995 Social boycott is not a solution for the problem of Triple Talaq

Arguments have ended in the Supreme Court of India, over the validity of the Triple Talaq System in India. Supreme Court may deliver its judgement at any time, at its discretion. Discussing the triple talaq in this blog post will not in any way be a comment on the matter which is sub judice, Hence, we shall try to have a look into some issues and solutions connected to the Triple Talaq case. During the hearing of the case, the All INdia Muslim Personal Law Board has submitted affidavits which contain, inter alia, the following two views:--

The AIMPLB said qazis and imams will inform the wife that she can exclude the husband’s right to give instant triple talaq.

The affidavit said social boycott will help decrease the incidents of divorce.

Personal views of ybrao-a-donkey, which are not intended to be imposed on others:

Who will oversee that the qazis and imams inform the wife that she can exclude the husband's right to give instant triple talaq? Does AIMPLB have any statutory authority to issue instructions to the qazis and imams? Does AIMPLB have any powers to punish qazis and imams who fail to inform the prospective wives about their rights? Ans: Apparently not.
Does the AIMPLB have any right / statutory authority / legal powers to impose and enforce social boycott on those who indulge in triple talaq? Ans: Apparently not.

RELATED LINKS

Click here to go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_India_Muslim_Personal_Law_Board .

Click here to go to http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-ready-to-ban-triple-talaq-in-one-sitting-aimplb-2447682.

Click here to go to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-has-to-decide-whether-triple-talaq-is-unconstitutional-mukul-rohatgi/articleshow/58825758.cms.

According to the information available on the Wikipedia.org, AIMPLB is only a private, non-governmental organisation. It is not clear, under which statute it has been registered, as an entity. Here are some quotes from Wikipedia, about the status of AIMPLB:

"...AIMPLB is a private body working to protect Muslim personal laws, liaise with and influence the Government of India and guide the general public about crucial issues. The board has a working committee of 51 ulama representing various schools of thought. In addition to this, it also has a general body of 201 persons of ulama as well as laymen, including about 25 women. ..."

"... However, some of the Shias and Muslim feminists have formed their own separate boards, the All India Shia Personal Law Board and the All India Muslim Women's Personal Law Board, respectively but have failed to win any significant support from the Muslims or the government. ..."

"... The diktats and rules of All India Muslim Personal Law Board does not apply to Shia and Ahmadiyya Muslims in India. Ahmadis were not allowed to sit on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which is widely regarded in India as representative of Muslims in the country as most Muslims don't consider the Ahmadis as Muslims.

"...The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) is a non-government organisation constituted in 1973 to adopt suitable strategies for the protection and continued applicability of Muslim Personal Law in India, most importantly, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, providing for the application of the Islamic Law Code of Shariat to Muslims in India in personal affairs. Some Muslims followed Hindu customs before 1937. The Act applies to all matters of personal law except such successions. ..."

Question: Is India, not a Secular country

Ans., a personal view of yb-a-donkey: India is definitely a secular country. From the purest definition of the word 'secular', we have to infer that State shall not have anything to do with relgions of its Citizens. It also implies that there should be only one law for all social matters. May be a Uniform Civil Code, or any other law, by whatever name it may be called. By enacting the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 the British Rulers seem to have tried to DIVIDE AND RULE THE COUNTRY. While it is true that non-Hindus cannot be forced to follow Hindu Customs, there is nothing wrong in insisting that all the Citizens follow a Secular law applicable to everybody equally. After the bifurcation of India in 1947, by creating Pakistan, India ought to have, at the first available opportunity, annuled the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937. Reason: Such laws are not conducive to a secular country.

By helping in the formation of the AIMPLB in 1973, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, seems to have, for her Vote Bank Politics, botched up and created further cleavages in a secular State. She should have, undauntedly, resolutely, firmly, replaced all Religious personal laws with a Secular Code. The Secular Code, ought to have been got designed with the help of a Board consisting of Secular Lawyers, Sitting and Retired Judges, Bureaucrats, and other Secular Intellectuals.

Heinous practices followed in India, in the name of social boycotts

Social boycotts in India, in vogue for the last several Centuries, have caused incalculable damage to the social fabric of India and tortured poorer and weaker Sections of the Society in extremely grievous ways. This monstracity is irrespective of the religions and castes. Even today, there are some Indian villages where dalits are not being allowed by Upper Caste persons, to draw drinking water from common wells.

