Conflicting views

The issue of triple talaq opens up a murky ground that rattles the dynamics of politics in India today. On one hand, there is the ruling party, perceived to be tilted in favour of the majority and on the other hand, there is the opposition that has routinely been depicted as favouring minority communities. In either's rope of interests, consequentially, the other, minority or the majority feels sidelined. The triple talaq bill, officially known as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017, has further obfuscated this complex ground. Here, the ruling party, divorcing itself from majoritarian conceptions has provocatively spoken in favour of protecting the minority within the minority, ie the women of the Muslim community; whereas, the opposition distancing itself from a pro-minority stance has delivered its notion against the criminalisation of the act, also sighting the protection of Muslim women as its reason for stalling the passage of this bill. The distinction lays in either's understanding of what entails protection. Undoubtedly, triple talaq is a heinous, practice that has long disfavoured Muslim women, clutching them in the chains of primitive tradition. As the Supreme Court ruling said, for six months until a law is formulated, the practice would be illegal; thereafter, it was in the government's jurisdiction to pave out a way for the future of the practice. It is first and foremost, imperative that the battle between the ruling party and the opposition is kept at bay, to sincerely consider the condition and upliftment of a segment of a particular community. The objection to the triple talaq bill stands at this: the criminalisation of the act would further subjugate the Muslim woman who would be left bereft of a family, home, partner or palpable resources. Nevertheless, allowing the act to continue does these very things, beyond the jurisdiction of the government—making it even more difficult to punish or prevent. The Rajya Sabha, after being delayed severely with ruckus breaking out between the ranks of the ruling party and the opposition, finally gathered to conclude that a Special Committee would be initiated that would overlook the specifics of this law and tighten the loopholes that would ultimately prevent Muslim women from encountering any kind of discrimination. If the subjugation by the husband is merely replaced by discrimination by law—it provides no respite. Nevertheless, this isn't to say that laws shouldn't interfere. Given the rampancy and brutality of the practice, they ought to. However, the law must be founded on stronger grounds, perhaps by taking into consideration the opinions of the several Muslim women who are still sitting on the fringes of the discourse. Ultimately, respectable Parliamentarians must gather that this isn't a battle of their political colours, it is a much more weighted fight to remove unethical, patriarchal traditions from the roots of our society.