Time to say triple talaq to all retrograde personal laws

It was very reassuring to see the other day a women-heavy panel strongly advocating doing away with the practice of triple talaq on NDTV. Even more reassuring is the fact that more than 50,000 Muslims, both women and men, have signed a petition seeking ban on triple talaq. The campaign spearheaded by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan seeks reforms in Muslim personal laws so that Muslim women’s "constitutional and Quranic rights are safeguarded".

It is one of the rare moments in recent times when women have stood up and are seeking changes in sets of personal laws which have clearly failed the test of gender justice. It is heartening to see Muslim women taking the lead in this. After all, they have suffered the most because of, what many leading scholars say, the horrible practice of triple talaq which most certainly has no Quranic sanction.

Muslim laws allow many ways to end a marriage. It includes a woman’s right to dissolve a marriage which is known as khula. The dissolution by mutual consent is called mubarra and there is a system of judicial divorce too. But the practice of giving divorce, regardless of the consent of woman, by pronouncing talaq three times at one go is the most obnoxious of them all. With the advent of digital media, talaq is now being given by sending an SMS or an email in some cases. Incidentally, the practice of triple talaq does not exist in most of the Islamic countries including Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The campaign by Muslim women has afforded us a chance to reform not just this practice but many more related to personal laws of other religions too. It is time to introduce the concept of the mandatory consent of women in matters of marriage and divorce. Many personal laws fail this test. Khap panchayats in some parts of the country have been making a mockery of the idea of consent and getting away with it.

There are other infirmities too. According to the provisions of Hindu adoptions and maintenance act of 1956, while giving a child for adoption, the consent of mother is mandatory. But she loses her right in case she converts and ceases to be a Hindu. Similar provisions apply in case of adopting a child. In case of inheritance of property, while a successor is entitled to his or her rights even after conversion but the children of these converts lose that right. Do we need such discriminatory provisions?

Christian personal laws in the country are governed by the 1872 Act and for Parsis, there is a 1936 Act. They too have become outdated and therefore need revision.

The way forward clearly is a sincere effort to have a uniform civil code that clears the crucial test of gender justice. In order to achieve the objective of making women safe at home, in office and at public places, should we not make an effort to get personal laws out of religious domain?

But given the sensitivity of the issue, we should not try to impose one set of personal laws on all others. As a logical first step, efforts should be made to reform personal laws of all religions. If that means some more delay in having a uniform civil code, so be it.

Muslim women have taken the first step. It is over to the legislature to take it to the logical conclusion. Any prevarication now will be quite unfair to our adhi abadi.