Allowing social boycotts tantamounts to perpetration of cruelty on Weaker Sections. Reason: Influential Persons in the Society will take / have taken the custom into their hands, and Rule of the Law will be a casualty.

The sufferings of Muslim Women, owing to denial of Human Rights, Natural Justice and Equity by Clerics, Kazis, Maulvis, Imams, Mullahs

The sufferings are too many. They cannot be solved just by social boycott of a few people. Serious Diseases need serious treatments. Balms and Ointments cannot cure them. Secular codes, Secular Administrations, Secular Enforcements, Secular Supervisions, Secular adjudications alone can ameliorate the ailments such as triple talaqs.

Someday, we may have to abolish or discontinue or dismantle the system of Marriage itself. True Total Socialism alone can help in that final goal.

Vocabulary help

sub judice/sʌb ˈdʒuːdɪsi,sʊb ˈjuːdɪkeɪ/ adjective : under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.

boycott/ˈbɔɪkɒt/ verb : withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest. noun: a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.

Source: net.

botch/bɒtʃ/ noun: a bungled task. Verb. 1. botch up - make a mess of, destroy or ruin; "I botched the dinner and we had to eat out"; "the pianist screwed up the difficult passage in the second movement"
Source: www.thefreedictionary.com/botch+up ‎

cleavage/ˈkliːvɪdʒ/ noun: a sharp division; a split. The hollow between a woman's breasts when supported, especially as exposed by a low-cut garment.

Undaunted: 1. undismayed; not discouraged; not forced to abandon purpose or effort: undaunted by failure. 2. undiminished in courage or valor; not giving way to fear; intrepid: Although outnumbered, he was undaunted.

grievous/ˈɡriːvəs/ adjective: (of something bad) very severe or serious.

To come back and continue adding / deleting / modiying. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంద.

986 Real Question which needs Judicial Scrutiny seems to be: Is Marriage a Part of Religion? If there is proof for marriage as an integral part of religion, then the question of whether Triple Talaq is part of Islam will arise!!!

The decision which the Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice of India, Jus. Khehar, is going to take in the Triple Talaq case, will probably change the Constitutional Legal History of India. As the hearing is a 'Summer Vacation Hearing', it may not be possible for the Bench to examine the other two relevant contentious issues of Polygamy,and nikha halala. Probably, the issue may have to get extended into the Regular Sessions of the Supreme Court. One important observation made by the Bench, which seems to set a sort of boundary for the scope of the case, appears to be in the following observation of the Court: "We have to see the test of essentiality and the government has to prove that 'triple talaq' is not an essential part of Islam as this will amount to tinkering with religion". The following few more observations are also important:--

RELEVANT LINKS

Click to go to http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-centre-has-to-prove-triple-talaq-not-essential-in-islam-says-supreme-court-2439472

Click here to go to: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/rNg8D2Omc723Xf7ozgCdEJ/Triple-talaq-case-SC-to-not-focus-on-polygamy-nikah-halala.html

Click here to go to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/triple-talaq-polygamy-nikah-halala-supreme-court-centre-mukul-rohatgi/1/954030.html. Centre will bring out a New Law, if Supreme Court strikes down Triple Talaq

Important Quotes from Links

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General: "...All the three forms of divorce among the Muslim community - talaq-e-biddat, talaq hasan and talaq ahsan, were 'unilateral' and 'extra- judicial'. 'Yes, we can bring law. There is no law for past 60 years. It has not been done. But the court should first strike down these practices which are not in confirmity with the Constitution..."

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General: "...Issues of Muslim marriage and divorce were separated from religion in Shariat Act of 1937 itself and have been codified as personal law under Section 2 of the Act. ... Apex court has to test them on the touch-stone of the fundamental rights of gender equality, justice, dignity, gender discrimination and human rights under the constitutional provisions, including Articles 14, 15, 21 and 51A. ...Muslim women must have equal rights to property, succession, marriage and it should be non-discriminatory among the women of same class and other communities."

AG: "...When half the population of a particular community is not empowered, no equal opportunity is given, they are devoid of gender equality, then it does not pass the test of constitutional morality. ... Even if triple talaq is considered as an essential part of religion and falls under Article 25, the practice still has to be constitutionally moral. ... Even if talaq is considered under Article 25, it has to be related to the fundamental rights and should abide by the principles of gender equality, non-discrimination and justice. ... All personal laws have to be in confirmatory (conformity?) with the Constitution. ..."

