English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Talaq Judgement: Muslim Women A Play Thing in Communal Politics?

Published

9 years ago

on

Talaq Judgement: Muslim Women A Play Thing in Communal Politics?

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]By Saeed Naqvi

Put it down to my acute perversity, because as soon as celebrations broke out and I glanced at the Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq judgement, Josh Malihabadi’s rubayee (quatrain) swam into my ken:

“Ae rind kya yehi hai baaghe rizwaan?

Na hooron ka kaheen pata na ghilma ka nishaan

Ek kunj mein maayuus-o-mulool-o-tanha

Bechare tahel rahey hain Allah mian”

(O’ Tavern companion, where have we come? Is this the promised garden?

I see no beautiful houris, nor handsome men.

In a gloomy corner, crestfallen,

Sad and lonely, Allah Mian paces ponderously)

Josh is mocking at Man’s distortion of God’s purpose.

Of course, this is escapism on my part, but I can hardly help it because in all my 75 plus years I have never known anyone, even by remote association, who discarded his wife by pronouncing “talaq, talaq, talaq.” Since Muslims are supposed to be in the grip of this all pervasive practice, I may be forgiven for feeling a little left out.

The defiance and passion with which the General Secretary of Jamiat Ulema e Hind Maulana Mahmood Madani, has reacted leaves me breathless:

“If you wish to punish the person (for pronouncing triple talaq) you may do so but such a talaq will be recognized” by Jamiat and society at large. The Maulana, to his credit, advises Muslims not to resort to triple talaq but he insists that the courts or the state not be allowed to interfere with Muslim practices, presumably based on Muslim law.

Do I stand with the Maulana to keep my Muslim identity intact? Or do I ignore him as I have ignored all clerical edicts throughout my life?

That a five judge bench of the Supreme Court has struck down the obviously abhorrent practice, should find me in the ranks of those thunderously applauding the judgment. But that too is not my chosen path.

I spot triumphalism in this national exultation led by Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Yogi Adityanath and leaders of other parties in supporting roles. The Muslim male has been administered a double-fisted punch on his chin and his women freed from his basement harems.

Chief Justice Kehar has accorded protection to 90 percent of Muslims from the barbaric practice.

Do I belong to this 90 percent or was I always protected, being among the 10 percent who, by His Lordship’s calculus, were outside the dark canopy of shoddy Islamic laws?

Since most surveys seem to suggest talaq-talaq afflicts not more than one percent, does it behove their Lordships to paint the entire community with one brush?

Should not the Ministry of Social Welfare, the Minority Commission, instead of sitting on their haunches, do a survey to establish the extent to which the practice is prevalent?

Beef is a sensitive word these days. But beef (not buffalo but cow) is slaughtered and eaten by Muslims, non Muslims and Dalits in the North East, West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu etcetera. Would their Lordships judge Hindus as beefeaters along with Muslims across the country or would a clarification be in order that the practice is prevalent only in specific regions of the country?

Does the universal celebration over the judgment inspire optimism? Now that the Indian establishment across the board is so demonstrably filled with the milk of human kindness towards the divorced Muslim woman, it probably augurs well not just for the Muslim “Suhagan” (happily married) but for the entire Muslim community, all 180 million of them.

In his very first speech in Parliament in May 2014, Narendra Modi became the only Prime Minister to openly say what never came naturally to Congressmen that among the many burdens that weighed the nation down was “1,200 years of foreign subjugation”. Congressmen said this privately but never publicly.

The official party line, the one that the Congressmen went public with was about “200 years” of British rule. The Muslim period was glossed over. There was no public debate.

In fact at the earlier stages, soon after 1947, a common and particularly galling allegation was: “Muslims partitioned the country and then stayed on.”

There is no record of Congress leaders ever offering a clarification for this canard. So implicated were they in the country’s fracture, that they refrained from encouraging debate on this issue lest it turn upon them.

The Congress was not the only guilty party. Even socialists like Ram Manohar Lohia talked of the “spirit of Haldighati” as a panacea for boosting Hindu morale. He went along with the version of history which credits Maharana Pratap with victory over Akbar, a highly disputed proposition.

Since I stayed with JP in his Kadam Kuan residence in Patna, I saw firsthand how the Bihar movement was put together by Nanaji Deshmukh of the RSS and his close friend, Ramnath Goenka, publisher, owner of Indian Express. Socialists, conservative Congress leaders who had broken away from Indira Gandhi (or whom she had disbanded) all came together in the Janata Party government. Subsequent politics during Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi years had become manifestly sensitive to this reality: varying shades of Hindu majoritarianism were an essential requirement for the electoral game. It was on this trajectory that Narendra Modi gained exceptional height in 2014. Has he peaked?

