On August 22, the Supreme Court of India declared the practice of instant divorce in Islam, known as triple talaq, to be unconstitutional and un-Islamic. The judgment was widely applauded in many sectors of society, especially among .

As per the , there have cases of Muslim men in India who have “divorced their wives by issuing the so-called triple talaq by letter, telephone and, increasingly, by text message, WhatsApp and Skype.” However, while Islam allows for married couples to separate, divorce itself is disliked and the process is far more complicated than simply uttering talaq (divorce) three times.

There are two types of divorces practiced today: talaq al-sunnah and talaq al-bidah. In the former, the word sunnah refers to the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad. In the latter, bidah means innovation, and this form of divorce dates back from the eight century under the Umayyad Empire — it’s also not mentioned in the Quran or part of sharia law.

is the most common and ideal form of divorce in Islam, and it : talaq ahsan and talaq hasan. In talaq ahsan, the husband utters the word talaq once and then waits for a few months, while in talaq hasan he says it three times over three menstruation cycles of the wife. In both cases, there is a period of three months in which the couple must abstain from sex before the divorce becomes final; if they are intimate, the divorce is revoked. The aim here is to give the couple a waiting period wherein there is ample opportunity for the husband and wife to reconcile.

Talaq al-bidah is the process of instant divorce, or triple talaq, consisting of three simple pronouncements whereby the husband says he wishes to divorce his wife. This form of divorce is not recognized by most schools of jurisprudence in both Sunni and Shia Islam, and it is , including India, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia.

So, how did the practice of triple talaq work in a country like India?

THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Part III of the Indian Constitution is the most important section as it guarantees certain rights and freedoms to citizens. Any law made by the state that clashes with part III can be challenged in the Supreme Court, which then weighs it against the provisions of the constitution and can strike it down if it violates any fundamental rights provided to citizens.

Article 25 of the constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely practice and propagate religion. The Indian legal system also allows citizens to practice their personal laws in some areas. In personal matters such as marriage and divorce, people are free to follow their own laws. Parliament can legislate in order to codify the personal laws of various religious groups in India. Part III of the constitution, however, is not applicable to personal laws practiced by different religious communities in India (such as Krishna Singh v. Mathura Athir).

While the Supreme Court has ruled that the triple talaq is unconstitutional, talaq al-sunna can still be practiced by Muslims in the form of their personal laws. The latest judgment, however, is not the first of its kind. In the case of Shamim Ara v. State of UP, the court declared instant divorce to be illegal as there is no scope of reconciliation between the parties once talaq is uttered.

There were two main arguments raised before the Supreme Court. First, Muslims have the freedom to practice religion under article 25 of the constitution. Second, personal laws cannot infringe upon fundamental rights (part III of the constitution). With regard to the first argument, the court found that the practice of triple talaq is not an integral part of Islam. With regard to the second argument, the court held that Islamic divorce has already been codified under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 and, therefore, can be scrutinized in light of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.

But how will the court ruling be put into practice?

BRINGING REAL CHANGE

As soon as the Supreme Court delivered the historic judgment, members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party were quick to credit Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his efforts in bringing equality to Indian Muslim women. Modi himself did not lose any time in hailing the ruling and : “Judgment of the Hon’ble SC on Triple��Talaq��is historic. It grants equality to Muslim women and is a powerful measure for women empowerment.”��Party chief Amit Shah also lauded the judgment and instantly praised the efforts of the prime minister for effectively presenting the case of Muslim women in the Supreme Court.

However, the government must realize that the judgment is not the end but the beginning, since the Supreme Court has passed the baton over parliament to legislate upon the matter. There is also the issue of ensuring that the ban on triple talaq is actually enforced in a country the size of India. In reality, Muslim couples could still practice instant divorce as part of Islamic law since only the enforceability of triple talaq is suspended through the ruling. A married couple divorced through triple talaq may prefer to follow it as a religious duty since fornication is prohibited in Islam. As Faizan Mustafa, a legal expert, told , “Court judgments do not bring about social reforms.”

Moreover, triple talaq is directly connected with other issues that Muslim women face such as inheritance and the legitimacy of children. For example, since triple talaq is no longer enforceable, a question may arise as to whether a child born to a woman after she has been through an instant divorce is legitimate or illegitimate. According to Islamic law, such children would be illegitimate, but as per Indian law they would be considered legitimate as instant divorce is now illegal.

