The Supreme Court in its recent verdict last month, held triple talaq being practiced by the Muslim community as “unconstitutional”, “arbitrary” and “not part of Islam”. In this context, here’s what Mr. Indresh Kumar, a senior leader in the RSS had to say, “…these women are your mothers, sisters, and daughters, you should celebrate this. If you are not happy, then you are rejecting a heavenly order.” So according to the above-mentioned gentleman, and most of the well-educated, or maybe even the conscientious population of this country and abroad, I might be perceived as an anti-feminist or anti-human, for what I wish to express, and my thoughts could stand contrary to the public assent and opinion. But let me tell you, I have some thoughts floating in my mind, and notwithstanding the common opinion, I’d wish to take a stand against the recent ban of triple talaq and all the hype around it.

 

Perhaps a few months back, I too looked at this entire situation as any commoner would. Long and tedious debates on the television, grilling an advocate of triple-talaq to death, talking about the grave injustice being faced by thousands of Muslim women, was all one could witness, and join the brigade of the staunch protesters against this practice. But a few days back, I got this opportunity to attend a small talk and discussion on Triple-Talaq, which was indeed, ‘Beyond triple talaq’ as the discussion was titled. It was then when I realized, it is not that we know what we see, it is actually we know what we are shown. A closer look at the issue and perspectives from different thinkers and activists made me realize that it is certainly not what it is. This entire discourse that I once strongly advocated is not even the real issue. There were still some unturned pages, more to discover, more to think and much more to understand before taking any stand.

 

Now let me clear out my throat and declare, my problem doesn’t lie in the fact that ‘talaq-e-biddat’ or instant triple talaq has been banned. As already stated on numerous occasions, it is certainly contended to be against the spirit of Islam, with the practice having no mention or whatsoever in the Holy Quran. It has been banned in over 22 nations, including Pakistan, which of course made it more than essential for Indians to put an end to the practice.

What bothered me more was the hype and controversy that this issue has been painted amidst. I question and object to the productivity of this decision, which in my eyes will not create that big a ripple in the arena of Muslim women rights as it claims to.

What amuses me more is the fact how a simple decision was publicized, glorified and magnified, a decision which was already put forward in Shamim Ara v. State of UP and another case in the year 2002. And how tactfully have political parties considered this decision as a historic win, a step towards fulfillment of Muslim women rights and their empowerment, and an apparent secularization of this issue? Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, the judgment will serve as a “powerful measure for women’s empowerment”, while BJP president Amit Shah said the “historic” decision marked the beginning of a new epoch of equality and self-respect for Muslim women.

 

“A measure of women’s empowerment”, are some words to note. Now the question that might arise, what are the rights of a woman after desertion is the only supreme rights of any woman? Because that’s what has been highlighted in the recent statements, that banning of talaq-e-biddat, is the victory of gender equality and rights. Is that all a Muslim woman has ever aspired or desired for, that her husband doesn’t estrange her? Why is this entire glorified and colorful image being created before the common masses that all that a Muslim woman ever wanted and craved for, was this one right? Has she nothing to do with her own individuality and some right exclusively conferred to her?

 

Notably under the Shariyat law, basically six types of talaq exist. One of the lesser-known kinds of talaq is ‘Khulla’ which is a woman’s right to break the contract of marriage. Two other prominent ways are talaq-e-hasan and talaq-e-ahsaan. These two types are not irrevocable like triple talaq or talaq-e-biddat is. When the husband gives talaq to wife (in a single sentence) in the state of purity (tuhr) and waits for a period of iddat, this type of talaq is revocable during the period of iddat. After iddat, it becomes irrevocable. This type of talaq is considered ‘best or ‘proper’ way to divorce your wife. Talaq-e-Hassan is where there must be 3 successive pronouncements of talaq, but three pronouncements are to be made in 3 successive tuhrs (in case of menstruating women) or consecutive intervals of 30 days (in case of non-menstruating women). It can be revoked anytime before the third pronouncement.Now the whole point is, banning instant triple talaq, and the other two types of talaq still in existence is somehow contradictory and fails to serve the purpose. With the other two types in existence, it is simply a parole of 3 months or less granted to a Muslim woman whose husband wishes to get rid of her. Not much of a change can be seen, for still the husband possesses the sole authority and power to desert his wife without offering a cause, and a one-sided, brutal and painful divorce could still take place under the umbrella of law, without a court decree.

