs no debate
The demand for a ban on triple talaq is gaining momentum after the central government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the practices of triple talaq, polygamy et al must be done away with. The law commission came up with questionnaire on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and the battle was intensified after All India Muslim Personal law Board (AIMPLB) and various politicians joined the chorus to oppose any such attempt to alter the personal laws of Muslims.
Politicians may have their compulsions to oppose this courageous move of the central government, but it is quite surprising to see that leftist intellectuals and women right activists who cry over the ban on the entry of women into Shani Shingnapur or Sabrimala have chosen to remain silent over such an important issue that concerns a considerable size of the population.
The validity and necessity of triple talaq, polygamy et al has to be viewed from three aspects, namely religious, constitutional and social. Islamic scholars are divided over the validity of triple talaq and according to a paper published by Islamic Research Foundation International, USA, such practices are not mentioned in the Quran and there are examples in the Hadith where Prophet Muhammad reunited a couple even after the pronouncement of talaq thrice (quotes from Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal). Drawing references from the Quran and the Hadith, more than 20 Islamic countries (including Pakistan) have already banned this practice and that doesn't make the people living in those countries inferior Muslims.
India is a secular country governed by the Constitution and there must be no place for the whims and fancies of radical elements while deciding the principles of governance. Article 44 of the Constitution directs the state to implement UCC for all the citizens and it is long overdue. Personal laws for different sections of the society infringe upon their fundamental rights under the Constitution and deny them the right to equality before law, which was envisaged by our forefathers.
Long back, the Supreme Court tried to introduce some reformatory measures in the personal laws relating to Muslims, but they were sacrificed at the altar of votebank politics when Rajiv Gandhi bowed down to the pressure of orthodox elements (Mohd Ahmad Khan Vs Shah Bano Begum). There are various judicial pronouncements wherein courts have set aside the arbitrary talaq given by the husband and ordered him to pay the maintenance and the Supreme Court - in the celebrated case of "Shamim Ara v State of UP & Ors" - said that a talaq must be preceded by reconciliation and arbitration.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru introduced Hindu Code Bill as a reform measure to unify Hindus, but he bowed down to the pressure of conservative elements in the Muslim society and a sizeable population among them was left in the lurch. He said that personal laws of Muslims shouldn't be changed until the community wants to change them.
However, it hasn't happened yet and radical elements have always opposed the progressive steps taken by the community members or even those directed by the courts. No radical change will ever happen if it is left to the religious leaders of the society. There should be no place for any law that discriminates against human beings on the basis of their gender and opposes the fundamental rights granted by the Constitution.
Practices like triple talaq and polygamy are social ailments that are discriminatory to women and have roots in the medieval age. It is inhumane to throw women out of the house by merely uttering these words thrice, which is nothing but a symbol of male chauvinism backed by law! The opposition of any progressive step taken by the government or the society itself comes from a patriarchal mindset that treats a woman as a commodity who can be used as per one's whims. Frivolous reasons are given for getting a divorce, which can be communicated even over a text message in the current context. In other words, the life of a woman can be made hell by just sending a text message.
It should be understood that the abolition of such a draconian practice will not compromise the religious beliefs and practices of any individual and it is solely aimed at bringing the right to equality as envisaged in articles 13 & 14 of the Constitution.
There is no reason to incite fear-mongering among Muslims as adequate safeguard has been provided in the Constitution (Article 25 to Article 28 under "Right to Freedom of Religion") to ensure the religious freedom of minorities is not infringed upon. It's no time to sit on the fence - we must come in support of gender equality and justice.