Pluralism and diversity are the strengths of modern democracy. Our constitution states that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of one's language, culture, belief and gender. But the political situation in India as it exists today does not look encouraging or promising to the religious minorities. Dalits, tribals and the minorities are constantly being attacked on the basis of their social identity. Artists, writers and social activists are declared anti-nationals for speaking up, and are asked to go to Pakistan.
The report on racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance by the U.N. Human Rights Council last year has linked India's pro-Hindu ruling party (BJP) with violence against Dalit, Muslim, tribal and Christian communities.
The Centre's stance in Citizenship (Amendment) Bill as well as the Triple Talaq Bill seems to be a clear manipulation of legislative institutions against a particular community. It raises uncomfortable questions about equal treatment of citizens by the law of the land as envisaged in the Constitution. It is the constitutional obligation of the government to create an atmosphere in the country where every individual should get a fair treatment irrespective of their religion. The country is now engulfed in fear. The 'patriot' and 'non-patriot' binary creates a kind of alienation among its citizens.
Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016:
Article 14 of our Constitution provides for equality before the law for Indian citizens as well as foreigners within its territory. There should be no discrimination in legislations on the grounds of religion, caste or creed. But, in the recently introduced Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, one can clearly see the discrimination against Muslims. It is quite appalling how such discrimination can be meted out even in the case of the refugees. The Bill states that the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Christian and Parsi refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who migrated to India before 31 December 2014 can be given citizenship. But the question remains as to why a Muslim refugee is being denied citizenship and on what grounds. The rising unrest and protests against the Bill in Assam and other North-eastern states have other valid reasons.
The Bill defends citizenship by pointing out that citizenship is being awarded to those people who are religious minorities and had undergone gross injustices and violations in their respective countries. It is interesting to note how this argument is being flawed when it comes to the Rohingyans from Myanmar and the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. The United Nations described the massacre of Rohingyans as "ethnic cleansing" and requested the government of India several times to provide them asylum. But the government has been very firm about their repatriation even in the Supreme Court.
Triple Talaq Bill, 2018
The introduction of the triple talaq Bill is nothing but another form of discrimination targeting the Muslim community by the ruling party. The Supreme Court's ban on triple Talaq is more than welcome. But the Bill that has been put forward in the name of protecting women is nothing but a religious discrimination. Most of the religions in the world were born during a time when men enjoyed a higher stature in society. That is the reason why the foundation on which most of these institutions had been built upon was predominantly patriarchal. While upholding the religious values, women came forward to demand gender parity in all walks of life. They started questioning the inequality existed in mainstream politics and bureaucracy. The patriarchal religious customs and laws are no longer appealing or acceptable, neither at home or at any public space. This paved the way for the eradication of many out-dated customs and laws that essentially curbed the freedom of women and treated them as inferior.
Triple talaq is one of the most degrading and misogynistic customs that exists in this modern era of human civilisation.
Many Muslim majority nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Turkey have already banned this misogynistic practice. The Supreme Court of India has ruled triple talaq unconstitutional on August 22, 2018. The court observed that the act is in most cases is unilateral and done without the consent of the other party involved. While the SC ruling has brought solace to many, the court has not suggested the necessity of framing a new law criminalising the act. In India marriages and divorces take place according to various personal laws and by the Special Marriage Act.
After the Supreme Court verdict it is clear that triple talaq no longer has legal validity. Pronouncing instant triple talaq will no more nullify a marriage. So, the existing civil laws are enough to give legal aid to Muslim women against abandonment or ill-treatment. The ban on triple talaq was unanimously welcomed by Parliament. But the Union government's haste in bringing a new legislation criminalising it can only be paraphrased as a move with a clear political motive. According to Section 4 in the proposed Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) bill, 2018, if a man ends his marriage by triple talaq, he has to face three years of rigorous imprisonment. In India such a punishment is awarded in cases such as printing counterfeit notes and sedition. According to Section 7 of the Bill, a magistrate can decide to grant bail to the accused only after hearing the side of the plaintiff. Moreover, section 5 of the bill states that the defendant in such a case is expected to provide alimony to the wife. But this clause will become difficult to execute if the man is behind bars.
According to the 2011 census, the Muslim women divorcees in India is 23.3 per cent while 68 percent are Hindus. In such a scenario, the proposed law is very divisive since it is applicable only to Muslim men and there are no such laws offering similar punishment to the men belonging to other religions who desert his wife illegally.
In a democratic country like India, we need to escalate the discourses about nationality to such a pitch that it should embrace all kind of differences and diversities rather than dividing people. These words by Martin Luther King hold great significance in such a political context, "We must build dikes of courage to hold back the floods of fear."
(The writer is a syndicate member of University of Kerala)
