Debate on Triple Talaq

First Published on 27 October 2016

I think such a discussion should have been taken up in the proper academic sense.

The Indian Government and Courts have been reluctant to deal with it. Courts, because they were limited by the legal dictum, and Governments because they always felt that the votes of males are more important than votes of females, and votes can be gathered at the cost of suffering on some, let it be.

The Triple Talaq is a matter of religion as in practice in India, Does anybody bother what actually Quran says, and what is the practice in Muslim countries? 

One reader on Facebook has commented that there are divorce cases in each and every community, each and country, and why the Indian Government is objecting to Divorce in Muslims. She (at least appears that it is from a female facebook name) just forgets in commenting this that all countries and communities have some defined modes, and discretion to grant a divorce or otherwise lies with the judiciary and not the individuals. The Triple Talaq as practiced in India is, prima facie, a practice where the male can just utter the words in speech, in electronic media, or any mode he likes without any thought or gap, and becomes entitles to enforce it. it is a clear infringement of the right of women, depriving them of humane dignity.

Triple Talaq was not enshrined to be spoken instantly or on electronic media. Actually, there is a waiting period prescribed as compulsory between saying Talaq Talaq Talaq, that too in presence of witnesses. The waiting period is precisely defined as per predominant schools of thought. This has been conveniently forgotten by interested parties, and political parties know that they need votes of men and not women from minorities. the situation is fast changing and with women empowerment, there is a grapevine that in the recently concluded elections in the assemblies, women voters came out in large numbers and that can impose a rethink requirement on the parties.

Saying that Hindus once had or even have now some deficiencies and the Government should remove them before looking at Muslim practices, (I avoid calling it as Muslim law), the reader must be having the knowledge that while many practices have been banned over the past 2/3 centuries, and the current caste classification is also in the process of change. 

If you want to assert a right to commit injustice saying your neighbor also is doing injustice in some other areas is illogical. This is like entering into a competition of who is worse and not who is better. 

The debate had been now taken up at the highest level and hope that it will reach its logical end and not ghetto logic.

No religion is affected negatively by bringing equality, and no religion had ever promoted inequality. The interpreters of religion had done their job to their advantage, now the administrators and judiciary had to take up their role in it.

fortunately, the number of interpreters who had imposed misinterpretation of the religious texts are not many, the unfortunate thing is that they had been too vocal and influential. If we listen to the silent majority, we can listen to logic.