-Pramod Pathak-
The data on triple talaq presented by Delhi-based organisation, Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy (CRDDP), has been reported twice i.e. on May 18 and May 29. The data appears to be doctored to show that the problem of triple talaq under hearing by the Supreme Court bench is insignificant as pointed out by Abusaleh Sharif and Syed Khalid in “Unimportance of triple talaq” (IE May 29).
To start with, the data selection from the already available data of 100,000 respondents, as reported, is skewed. While the male sample size numbered at 16,860 men, the women samples size at 3811. Women sample constitutes only 18 per cent of the total sample size. There is glaring data mismatch. While 83 per cent mail reported providing maintenance during the iddat period, 83 per cent women talaqees reported that their husbands were not paying maintenance. The male-female data should have been corroborative. About 80 per cent women should have reported to have received maintenance during the iddat period to corroborate. Maintenance data is highly biased data in favour of men. The lack of these corroborations should have been obvious to the writers. They came across only one case of oral triple talaq from 331 number of divorce cases in their data-base pointing to insignificance of the instant oral triple talaq. Is this data selection reliable? As reported earlier “A survey conducted by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, of 4,710 women from the economically-weak strata of the community, found 525 women i.e. 11.14 per cent were divorced. Of these women, as many as 408 – 78 per cent had been given unilateral divorce by their husbands implying instant triple talaq (IE May 8) i.e. 8.7 per cent women were given unilateral talaq. Sample size of BMMA is about 24 per cent larger and more representative. It appears that the data selection done by CRDDP was biased against weaker sections. Triple talaq is more rampant among the weaker sections of the Muslim community.
It is obvious from the data itself that husbands are instigated by their family members (13.27 per cent) to opt for talaq. They would not wait for the duration of the iddat period. There are no less than ten reasons for them to go for oral instant talaq such as non-fulfilment of dowry demand (8.41 per cent), no children (7.08 per cent), not being a good housewife (6.19 per cent), did not like wife (3.54 per cent), had only daughters (2.65 per cent) etc. All these reasons reported in the CRDDP data itself (IE May 18). These become very potent reasons for instant triple talaq. It is reported that triple talaq can be given on phone, even by message on the mobile phone or through the third person, not necessarily a related family member. Although wrong, but it is considered valid by the AIMPLB (IE April 17), qazis and family members. Thus single instance of oral triple talaq acknowledged by Sharif and Khalid appears to be unreliable.
The Muslim community has been in denial mood for long. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid was appointed as amicus curie by the Supreme Court. He stated, “Most Muslim thinkers say there’s no such thing as triple talaq” (May 10, news item). He overlooked the accepted mode “talaq-i-bidat” which has been denounced by many Muslim thinkers and scholars like Maulana Fazlul Karim who translated Hadith commentary Mishkat-ul-Masabih in English, way back in 1999.
Authors Sharif and Khalid made overstatement about the custom of remarriage of Muslim women. “Note that this can be attributed as one of the greatest gifts of Islam to women: The opportunity to remarry is either non-existent or only done shyly amongst the large section of Hindu society.” In Hindus too there were many castesin which remarriage was allowed. It was called paat. How can these authors forget H. Khadija the first wife of Prophet Mohammad who asked on her own to marry young Mohammad? Even during Prophet’s time his two daughters were given talaq and were then remarried. So the custom to give talaqs and for a woman to remarry were prevalent in the Arab society since the pre-Islamic times. These have continued to the disadvantage of the women folk in the post Islam period.
The plight of the Muslim women is highlighted by the fact that, “However, what sets Muslim women apart from other women is the stark disparity with the divorce rates for men of the community. While Buddhist men have divorce rate of 3.0 per 1000 marriages and Christian men 2.92 per cent per 1000, for Muslim men it is 1.59—almost three times lower than the rate for Muslim women (IE May 8). It is obvious from the fact that Muslim men do not pay maintenance to the extent of 83 per cent and certainly not beyond the iddat period of three months. They are less burdened financially, opting for remarriage. It is endorsed by the CRDDP data that only 5.4 per cent children stay with their father. If this data is further analysed, it will show that only male child is held back by father. Daughters are driven out along with their mothers. The authors grudgingly agree that women and children, to be more specific here, the female children, are indeed at economic risk after talaq. This fact has been highlighted by talaq-affected women on the TV interviews. As the authors state, ‘In conclusion, this survey shows that the incidence of “triple talaq in one go” is rare and insignificant’ is to be taken with a pinch of salt. The further statement that, “Projecting the minuscule victims of triple talaq as the major issue to be confronted to empower the Muslim community is questionable”, would tantamount to questioning the Supreme Court authority. Even if one Shayara Banu has been affected by unilateral instant triple talaq, it justifies hearing as violation of fundamental right to live with dignity.
The threat of unilateral instant triple talaq, be it oral face to face pronunciation, or through sms or letter, is a constant source of anxiety for Muslim women. It was only after the Supreme Court hearing that the AIMPLB has relented to take measures such as social boycott of those resorting to triple talaq and inserting the clauses against triple talaq in the written nikahnama-marriage contract which again is a rarity.
(The writer is a Goa-based scholor of comperative religion)
Comments