Saturday, February 25, 2017

Should triple talaq be outlawed? The Hindu asks. 3 comments/ responses

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-triple-talaq-be-outlawed/article17355643.ece



Inline image 1


LEFT, RIGHT, CENTRE | COMMENT


Should triple talaq be outlawed?



Zakia SomanKamal FaruquiSyeda Hameed
 FEBRUARY 24, 2017 00:15 IST
 
Zakia Soman, co-founder of Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, an autonomous organisation, and a co-petitioner in the triple talaq case before the Supreme Court, writes:

It is the constitutional obligation of the government to enable Muslim women to obtain a level playing field

There are four or five judgments where the triple talaq provision has been struck down as invalid. But it has not led to this un-Koranic practice being rooted out from our society. Triple talaq continues to be the most common method of divorce. We had done a sample study of 4,710 women and found that out of 525 women who were divorced, 349 were victims of triple talaq. While the courts have settled the matter, we have to look at the unjustness of the entire process. How can we accept that a man can simply utter the word talaq thrice or communicate it through phone with no witness deemed necessary and where the burden is on the wife to legally contest it? There is no law binding the man, he can just act on his whim. This is absolutely unfair and must be stopped.

Seeking a level playing field

Let me cite a case from Madhya Pradesh where a woman who did not wake up when her husband returned late from work received talaq thrice when she was asleep! She was informed about her husband’s decision by her mother-in-law. It is a convoluted argument to say that triple talaq is not an issue only because a few judgments have declared it invalid. Why should a man have unilateral powers to divorce, and the woman just comply? What is wrong in seeking a level playing field between husband and wife? Such arguments only further the patriarchal order.
As far as the Koran is concerned, triple talaq is just not valid. There are verses calling for reconciliation and mediation over a period of 90 days involving both sides. The objective is that the woman should not be rendered a destitute. Also, when the final pronouncement of talaq is made, the women should not be menstruating. This is an evolved system of jurisprudence calling for just and fair divorce.
All we are seeking is that the Supreme Court should lay down the procedure for talaq based on the talaq-e-ehsan method. There is a debate about personal laws being violative of fundamental rights. But the personal law being practised by the Muslim community in India is not based on Koranic injunctions. Rather triple talaq is a violation of the tenets of justice and fairness.
Gender justice is a central tenet of the Koran and gender inequality and triple talaq are in violation of the Koranic principles. In fact, in the Koran, the very conception of humankind is based on an equal footing between man and woman. But patriarchal misinterpretations and distortions rule our lives. Any talk of reform in personal law is brushed aside as interference in religious matters.

On a Uniform Civil Code

As far as our position on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is concerned, we are clear that a secular law alternative must be available to every citizen. This alternative exists in the form of the Special Marriages Act. But abolition of triple talaq and UCC are two separate issues. The UCC question applies to the entire Indian population, not just Muslims. Muslim personal law needs drastic reform just like the Hindu code or the Christian laws. There has been a legal discrimination of Muslim women in our country. Muslim women are still subject to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 which is silent on triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy. We need to be brought on a par with Hindu sisters and Christian sisters who have a legal recourse. The Hindu women have the Hindu Succession Act and the Hindu Marriage Act. We are a patriarchal society and it is not as though Hindu and Christian women have attained equality. But they do not face legal discrimination the way Muslim women do.
It is the constitutional obligation of the government to enable Muslim women to obtain justice. It is not about the BJP or the government but about gender justice for Muslim women.


Kamal Faruqui, former chairperson of the Delhi Minorities Commission and founder-member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, writes:

Triple talaq is a Koranic injunction. But it depends on the terms drawn up in the marriage contract

The pronouncement of triple talaq is acceptable to all four schools of thought in Islam and though not desirable, it is very much a Koranic injunction. Those who criticise it do not understand the Koran. Having said that, I should also state that eventually it comes down to the nikahnama, which is a contractual obligation between the two parties. If the terms of the contract do not have provisions against triple talaq and have not been contested before being accepted, the pronouncement of talaq at one go or over the prescribed period of three months is allowed in the Koran. Don’t forget that Islam is the first religion in the world to institutionalise marriage. Nikah imposes conditions, prescribes equality of women, maintenance of children and so on.

Conditions for triple talaq

But please don’t assume that the Koran does not condone talaq. It has been described as one of the worst options to be exercised only under extenuating circumstances. It allows for an exit when the marriage breaks down but only under certain conditions. The talaq-e-ehsan, one form of divorce, is over a period of three months and it is only after the completion of the third month that you are no longer man and wife. The talaq-e-bidat or triple talaq at one go allows the man to exhaust all the options at once. Again, if the nikahnama has proscribed it, then the man cannot take recourse to this divorce. Divorce is one of the worst things in the institution of marriage and allowed only in extreme situations. Even when a person goes to buy a pen, he is bound by contractual agreement. In the case of a nikah/marriage, the contract is between two parties in the presence of at least two witnesses. We are governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, and if the Supreme Court says this must be revisited, we will oppose it.