The legislation drafted on triple talaq must take into account related issues as well. The task is not easy because it involves reconciling personal laws with fundamental rights. Since the Supreme Court has decided that personal laws cannot infringe upon fundamental rights, it will not be easy for the government to legislate on personal laws like that of inheritance and the legitimacy of children.

Amid all the celebrations, it is unclear how the Modi government will deal with these issues in order to deliver on its promise of upholding the rights of Muslim women.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:�� /

The post India Rules Against Instant Divorce appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While traveling to my hometown in July, I got stuck in a massive traffic jam caused by kanwariya —���ٳ�� devotees of the god Shiva. Not only did the yatra (religious journey) cause gridlock and trouble for the general public, but the devotees were playing loud music on stereos powered by massive generators placed on trucks. The scene reminded me of the singer�� to criticize the noise of the��adhan near his house in the early morning. Some other Bollywood celebrities later joined the bandwagon and criticized the use of loudspeakers for the Muslim call to prayer that is given five times a day and can be disturbing for people living in close proximity to a mosque.

Although the comments made by Nigam drew flak on social media, and a case was filed against him under sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, the singer has managed to raise some pertinent questions such as: To what extent should the practice of religion be allowed in public spaces in India? Does the public have any right against the discomfort caused by loudspeakers used during yatras,���ٳ��������󲹲�, religious processions and other religious events? Is the freedom to practice religion so absolute that it can justify violating one’s comfort even inside his/her own home?

Religion versus Noise Pollution

The Indian government can be blamed for religiously charging the political scenario in India and giving a communal twist to problems facing society. The noise pollution issue has also taken an ugly turn with a fight between Muslims using microphones for the��adhan versus Hindus using DJs and loudspeakers during yatra.

For example, on August 16, , the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, when asked about the use of loudspeakers, sound systems and DJs during Kanwar Yatra, stated: “I told the officers to ensure that mics are banned and no sound emanated from the places of worship. I asked them if it would be possible to implement this. If not, then it can’t be applied here also. Yatra should go on as it is.” With regard to the noise pollution caused during the yatra, he further stated: “I asked if this was a��Kanwar Yatra��or a funeral procession. If they don’t play music and drums, don’t dance and sing, don’t use the mic, how it will be a Kanwar Yatra.”

Unfortunately, the chief minister of the most populous state of India did not even consider playing loud music during yatra or using loudspeakers for the��adhan as an issue pertaining to noise pollution; he rather perceived it as a question of practicing religion by Muslims and Hindus. He said, “If I am not able to stop people from performing namaz [prayer] or Eid��on roads, then I don’t have the right to stop celebration of the festival of Janmashtmi in police stations.”

The Constitution of India, under Article 25, grants to all persons the right to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. Moreover, the Indian state has a secular one ever since its inception — notwithstanding the fact that the term secularism was added later by the .

Misused Rights

The right to freedom of religion is perhaps the most misused right in India because people wrongly conceive it as a certificate to practice their religions on roads, in markets, parks and other public places. Speaking in legal terms, people forget that the right to a clean environment, including the , is written into Article 21 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, and that they are violating other people’s right by practicing their own freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court of India, in , while answering the question whether the beating of drums and reciting of prayers on amplifiers should be allowed on the basis of religion, categorically stated that the rights of the individuals must exist in harmony with each other, and enjoyment of one’s rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights by others. The court held that no religion requires that prayers are performed through voice amplifiers or by beating of drums. If there is such practice, it should not adversely affect the rights of others, including that of being not disturbed in their activities.

On August, 16, the observed that freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India cannot be interfered, but the Supreme Court guidelines on sound systems used by mosques for giving prayer calls should be followed. Moreover, playing music, using sound amplifiers, beating drums, tom-toms or blowing a horn or a trumpet is considered as an offence and is penalized under the and the .

Indian society has been so divided on communal lines that a citizen’s fair outcry against a wrongdoing is considered as derogatory to a particular religion, and he/she is accused of insulting the religious feelings of a particular class. This has happened because the ruling party and its leaders have been successful in linking up even the most trivial issue, for example, the “love jihad” — a synonym for Hindu-Muslim marriage — to religion.