"...Government has to first prove that this practice of triple talaq was not essential to Islam and only then can it delve further into other aspects. ...".

AG: "...it is not the apex court's job to interpret a religion. ..You cannot go into essential principle because it is not an ecclesiastical court. ... In Hindu religion, women used to practice Sati till the law termed it as illegal and obsolete. ... As far as Hindu laws are considered, various reformatory steps were taken but with regard to Muslim laws no such steps were taken,..".

Bench: "...Will only examine the triple talaq practice, under which a Muslim man can divorce his wife by uttering the word talaq thrice, and keep the remaining issues open." (Nikah halala requires a female divorcee to marry someone else, consummate the marriage and then get a divorce to remarry her previous husband).

AG: "...If the practice of instant divorce (triple talaq) is struck down by the court, then Centre will bring a law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community. ..."

AG: "...“Even Islamic theocratic states have moved towards reforming personal laws, ...”

AG: "...The scope of referring had all the three issues that was divorce, nikah halala, polygamy. All these three issues are before this court by virtue of the reference order of the two- judge bench. ... "At a time when theocratic countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan are moving towards reform, we being a secular country are still debating. ..."

Note: The above quotes are not in sequence. They are just indicational.

ybdonkey's personal views, within the limit of right of a citizen's freedom of expression, without disrespect to the Apex Court

The Attorney General's submission to the Supreme Court is that the Govt. will bring a legislation "a law to regulate marriage and divorce among the Muslim community." . This submission discriminates among different religions of India. A Secular Government has to bring a Single Divorce Law which will apply to all the Citizens of all Religions, without any discrimination. A truly Secular Government and its laws have to ignore the Religions of Parties.

NEARLY 2000 YEARS OF TYRANNY OF RELIGIONS ON INDIVIDUALS, SHOULD END AT LEAST NOW.

First of all it is to be proved that MARRIAGE IS A PART OF RELIGION, before Govt. of India can venture to prove that Triple Talaq is / is not a part of Islam. Marriages and Divorces are personal affairs. They are not part of Religions. Since about last 2,000 years, Religious functionaries such as priests, mullahs, pastors have started intruding into the personal rights of Citizens. For that matter, even prayers, and praying-methods are a personal matter of individuals. Priests, mullas, pastors and other Religious functionaries cannot intrude into them. Same is the case with the manner of dressing by individuals. Prayer-houses can probably enforce dress codes for their visitors, that too, when they visit the Prayer Houses. But, in what way they can interfere into how an individual dresses himself-herself, when moving outside? This applies to trimming beards, veils, burqas also. A person going to a prayer house, if his Religion insists that a beard should be sported, can wear a wig-beard.

The procedure of Religious functionaries solemnizing weddings in Prayer Houses should not have any legal validity or legal recognition. Such procedures, can however, continue to be allowed to be conducted in Prayer Houses, but with an Express Notice Board displayed in Prayer Houses, in BOLD AND LARGE FONTS, ATTRACTIVE COLORS, stating that WEDDING PROCEDURES TAKING PLACE IN RELIGIOUS PLACES WILL NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL RECOGNITION / VALIDITY, AND THEY CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW.

The Government of India ought to have offered to the Court, to amend the current Secular Marriages Act suitably, or repeal it and make a Comprehensive Secular Marriage and Divorce Law, applicable without exception to all the Citizens.

Why the Government is waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down Triple Talaq? Does the Government want to take shelter under the Supreme Court's Judgement, if some Sections of Islam object to Government's Offer to make a law? Government can take its own initiatives for making its Secular laws with FUTURE VALIDITY, so that the question of 'matter sub judice' will not arise. Even if there is any variance between the Government Enactment, and the Supreme Court decisions, Govt. can always amend its Acts. Or alternatively, it can request Supreme Court to review its decision, through a Review Petition.

If marriages can be regarded as NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF RELIGIONs, then Article 25 of Constitution will not apply. Minority Religious Rights also will not apply. Govt. should make an enactment recognising marriages as SPECIAL Civil Contracts between parties. Govt. can also design some model marriage contract forms. Govt. can also define and standardize terms and conditions of marriages, with explanations for rights and responsibilities of both the parties.

To come back and continue adding / deleting / modifying. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.