Many misconceptions

I also wish to clear the misconception on the number of triple talaqs practised among Muslims. We moved RTIs to find out the divorce rates among the religions in India and I can share with certitude that it is the least prevalent among Muslims. It is rare among Muslims. And those who practise it are usually the uneducated and the poor who do not know their Koran or those who are misled by others. It is also incorrect to say that triple talaq has been banned in 22 countries; it has been regulated in most of said countries. You could have concerns about why is it that a man can take recourse to uttering talaq and not the woman. Under Islam, the man shares the greater responsibility in marriage as far as maintenance of his wife and children are concerned. He has many duties to fulfil and many responsibilities too. That is why he has been given the responsibility of ending the marriage only when it breaks down. Women too have the option of khula. She will have to approach the qazi if her husband is absconding, of bad character and so on.
We will plead before the apex court to have a separate department with people who are well-versed in the Sharia laws if at all the court wishes to mediate on the matter. So far, the courts have been very careful in interpreting personal laws — which are part of the fundamental right to religion for every citizen of the country.


 
Syeda Hameed, Women’s rights activist, educationist, a former member of the Planning Commission, and the first woman Qazi from Lucknow, writes:

Why rake up matters that have already been settled by the SC and create discord between communities?

Back in 2002, the Supreme Court had given its ruling on triple talaq in the Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. case — when Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi said a mere pronouncement of talaq in response to a woman’s plea for maintenance cannot be treated as pronouncement of talaq. In order to be valid, talaq has to be pronounced according to the Koranic injunction. Triple talaq, in fact, was banned in 2002 by the apex court and I don’t recall the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and other affiliates protesting against the judgment. There was a similar judgement from the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in the Dagdu Pathan v. Rahimbi case (2002) which struck down triple talaq. So I am perplexed why Shayara Bano, who recently filed a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court, was not advised by her lawyers that the issue had been addressed and settled in the past.

Cues in the Koran

An unnecessary controversy has been created now when all the contesting parties that are shouting had earlier kept quiet. The whole triple talaq issue is repugnant to Islam and those who say it legitimises Islam are doing a great disservice to Islam.
The whole point of talaq is to find a dignified way of getting out of a marriage that has irrevocably broken down. But it is not that simple. It is actually very difficult to get out of marriage. The Koran states the conditions which have to be observed. Triple talaq must be pronounced over three months. One per month. During the months, mediation is essential with both parties being represented during the negotiation. This is a Koranic injunction and it is only after following these conditions that talaq is granted and once granted is irrevocable. You cannot say that you uttered the word in a drunken stupor; neither can you pronounce it over the phone or send it on email or fax it or send a text message. But I feel that the community has to look within and take the lead in reforming such reprehensible practices, or else the state will interfere with personal laws. And it has already been settled that personal law is in sync with the constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens.

Egalitarian treatment

On the issue of polygamy, which is again being contested in court, it is conditional on so many things as spelt out in the Koran, which makes it abundantly clear that it is against human nature to give egalitarian treatment to everyone. So, the concept of four wives is simply not possible if you follow the letter and spirit of Koran. It specifies that in case there is more than one marriage, it is essential that identical treatment is given to each wife. But since this is not possible given human nature, it is best to have only one wife. The Prophet married Hazrat Khadija. She was 15 years older than him, she was a widow, and he worked for her. It was she who proposed marriage. This is the Prophet’s Sunnah (practice). What example does it provide for the believers?
Islam is going through a turbulent phase world over and this issue can be used as an excuse to create discord between communities giving rise to a communal situation. I also fear that the hardliners will raise the spectre of ‘Islam in danger’ through this issue. I am afraid this is not the right time to debate on matters that have been settled by the courts

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

    Thursday, January 19, 2017

    Muslim man's murder: India's courts simply don't punish hate speech with the severity it merits - By Jyoti Punwani - Scroll.in

    https://scroll.in/article/826977/bombay-hc-order-snatches-away-even-the-crumbs-of-justice-given-to-those-killed-for-their-religion

    Scroll.in
    Thursday, January 19th 2017
    JUSTICE SYSTEM

    Muslim man's murder: India's courts simply don't punish hate speech with the severity it merits

    A Bombay High Court judge granting bail to three murder accused said that she considered the fact that the victim was Muslim a point in their favour.

    Inline image 1

    What are the implications of Justice Mridula Bhatkar’s January 12 order granting bail to three men accused of killing an unarmed innocent Muslim man in Pune in June 2014?
    The Bombay High Court judge, in words now gone viral, argues, “The accused had no other motive such as personal enmity against the innocent deceased…[his] fault was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the accused... it appears that in the name of religion they were provoked and have committed the murder.”
    So, killing an innocent man because you have been instigated by hate speech is less serious than killing someone for personal reasons.
    How valid is that argument?

