Triple talaq is now gone but Uniform Civil Code goal no closer
The Supreme Court's majority verdict disallowing the reprehensible practice of triple talaq among Muslims should have been unequivocally welcomed by all as a major blow for gender justice and women's rights. But some sections have already started entering caveats questioning whether courts have the right to intervene in personal laws of different communities, arguing that such issues must be left to society at large. Others have expressed doubts if this heinous practice can be stamped out in reality, citing the difficulties of monitoring. It was clear from the time that the apex court took up the issue and promised an early verdict, conservative sections of the Muslim clergy would cry foul and attempt to whip up passions against any progressive judicial order. These sections must be recalling the fate of the Shah Bano judgment of 1984, whereby a Bhopal court had ordered alimony to be paid to divorced Muslim women — an order which was bitterly opposed by misogynistic sections of the community and bigoted groups among the clergy. Under fierce political pressure, the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, was compelled to backtrack and brought in legislation in Parliament to overturn the laudable verdict. Times have progressed considerably since then and despite the growth of overt religiosity in many communities, women's rights and the need for gender justice is increasingly recognised across the board. However, it will not be smooth sailing for the Government which has been asked by the Supreme Court to bring forward necessary legislation to give legal teeth to its order. A new law will be needed to settle issues such as the manner in which divorce is to be sanctified in the Muslim community hereafter and also the penalty for not conforming to the impending law once triple talaq ceases to be a legitimate option. Although all major political parties have welcomed Tuesday's verdict, some of them may raise new issues in a bid to derail or at least delay implementation of the order.
The fact that the apex court's opinion was not unanimous also leaves scope for disputes to arise. There are many who believe that the judiciary should leave matters of faith alone. Ironically, many Hindu groups have used this argument to propagate that the Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid dispute cannot be solved through the judicial process. But triple talaq is not in the same category. Its religious and theological sanction is dubious. Most Islamic countries, including Pakistan, have already proscribed it. Unfortunately, the bulk of the Muslim clergy in India remains ultra-conservative and passionately unsympathetic to women. In such situations, the state has a moral duty to uphold the basic premises of the Constitution which ordains equality to all citizens, irrespective of class, creed and gender. Now that triple talaq has been legally dislodged, the bigger battle for enacting a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), as enshrined in the Directive Principles of the Constitution, must begin. This will, no doubt, meet with even fiercer resistance and, therefore, public opinion must be systematically cultivated in its favour. The existence of separate Personal laws is not only antiquated but cuts at the root of the concept of equality before the law. Theologians of India's major religious communities must be engaged in the campaign to reach out to their adherents so that a draft UCC which takes into account diverse sensibilities can be enacted through wide social consensus at an early date.