In this scenario, as citizens of India, it is our utmost duty to learn not to transgress our limits and not to overemphasize the freedom to practice religion, especially in public places, because by doing so we are often either violating another person’s rights or breaching the law. Be it the��adhan or yatra, the noise pollution rules and the Supreme Court directives must be abided by all citizens as well as authorities irrespective of all religions.

*[This article was updated on August 18, 2017.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /

The post How Practicing Religion in Public Places in India Can Violate the Law appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While Abhay Deol’s criticism of Bollywood celebrities endorsing fairness products was received with mixed reactions from the film community, one thing is quite true: It is not just about the light skin color that these celebrities endorse. Bollywood mainstream films are also full of sexist overtones, both manifested and subliminal.

Since the very beginning, Bollywood has not only justified sexism but promoted sexual harassment, molestation, objectification of women, slut-shaming and voyeurism. The main culprit is the mainstream cinema that refuses to recognize that continued insistence means harassment, that women’s consent is as essential as the desire of men, and that promiscuous women need not necessarily be bad. Hiding behind the euphemism of romance, mainstream Bollywood has been promoting serious crimes against women like stalking, abduction and even rape.

Romance at Knifepoint

The idea of romance in Bollywood spins around the continued insistence on attention by men, as women’s consent is deemed immaterial. In fact, exhortation to an extent of harassment is considered to be a part of romance and display of affection on the part of men. The worst thing is that this definition of romance has not changed or matured over the years. Consider this movie scene: A man follows a woman into an elevator, stops it mid-way and starts singing songs for the woman professing his love for her while touching her inappropriately. The woman resists his overtures, but the man doesn’t stop. At last, the woman gives up and coyly smiles and reciprocates his love.

Unfortunately, continued insistence is considered a way of professing love. A defiant “hero” harassing the heroine by following her and singing courtship songs like��“Lal Chadhi Maidan Khadi” (Woman Who Wears Red) in Janwar (Animal), “O Lal Dupatte Wali Tera Nam To Bata” (Tell Your Name, Oh Woman With Red Scarf) in Ankhein (Eyes),��“Aj Na Chorenge Tujhe”��(We Will Not Leave You Today) in Dil (Heart),��“Khud Ko Kya Samjhti Hai”��(What She Thinks of Herself) in Khiladi (Player), while she is visibly disturbed by his acts is a common sight in popular Hindi cinema. From��Pyar Hi Pyar (Only Love),��released in 1969, to��Ranjhana,��released in 2013, the undertone of “romance” remains the same.

The worst part about these scenes is that the woman is shown to enjoy the ritual and reciprocate her feelings once the man has finished his machismo display. The male protagonist in the movie��Dil��not only kidnaps the female protagonist and manhandles her, but also threatens to punish her by sexual assault. He leaves her after reminding her that he can ruin her life by raping her, but will not do so because of the goodness of his character. The heroine falls in love with him soon after and professes her love by kissing him in public.

Haseena Man Jayegi (Beautiful Girl Will Acquiesce), a vulgar comedy about two brothers who leave no stone unturned to stalk, harass and intimidate two girls to accept them as their lovers, can very well qualify for the criminal genre instead of a comedy. ������Sholay, the male protagonist touches the girl inappropriately on the pretext of teaching her shooting. ������Jodi No. 1 (Pair No.1), the male actor kisses a girl at knifepoint in order to escape from the conductor, stalks her and harasses her, and, going by Bollywood logic, the girl later falls in love with him soon after.

Cultural Avatars

Bollywood wants women to conform to the societal norms and cultural behavior. Slight derogation from the standards set by the society and the girl will either be playing a scheming villain, slut-shamed or rejected by the boy, until, of course, she changes herself according to his desires and conforms to the standards set by our society.

The male protagonist in��Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (Something Happens)��completely disregards the feelings of the tomboyish girl, makes fun of her looks and insults her for what she was until she adopts the traditional avatar by growing out her hair, wearing makeup and jewellery and, of course, switching her jeans for a traditional sari. The individual liberty of a woman to wear whatever she is comfortable in and to be accepted by men for whatever she is a concept alien to Bollywood. In films like Karan Arjun and Main Hoon Na (I Am There), female leads face rejection because they don’t wear make-up or feminine clothes. Their fortune changes the second they conform to the set norm.