    Hate speech and violence

    Undoubtedly, ordinary men and women who may never have harboured violent intentions do get stirred up after listening to powerful speakers berating other communities, especially if the speaker’s allegations confirm the former’s prejudices.
    To what extent can such speeches provoke violence is not known, but it is noteworthy that after listening to the testimonies of victims, policemen and politicians on the causes and events of Mumbai’s 1992-’93 riots for over five years, Justice BN Srikrishna concluded in Volume I of his inquiry report into the riots that in January, 1993:
      “the communal passions of the Hindus were aroused to fever pitch by the inciting writings in Saamna and Navakaal … Shiv Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray like a veteran general, commanded his loyal Shiv Sainiks to retaliate by organised attacks against Muslims…”  
    Indeed, Thackeray himself described his newspaper Saamna’s role through the riots as having “prepared a burning generation, Saamna’s job is to keep this generation smouldering. Every word of Saamna was like a flame”.
    In 2008, when fast-track special courts were set up to try offences of the 1992-’93 Mumbai riots, many ordinary men would turn up to face trial for crimes they had allegedly committed 15 years back. Almost all were acquitted, but a few of those acquitted were guilty. They admitted to this reporter that as youngsters, they had been swayed by the rhetoric of those days.
    “God knows what happened to me, I was just 20,” said one.
    A Shiv Sainik wept as he clasped the hands of his Muslim victim outside court. The latter had just testified that this accused was not the man who he had named as having attacked his home, thereby paving the way for the Sainik’s acquittal.
    Another Sainik, speaking about how his frequent requests for leave to attend court had affected his job, vowed tearfully that never again would he be swayed.
    Having seen riot victims struggle in vain for justice for more than a decade, this reporter felt that in the absence of true justice, perhaps these admissions of remorse could be seen as a kind of redressal. But none of these men had committed murder. Their brains addled after reading and listening to Thackeray’s and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s hateful rhetoric against Muslims, they had thrown stones, and damaged Muslim property.

    Nailing instigators

    But can those who, overwhelmed by such poison, kill innocents, be seen as deserving of bail, which would normally be denied to those who have had personal motives for killing? If so, then those who provoke such communal attacks should be considered the greater criminals, for whom jail without bail must be the rule.
    In this particular case, the instigator, Dhananjay Desai of the Hindu Rashtra Sena, has been behind bars for two-and-a-half years. His bail application is coming up. If he also gets bail, Justice Bhatkar’s reasoning will become meaningless.
    But we have had hatemongers more powerful than Desai. Some have ruled us: Bal Thackeray, who was the remote control of the Maharashtra government for five years, and commanded the state police’s loyalty for decades; LK Advani, who having led a rath yatra in 1990 which left a trail of riots in its wake, and having presided over the demolition of the Babri Masjid, became our home minister in 1998; Narendra Modi, whose inflammatory statements after the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat and during his election campaign later that year, led him to victory in his state. None of these three have ever been arrested for hate speech.
    Thackeray had cases filed against him, but his party, which ruled Maharashtra in alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party from 1995 to 1999, had all but two of them withdrawn. Advani’s days in power ended in 2004. Why didn’t Congress home ministers who succeeded him expedite the Babri Masjid demolition case against him? Why didn’t the Congress, the main Opposition party in Gujarat, file cases for hate speech against Modi all these years?
    There’s no doubt that the party that has ruled us for more than 50 years, has preferred to indulge, not punish, hatemongering politicians.
    It gave Thackeray a state funeral in 2012. In 2008, it also gave a state funeral to Salahuddin Owaisi, the chief of Hyderabad’s All India Majlis-e-Ittihad-e-Muslimeen, known for his incendiary speeches, which in 1984, were followed by riots. The case against Akbaruddin Owaisi, his younger son and Telangana MLA, is gathering dust since 2013. Congress Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi even justified the massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi after another prime minister, his mother Indira, was assassinated by two Sikhs. He then went on to win the biggest ever majority in Parliament, seconded only by our current Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

    What the law says

    Electoral politics may be amoral, but what about the law?
    The maximum punishment for hate speech is three years, which goes up to five years if it is made inside a place of worship. In 2008, a Special Court convicted Shiv Sena ex-MP and ex-MLA Madhukar Sarpotdar, party corporator Jaywant Parab, and up-vibhag pramukh (deputy chief of one locality) Ashok Shinde for anti-Muslim speeches made in December 1992. Judge Rajeshwari Bapat-Sarkar ruled that provocative speeches made by elected representatives well aware that they would lead to violence, deserved punishment “to send the correct signal that wrong doing would be punished”.
    For the first time, leaders of a party that thrived on hate speech were convicted for it. This was the only riots case conviction upheld in the Sessions Court. Yet, these three hatemongers didn’t get the maximum punishment – the trial court sentenced them to one year in jail, which the Sessions Court reduced to two months.
    In 2012, Maharashtra Samajwadi Party president Abu Asim Azmi was convicted for hate speech – and sentenced to two years.
    If we accept the argument that demagogues who inspire killings are more culpable than the killers themselves, then punishment for hate speech must be enhanced. But first, politicians who indulge in hate speech must be charged, arrested and deprived of bail.
    Neither is likely to happen. Justice Bhatkar’s order therefore, snatches away even the crumbs of justice that our system gives to those killed only for their religion.

    Wednesday, January 18, 2017

    Election Commission must ban Tareq Fatah during UP election: My tweet of today

    MY TWEET OF TODAY, JAN 18, 2017


    Tareq Fatah earned notoriety in India as an Islamophobe. His business is religion. Election Commission must ban him during UP election.