The other day my sister and her daughter travelled by AIR INDIA. She had asked for a vegetarian diet, her daughter for non vegetarian. The printout of her ticket said: “Vegetarian Hindu meal”. The other printout was equally explicit: non vegetarian “Muslim meal”. Their Lordships may wish to find out if institutionalized apartheid is creeping upon us?

This is the background against which the nation and its media are amplifying the turn that the Supreme Court has given to the plight of Muslim women, divorced by recourse in an ungodly method. Intentionally or unintentionally on the part of their Lordships, the situation created by their judgment is fraught with politics, even though only one percent of Muslim women who have escaped talaq, talaq have reasons to rejoice. If propaganda is the name of the game, these ladies should be facilitated on their way to Mecca for Haj, by way of thanksgiving. This is a photo op not to be missed.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Delhi Police offers 11-person limit for CJP’s Connaught Place protest

Delhi Police has offered to facilitate a group of 11 people at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Cockroach Janata Party’s October 16 protest, while warning that violations of prohibitory orders could invite legal action.

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

CJP protest to continue

Delhi Police has proposed allowing a group of 11 people to carry the national flag and sing the national anthem at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16, ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged electoral fraud.

The police said it could facilitate the group at a suitable place in the park, while appealing to the public not to join the proposed gathering in large numbers. The offer comes amid prohibitory orders in Connaught Place and adjoining areas under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has called on people to assemble at Central Park at 5 pm on Friday with the national flag. The proposed demonstration, named “Lehra Do Tiranga”, follows the detention of CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka during an earlier protest.

Why Delhi Police proposed limiting the gathering

In its statement, Delhi Police cited the prevailing security and law-and-order situation in the area. It also referred to information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17 for administrative reasons.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Neha Yadav said the NDMC had informed the police about the closure and had asked that no gathering be allowed near the park.

The police also cited representations from trader and market associations in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. According to the police, the associations had raised concerns about unlawful assemblies and their impact on businesses, particularly during the festive season.

Police warned that violations of Section 163 BNSS would invite appropriate legal action. It also stressed that the national flag must be displayed and carried, and the national anthem sung, in the prescribed manner with due respect and dignity.

Delhi High Court declines to stop CJP protest

The proposed gathering reached the Delhi High Court after a vendor sought intervention over concerns about disruption to businesses and public movement in Connaught Place.

On Thursday, the court declined to restrain the CJP from holding the protest. It recorded the police’s assurance that all possible measures under the law would be taken to regulate the gathering and maintain peace.

The petition was filed by a vendor at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place, who raised concerns about the potential impact of the demonstration on traders and others working in the area.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the authorities, told the court that steps had already been taken to regulate the proposed protest.

CJP’s protest call follows detention of party members

Dipke’s October 16 protest call follows earlier demonstrations over alleged electoral fraud. CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are in jail on trespass charges after raising the national flag at Jantar Mantar earlier this week, according to the report.

The party has been protesting over alleged electoral fraud and has raised questions about the Election Commission.

Dipke has urged people to gather at Central Park with the national flag, arguing that raising the Tricolour should not be treated as a crime.

The police’s proposal to facilitate a group of 11 people came as the authorities sought to prevent a larger gathering at the site. The CJP’s response to the police’s offer was still awaited in the report published on October 15.

Continue Reading

India News

Actor Imran Khan asked to leave India after CJP protest

Actor Imran Khan has been asked to leave India by October 28, days after participating in a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

Actor Imran Khan, nephew of Bollywood star Aamir Khan, has been asked to leave India by the Mumbai Police, days after participating in a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

According to the notice, the actor has been given until October 28 to leave the country. The development follows his participation in the demonstration, which brought the actor into the spotlight over his involvement in a political protest.

Imran Khan is believed to hold US citizenship and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card rather than full Indian citizenship, according to the report.

What led to the notice against Imran Khan?

The notice came days after Imran Khan joined a protest called by the CJP in Mumbai. The group, described as a satirical political organisation, had called for the demonstration.

The actor’s participation was followed by action from the authorities, with the Mumbai Police directing him to leave India by the specified deadline.

The notice does not, by itself, mean that the actor has already left the country or has been deported. October 28 is the deadline mentioned for his departure.

Imran Khan and his citizenship status

Imran Khan is known for his work in Hindi films, including Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na and Delhi Belly. He is also the nephew of actor Aamir Khan.

The report states that Imran Khan is believed to be a US citizen and hold an OCI card. OCI status does not confer Indian citizenship, although it provides eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin with specified privileges under Indian law.

The notice directing the actor to leave India follows his participation in the Mumbai protest. The reported development has brought attention to the intersection of immigration rules and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

4 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Goa
  • Gujarat
  • Kerala
  • Lakshadweep
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Manipur
  • Puducherry
  • Punjab
  • Rajasthan
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • Uttarakhand
  • West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com