Congress obstructing justice by attempting to derail Triple Talaq Bill: M J Akbar
By Vasudha Venugopal
Criminalisation of triple talaq corrects the historic wrongs committed in the Shah Bano case, said Minister of State for External Affairs M J Akbar on the much debated Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill that was passed by the Lok Sabha recently. Speaking to ET, Akbar also responded to allegations made by people including former information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah that he has changed his stance on the reform of Muslim women, stating that people have "partisan, if not selective memory." Edited Excerpts
What does the passage of the Bill in the Lok Sabha mean for the country and its women, especially Muslim women?
It establishes the government's commitment to this reform. Historically, this has to be seen in the context of the failure in Shah Bano case where there was a Supreme court judgment too. What she was asking for was a legitimate right to maintenance and she was asking for it within the commitment made to women within the Quran. She was asking just for Rs 179 which was meagre even then. A nationwide furore was created to deny her this. And, unfortunately government of that time succumbed to this pressure. This is in one way a correction of a historical wrong. We have to see this decision as part of a great attempt at gender emancipation that is central to all of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's schemes.
The opposition has said that the Bill needs to look at compensation and reconciliation more. Your comments?
Leaders such as Shahabuddin protesting against giving maintenance to Shah Bano had argued that "government doesn't need to arrive at maintenance, we will give maintenance." But can anyone name one instance of funds being collected by institutions spent on the maintenance of divorced women?
Opposition and religious leaders have said it is civil issue and that there was no need for criminalisation when the Supreme Court had already struck it down. They have also said that the Bill has no clarity over divorce for Muslims. How do you respond to this?
Triple talaq will be criminalised, that doesn't mean divorce has been banned. There is a procedure mentioned in the holy book. Like any sensible issue where there is a legitimate ground for divorce, you take time, you take counsel, you go through a procedure, you consult others and then make the decision. Wherever they have been reforms in Muslim countries, these issues have been addressed. Given the history of evasions, how can you have a law without teeth. A law without teeth cannot bite so people will continue to ignore it.
Asaduddin Owaisi has said that Muslims were not been consulted over the drafting of the bill. Your comments.
How many times do you want consultation? 1986 is in front of us. Maybe Muslims like Owaisi were not consulted. But the spirit of the Bill is in consultation with the spirit of the Quran. My point over and over again is that the Quran itself doesn't permit you to do it.
Former Information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and some others have said that there is a marked departure in your stance and that it was you who had advised former minister Rajiv Gandhi to overturn the Supreme Court judgement on Shah Bano case. Your comments?
I would call it partisan, if not selective memory. The gentleman that you mentioned, to begin with, I read what he has written. He says he came into the room, found me sitting with the PM of that time and then he says he 'sensed'...He just says he sensed. You can come to any conclusion based on your sense. I would say it is nonsense to go by that. Arif Mohammed Khan has talked recently about what had happened then, how Congress leaders such as P V Narasimha Rao did the heavy lifting, who felt they were getting votes. Arif is right. There was a political element clearly in overturning the SC judgment on it. I wasn't even in the parliament then.
Then he says, I did a TV show on it, but I was the moderator of the show and I used to bring in people with different voices. He doesn't mention that speaking against Arif Mohammed was Shahabuddin while I was only moderating the discussion. What is important is that I wrote long articles in The Telegraph on this issue. In 1989 I gave up what I at least thought was a pretty good job being the editor of The Telegraph for the uncertainties of public life. I went to contest in Kishanganj where people thought I had no chance, and I contested against the same Syed Shahabuddin who was the most outspoken in this case. He had filed his nomination from there. See, I am not the issue. By asking for the Bill to be sent to the standing committee, what the Congress party is trying to do now is postpone the inevitable. One side they claim they support the Bill but on the other they are trying to derail the whole process. They want to take it forward to another thirty years, while a generation of Muslim women could have already had the reforms by now.
What do you think is the future of the bill now that it will go to the Rajya Sabha? Some have said that it will be put in cold storage.
I think this legislation will happen. There are means and ways. A joint session is also among the options that the government can pursue. I am sure the government will make a serious effort to get it through Rajya Sabha. It has options which it will consider.
In your defence of the Triple Talaq Bill you have been critical of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that is vociferously opposing it. Why?
This body that people think was created 1400 hundred years ago was created only in 1973. It is a self appointed body. There is no credibility. Who does the Muslim Personal Law Board represent except itself. It has always taken the most extreme positions to defend men's abilities to treat women as they like.
But some Muslim women organisations such as Bebaak Collective have also opposed the criminalisation saying it re-victimises women..
It is very clever to use to victim as the spokesperson to prevent change. The point is even if it is a civil issue why hasn't the Congress done anything about it? Did the party after the Shah Bano case even once raise the issue? This is the narrative of the forked tongue which won't work under this Prime Minister who is clear that the empowerment of women should include empowerment of the Muslim women. When the LPG programme was started in UP, one of two women he gave the connection to was in a burkha. I would want more and more Muslim women to benefit from government schemes, for instance start their own businesses using Mudra loans.
There is criticism that by making the Triple Talaq bill a priority, your party is trying to demonise the Muslim man and Muslim clergy..
When reforms took place in the Hindu code bill, did anyone call it demonisation of Hindu men. When a person indulges in bigamy or dowry and is punished, is that demonisation?
