Opponents of Triple Talaq Law and Their Claims

Let us look at the claims and arguments of those who opposed the TTB/ TTA. It includes political parties like AIMIM and Muslim religious organisations like AIMPLB, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, and Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

The first opposition came from a legal-constitutional perspective. The argu­ments made by the opposition parties evoked two technical aspects: the Right to Religious Freedom given to religious minorities that validates the implementa­tion of personal laws; and the criminalisation of civil laws. Citing the presumed ‘sacred’ status of MPL, the opposition condemned the law as being anti-Mus­lim and unconstitutional. For instance, the AIMIM Chief Asaduddin Owaisi, a lawyer himself, led the opposition in the discussion over the TTB. Evoking Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the constitution, Owaisi defined the Triple Talaq Bill as discriminatory in nature as it, according to him, does not fulfil the need of intelligence differentia and reasonable grounds, which is required for the formation of a ‘discriminatory law’ under the provisions of Fundamental Rights. He argued that in the presence of dowry law and the law against domestic violence, which is accessible to all, the criminalisation of triple talaq does not fulfil the reason­ableness of the bill.⁴⁸ He claimed that this law was merely an effort to deprive Muslims of their traditions, civilisation and religion by putting Muslim men into jails.

These arguments revived the MPL debate, which has always been an impor­tant reference point for a communal/secular binary. The opponents of the TTB ignored the fact that the practice of instant talaq has been abolished in a number of Muslim countries that follow Sharia laws.⁵⁰ It is also worth remembering that the practice of instant talaq continued even after the Supreme Court’s judge­ment, which was referred as a milestone by opponents of TTA in restricting the practice.⁵¹ A number of incidents were reported in various newspapers after 2017 where husbands, declaring themselves subject to shari’ah laws rather than court judges, continued the practice regardless and vulnerable, uninformed wives found it difficult to disprove them. It simply means that the triple talaq should not always be understood in relation to identity politics and dominant Hindutva agenda. The arguments in favour of decriminalisation of the triple talaq appear to prioritise the essentialist discourse of Muslim identity over the plight of the women victims of triple talaq.

The second set of claims was related to the status of gender justice and fam­ily structure. For instance, Owaisi asserted that the TTB penalises Muslim men while leaving their wives and families exposed to the procedure of criminal laws.⁵² Calling the TTB anti-family, Sumita Dave of Congress also shared this view. She argued: ‘the current law is not at all about empowering Muslim women, it is about penalising Muslim men.’⁵³ The AIMPLB and the Jamat-e-Ulema-e- Hind reiterated this line of reasoning by highlighting the possible victimhood of Muslim men in such scenario. Asma Zehra, the president of the women’s wing of the AIMPLB claimed that the bill was, ‘anti-women, anti-gender justice, anti­children, will destroy families, push Muslim husbands into jail and damage the Muslim society.’ She called the bill ‘legally defective’ saying that it focuses on ‘jailing Muslim men without helping women in any manner.’⁵⁴ The petition filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind before Supreme Court that challenges the constitu­tional validity of the Triple Talaq Act also invoked this argument.

In order to expand the scope of such argument, the privileged position of Hindu men was also highlighted. It was asserted that ‘the law unjustly and unfairly criminalises the act of one community, even as desertion of the wife by other communities is not a crime.’⁵⁶ Speaking in the Parliament, Owaisi also claimed that there were around 25 Lakh Hindu women who had been deserted by their husbands but the government was not bothered to criminalise such men.

These arguments, in this broadly male-dominated debate, do not pay adequate attention to victimhood of Muslim women. While Hindu chauvinists portrayed polygamy, triple talaq and other such anti-women provisions of MPL as special concessions given to Muslim men, the opposition made a case for the supposed victimisation of Muslim men in comparison to the advances enjoyed by Hindu men! The opponents of TTA could not propose any constructive critique of MPL and for that matter the practice of triple talaq. It is claimed that laws do not always affect social attitudes and perceptions; hence, problems like female foeticide, child marriage, wife desertion and dowry still survive despite imposing stricter laws. Although there is merit in this argument, one cannot underestimate the significance of law for achieving gender justice. These claims and counter­claims actually demonstrate how the survival of Hindu patriarchal values and practices are used by the Muslim elite to justify the Islamic patriarchy. One must remember that triple talaq law penalises only those who performs the practice of instant triple talaq, leaving their wives deserted with immediate effect with­out any maintenance whatsoever. The law does not penalise the whole Muslim community or Muslim men the way it has been presented by the critics of TTB/ TTA. The criminalisation of the triple talaq practice aims to stop the practice of this form of divorce.

The mainstream news channels completely ignored such complexities asso­ciated with the TTA and failed to initiate any constructive discussion on this subject. They remained more concerned with the political blame game and con­tinued to produce stereotypical and fixed notions of MPL and UCC. Broadly speaking, one may identify three important features of these TV discussions.

First, these shows deliberately turned studios into a theatre of war. They usu­ally created a package of hostile participants — victim women of triple talaq (as sufferers), AIMPLB representatives (as representative of Muslim male), intellec- tuals/activities, Hindutva leaders (especially RSS representatives) and spokes­persons of different parties. These participants were allowed to use the studio as a battleground. The anchor would encourage them to use derogative language and hurl abuse at each other. Almost all of these programs aimed at diffusing all possibilities of any constructive dialogue on the triple talaq.⁵⁷ Secondly, the choice of participants had always been selective. The pro-government media invited aggressive, ill-informed, narrow-minded and unknown figures repre­senting the so-called Muslim view. These newly discovered Muslim community leaders were pitted against the nationalist Hindu vicharaks (represented mainly by Hindutva organisations such as RSS) to create a progressive Hindu/back- ward Muslim binary. Thirdly, the mannerism and tone of TV anchors set a pattern of dominating behaviour against the Muslim community as a whole. Anchors such as Anjana Om Kashyap of Aaj Tak, Sudhir Chaudhary of Zee News and Aranab Goswami of the Republic TV literally abused Muslim clerics and those who in any way opposed the bill.

VI.