Beyond triple talaq

Re-examine gender equity in all personal laws

It is unfortunate that the question of the instantaneous triple talaq - a practice among Muslims by which a husband can divorce his wife by pronouncing the word talaq three times in succession - is once again becoming a burning political issue instead of being seen as a depoliticised question about community and gender rights as well as equality before the law. The question has arisen as a consequence of the Union government filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court expressing its support in principle to a petitioner who challenged the practice among some other aspects of Muslim personal law that continue to be legal in India. There is little doubt that the triple talaq practice is discriminato1ry, and has little place in a modern, gender-equal society. But the manner in which this controversy is playing out is a bit off. There is more than a little impression being conveyed about the Muslim community being singled out for this intervention. This is regrettable. After all, India's recognition of problematic community-based laws is not limited to Muslims. The government needs to clear the air and explain that it intends to focus on legal reforms in favour of gender equality across communities. For example, the legal impediments in the way of women becoming heads of Hindu Undivided Families need to be removed.

It is nevertheless the case that removing such regressive aspects of the legal code is long overdue. It remains a blemish on Rajiv Gandhi's record that he used his massive parliamentary majority to essentially overrule the Supreme Court when it pronounced on the subject in the famous Shah Bano verdict. This stain on the Congress' claims to secularism cannot be fully erased until the party becomes a productive partner in the effort to reform community-based laws. After all, Gandhi's failure was the second such in the Congress party's history. In the 1950s, Jawaharlal Nehru expended considerable political capital on the Hindu Code Bill that reformed many personal laws for Hindus but failed to push through similar changes for other communities although many leaders, including President Rajendra Prasad, argued in favour of it. It is hard to claim that individual Muslims, particularly women, have benefited from the decision not to do so. Nor did the community, as a whole, benefit. It is worth noting also that, if the error is repeated by undertaking reforms only to Muslim personal law and not to the entire gamut of community-based laws, then other communities and the individuals who belong to them, particularly women, will be disadvantaged going forward.

The government should remember that the reforms carried out under the previous National Democratic Alliance government, with Arun Jaitley as law minister, to Christian personal law, particularly as related to inheritance, were opposed by some at the time but have unquestionably helped the community in the decade since. Above all, this is a question both of messaging and substance. The government must be careful in ensuring that the message it sends out is not one of singling out Muslims. Moreover, the reform should be substantial and focused on ensuring gender equity across the board.