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/62502606.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
By Vasudha Venugopal
Criminalisation of triple talaq corrects the historic wrongs committed in the Shah Bano case, said Minister of State for External Affairs M J Akbar on the much debated Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill that was passed by the Lok Sabha recently. Speaking to ET, Akbar also responded to allegations made by people including former information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah that he has changed his stance on the reform of Muslim women, stating that people have "partisan, if not selective memory." Edited Excerpts
What does the passage of the Bill in the Lok Sabha mean for the country and its women, especially Muslim women?
It establishes the government's commitment to this reform. Historically, this has to be seen in the context of the failure in Shah Bano case where there was a Supreme court judgment too. What she was asking for was a legitimate right to maintenance and she was asking for it within the commitment made to women within the Quran. She was asking just for Rs 179 which was meagre even then. A nationwide furore was created to deny her this. And, unfortunately government of that time succumbed to this pressure. This is in one way a correction of a historical wrong. We have to see this decision as part of a great attempt at gender emancipation that is central to all of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's schemes.
The opposition has said that the Bill needs to look at compensation and reconciliation more. Your comments?
Leaders such as Shahabuddin protesting against giving maintenance to Shah Bano had argued that "government doesn't need to arrive at maintenance, we will give maintenance." But can anyone name one instance of funds being collected by institutions spent on the maintenance of divorced women?
Opposition and religious leaders have said it is civil issue and that there was no need for criminalisation when the Supreme Court had already struck it down. They have also said that the Bill has no clarity over divorce for Muslims. How do you respond to this?
Triple talaq will be criminalised, that doesn't mean divorce has been banned. There is a procedure mentioned in the holy book. Like any sensible issue where there is a legitimate ground for divorce, you take time, you take counsel, you go through a procedure, you consult others and then make the decision. Wherever they have been reforms in Muslim countries, these issues have been addressed. Given the history of evasions, how can you have a law without teeth. A law without teeth cannot bite so people will continue to ignore it.
Asaduddin Owaisi has said that Muslims were not been consulted over the drafting of the bill. Your comments.
How many times do you want consultation? 1986 is in front of us. Maybe Muslims like Owaisi were not consulted. But the spirit of the Bill is in consultation with the spirit of the Quran. My point over and over again is that the Quran itself doesn't permit you to do it.
Former Information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and some others have said that there is a marked departure in your stance and that it was you who had advised former minister Rajiv Gandhi to overturn the Supreme Court judgement on Shah Bano case. Your comments?
I would call it partisan, if not selective memory. The gentleman that you mentioned, to begin with, I read what he has written. He says he came into the room, found me sitting with the PM of that time and then he says he 'sensed'...He just says he sensed. You can come to any conclusion based on your sense. I would say it is nonsense to go by that. Arif Mohammed Khan has talked recently about what had happened then, how Congress leaders such as P V Narasimha Rao did the heavy lifting, who felt they were getting votes. Arif is right. There was a political element clearly in overturning the SC judgment on it. I wasn't even in the parliament then.
Then he says, I did a TV show on it, but I was the moderator of the show and I used to bring in people with different voices. He doesn't mention that speaking against Arif Mohammed was Shahabuddin while I was only moderating the discussion. What is important is that I wrote long articles in The Telegraph on this issue. In 1989 I gave up what I at least thought was a pretty good job being the editor of The Telegraph for the uncertainties of public life. I went to contest in Kishanganj where people thought I had no chance, and I contested against the same Syed Shahabuddin who was the most outspoken in this case. He had filed his nomination from there. See, I am not the issue. By asking for the Bill to be sent to the standing committee, what the Congress party is trying to do now is postpone the inevitable. One side they claim they support the Bill but on the other they are trying to derail the whole process. They want to take it forward to another thirty years, while a generation of Muslim women could have already had the reforms by now.
What do you think is the future of the bill now that it will go to the Rajya Sabha? Some have said that it will be put in cold storage.
I think this legislation will happen. There are means and ways. A joint session is also among the options that the government can pursue. I am sure the government will make a serious effort to get it through Rajya Sabha. It has options which it will consider.
In your defence of the Triple Talaq Bill you have been critical of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board that is vociferously opposing it. Why?
This body that people think was created 1400 hundred years ago was created only in 1973. It is a self appointed body. There is no credibility. Who does the Muslim Personal Law Board represent except itself. It has always taken the most extreme positions to defend men's abilities to treat women as they like.
But some Muslim women organisations such as Bebaak Collective have also opposed the criminalisation saying it re-victimises women..
It is very clever to use to victim as the spokesperson to prevent change. The point is even if it is a civil issue why hasn't the Congress done anything about it? Did the party after the Shah Bano case even once raise the issue? This is the narrative of the forked tongue which won't work under this Prime Minister who is clear that the empowerment of women should include empowerment of the Muslim women. When the LPG programme was started in UP, one of two women he gave the connection to was in a burkha. I would want more and more Muslim women to benefit from government schemes, for instance start their own businesses using Mudra loans.
There is criticism that by making the Triple Talaq bill a priority, your party is trying to demonise the Muslim man and Muslim clergy..
When reforms took place in the Hindu code bill, did anyone call it demonisation of Hindu men. When a person indulges in bigamy or dowry and is punished, is that demonisation?
Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/62502606.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
No comments:
Post a Comment