������Ye Jawani hai Deewani (This Youth is Insane), the male protagonist is seen consistently flirting with a girl and when the female protagonist confronts him, he justifies it as “being good for health” and slut-shames the girl by saying, “I can’t flirt with girls like you, so I flirt with��these��kinds of girls.”

Hindi cinema cannot accept a woman emerging as a winner all by herself. It has been enforcing male chauvinism and sexism for decades.��Shakti��(Power) is one film that could have qualified as breaking gender stereotypes had it not introduced the annoying Shah Rukh Khan as the savior of a bereaved woman trying to save the life of her son. The film reinforced the idea that however a woman struggles, she ultimately needs a savior in the form of a macho man, appropriately called the hero, to save her from the viciousness of society.

In the recently released film Naam Shabana (The Name Shabana), the female protagonist, though strong and independent, would not have saved herself had Akshay Kumar not intervened on time. The hit movie��Bahubali (The Beginning)��— although not a Bollywood movie, but widely acclaimed all across India — showed a young woman introduced as a brave and ambitious fighter, comfortably delegating her duty to save a captive queen to the hero because, apparently, he is more qualified to do so. The sequel of the film portrays a brave queen seasoned in the art of archery and sword-fighting surrendering as a captive just to wait for her son to rescue her in 25 years’ time.

Insensitivity Toward Rape

The regressive portrayal of rape has still not changed in Hindi cinema for years.��Kaabil (Competent)��is the best example to show how insensitively Bollywood handles rape in 2017. The female protagonist, a rape victim, is shown to say to her husband that she is no longer suitable for him and if he wants she can leave so that he can lead a normal life. She is so disturbed by her husband’s mental condition following her assault that she prefers to commit suicide just to liberate him from his suffering.

Unfortunately, Bollywood still recognizes men relatives of a rape survivor as the victim and not the woman who has been raped. Moreover, rape is so consistently attached to the concept of honor that the woman who has been raped is often depicted saying, meri izzat lut gai (my honor is violated). The injury to her body is sidelined as something completely irrelevant.

In some Bollywood movies, both attempted rape and rape is passed off as something normal or comic. ������Shootout at Wadala, a male character named Munir says, Main kuch bhi karne ke liya tayar hoon. Rape bhi, agar item achhi hai toh��(I’m willing to do anything — even rape — if the girl is good enough). In the movie��R. Rajkumar, a scene intended to be funny shows a corrupt policeman raping a woman in custody. ������3 Idiots, the male lead, in order to make fun of another student, changes the word��chamatkar��(miracle) to the word��balatkar��(rape). During the speech, all students are seen laughing when the student said��balatkar��instead of��chamatkar��because of its dubious meaning.

There is no dearth of meaningful women-centric movies in Bollywood. The classical period of the Indian cinema saw films revolving around female characters like��Bandini��and��Sujata.��These films depict the struggles faced by women in the male-dominated society. Mehboob Khan’s��Mother India��is a feather in the cap of Indian cinema and will always be remembered for its heart-touching portrayal of a woman playing different roles in life — a wife, a mother and a daughter-in-law.

The film paints the portrait of a rural Indian woman abandoned by her husband and forced to make crucial sacrifices in her life in order to save her family. Actresses like Smita Patil and Shabana Azmi shall always be remembered for the courage they gave other women through their powerful roles. In the recent times, movies like��NH10,��Pink��and��Queen��serve as examples of sensible cinema portraying women in strong characters and depicting the harsh reality of the society.

Unfortunately, the number of such films showing women in powerful roles is very low. In fact, a majority of Bollywood films are not only men-centric but also show these men as highly muscular and macho. Women’s voices are almost stifled in such films. The demand here is not for only women-centric cinema from Bollywood because I respect the freedom of speech and expression of filmmakers. However, the least Bollywood can do is to stop justifying and promoting sexism in the guise of romance, sending out subliminal messages containing sexist overtones and misogynist slurs that stalking, harassment and molestation are part of India’s culture and are actually enjoyed by women, to stop objectifying women and to stop passing off rape as something comic or casual.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Does Bollywood Promote Crimes Against Women? appeared first on 51�Թ�.