The recent Triple Talaq SC verdict has left the entire nation in splits. The so called liberals, feminists and champions of women’s rights are mum and some have even extended support to the archaic practise. But fortunately, the ruling party rose above vote bank politics and brought, at last, a new law outlawing Triple Talaq, this inching a step closer to the “secular” credential which some people are quite excited to bring up, without knowing its actual meaning.
But that doesn’t mean that the support of the so-called intellectual group for Triple Talaq has died down. Some have found a new way to defend Triple Talaq, attacking the bill with messed up logic. Though some of the attacks are credible, but most others are just veiled attempts to defend Triple Talaq.
Let me disassemble the propositions of Triple Talaq apologists one by one:
- Only 0.3% of Muslim divorced women are affected by instant Triple Talaq- First and foremost, instant Triple Talaq is discriminatory, and any discriminatory practise should be repealed, simple. Secondly, going by the above logic, if only a small part of the population is affected by a problem, we shouldn’t seek a solution to it! So, in Bharat only about 0.0004% women are victims or affected by rape in a year. If we use this messed up logic, there should be no law against rape too!!
- AIMPLB and Muslim clerics have not been consulted: The simple answer is that why should they be consulted? Bharat is a secular country (actually trying to be), why should a religious institution or an NGO or some clerics be consulted before forming such law or any law?
- Criminality is not needed: If Triple Talaq has been deemed constitutionally invalid, and a marriage will not end because of uttering Talaq three times, what is the point behind the 3 year jail term? Because they don’t understand how society works. Triple Talaq and the people who use these words are least concerned by its constitutional validity and invalidity. Such laws need to be enforced in society. If a husband gives his wife Triple Talaq, she will be ostracized from the society. The society or community will not let the marriage continue even if it is legally valid. Let us look at the case of untouchability or child marriage. If untouchability would have been deemed only unconstitutional, than untouchability would have still persisted because then society would not have bothered to change. And so is the case with child marriage. Even after the fact that child marriage has been made criminal, it still continues in some pockets – just wonder what would have happened if there would not have been any criminality associated with it? It would have still gone on unchecked. Sometimes, criminality is required in civil laws when such laws have a lot of support from society. Another example of a similar case is dowry, although the law against dowry has been misused as well.
- “Who will look after the Muslim family if the man goes to jail?” is another such argument. As if Muslim women can’t look after their own family. I don’t believe how the same people who assert that women are equal to men come up with this reasoning. Though there are some cases when the women doesn’t earn, but by this logic, male domestic abusers should be let go if the wife isn’t earning.
If we look carefully, most of the arguments used by the left are farce, but they are wrapped in a way that they may appear credible.
Moreover, if Bharat wants to be secular – it’s another matter than even many advanced Western countries are not truly secular as per the way secularism is defined in our country – then laws should never come under the ambit of religion. All women deserve equal rights.
Did you like this article? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.