 

To top all of this, the Parliament has now passed a bill to criminalize the practice of instant triple talaq. Moreover, this bill, seeks to establish this crime as a cognizable and non-bailable one. My mind cannot ignore the possibility of this feature to backfire as a dangerous weapon, easier to misuse than put to use. Other than this, this bill is highly contradictory and full of discrepancies. Section 5 and 6 of the act discuss post-divorce issues such as a “subsistence allowance” for the woman upon whom instant talaq “is pronounced,” and the “custody of her minor children”, as if her marriage is dissolved by the mere pronouncement of talaq-e-biddat. How could the authors of this bill talk of post-divorce matters ignoring the fact that the pronouncement has already been voided in the section 3 and cannot result in a divorce? To quote one of my mentors, this situation is somehow like, I wished to buy some land to keep my unicorn, but the bank refuses to sanction a loan to me to buy this land. I approach the police to report this matter, that the bank people refused to lend me money. Guess what their answer would be? But a unicorn doesn’t exist! Yes? Triple-Talaq doesn’t exist, anymore.

Moving on, if we drop the ‘methods’ to deliver talaq altogether, we have lost the context, that talaq in personal laws might not even be the real issue! For what were told was simply that the only and the biggest injustice suffered by a Muslim woman is when her husband texted ‘Talaq, talaq, talaq’ to her. Triple talaq was just one of the many evils that these women had to endure. All of them had also faced some form of violence, including forced abortions, physical abuse, forced separation from children, emotional torture and the like. Simple ‘banning’ triple talaq, in my opinion, was not a straight-jacket formula to liberate these women from their woes, and bestowing the principles of equality, dignity and justice on them.

 

Condemning politicization of the issue, the chief organizer of the women’s wing of the AIMPLB Asma Zehra, had said, “The ruling party, the fringe elements and the so-called Muslim women organizations who had initiated this media campaign and a movement against triple talaq couldn’t get much out of the judgment.” As opposed to the flawed narrative of the leaders of this country, she does have merit in her statement. Banning a mere practice no way helps us reach even an inch closer to the real issue, and dispose of it under the garb of secularism and political propaganda.

Guess what the real issue is? Illiteracy, ignorance, lack of resources, lack of awareness, lack of sanitation, the problem of family planning, lack of confidence and strength. While we have problems galore right before us, all that this government, apex court, and media could see was her tears when her husband refused to ‘keep’ her. And this is not just a problem faced by a Muslim woman, this is a common story for a woman of every religion.

 

As one of the speakers from the talk expressed beautifully, that a father who found it pointless and futile to invest in his daughter’s education, spends around 5-15 lakh in her extravagant wedding, and the same father would run back and forth to the police station and court to get that 800-900 rupees as maintenance when she is divorced by the husband. Where is this vicious cycle leading to?

 

I leave this article at an open end. These are some thoughts of mine, as well as from all those whom I had to privilege to listen and imbibe from. It is much more complicated as we may think, far from a clear-cut stand. Opinions are beautiful because they vary.  But at least sometimes we might learn that not everything presented before us is absolutely acceptable. The issue of the ban on triple talaq, might not be as glorious a decision, or maybe aforementioned was not even an issue worth all the hype. But then we live in a world where the release of Padmaavat is also a national issue. If only every one of us could raise similar questions, we’d realize, it really wasn’t worth it.

Food for thought, eh?