news details |
|
|
| Triple Talaq, Section 497, Sabrimala & Indian Women! | | | Kr Swarn Kishore Singh | 10/20/2018 10:13:41 PM |
| Last week while I was scrolling through my whatsApp, I found something very surprising and astonishing in a group, a judicial magistrate had sent some very distasteful pictures; which were making fun of a lady union minister for having grown some weight lately. When the judicial magistrate was pretty eloquent and shamelessly fearless while circulating such shameful and absurd pictures of a woman, wherein the rising petrol prices are equated with the figure and physique of a lady; I am afraid of two aspects transpiring out of this event. First, when even a sitting union cabinet minster is not immune to such distasteful pestering, what would have been possibly faced by normal working women? And the other is; when a serving judicial magistrate is having such a contaminated mind and stoop so low, imagine the degree of rottenness of mind of a normal person? The problem goes on to the next level when we are unapologetic for such misconduct and rather we derive pride out of it. When I see this level of harassment of women and their subsequent passiveness, I always remember a couplet of Asrar-ul-Haq Majaz wherein he says;
"Tere maathe pe ye aanchal to bahut hi khoob hai lekin,
Tu is aanchal se ik parcham bna leti to achha tha"
In last few years the judiciary and the government have made several attempts to gradually pass the baton over to women. Be the fact that we had a for the first time in Indian history a full time lady defence minister in Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman or the fact that we had the first lady advocate to have been elevated to Supreme Court Judgeship directly in Smt. Indu Malhotra, it seems women are finally there. Then we had for the first time in the history of Supreme Court; three sitting women judges. Similarly a lot of other initiatives of the central Government wherein the women have really been empowered, but today without straying here and there, I will try to focus completely on the role of judiciary in empowerment of women.
Whenever I start to think about women in our society, a dialogue from a Hollywood satirical movie named "Dictator" crosses my mind; wherein the dictator asks his pregnant wife; "So, what are u having; a boy or an abortion". Normally in our society women is either a burden or a child producing machine, but somehow Supreme Court has taken some very brave measures to resurrect the status of women and make them realise that they are no less than the other dominant gender. At first comes the issue of Triple Talaq, a draconian and retrograde system as per which a man can anytime utter Talaq thrice and the wife gets divorced. This patriarchal monopoly was shattered finally by Hon'ble Supreme Court via a 5-judge bench which held by a majority of 3:2 that the practice of Talaq-e-biddat, popularly known as Triple Talaq was held violative of constitutional values given under Art. 14 & 15 and hence invalid. The most aghast part of this matter was that one of the petitioner in the matter decided by Apex Court was a woman whoo was divorced by her husband via a text sent through WhatsApp; would you believe it, whatsApp? In the same judgment it was also held by 3 judges that personal laws of minorities are protected by the constitution as fundamental rights but inspite of that the propaganda machinery was activated to show as if Islam is under threat. Although triple talaq was a practice which had its origin in pre-islamic customs and not in the Quranic principles, but still some muslim scholars did not like the verdict of the Apex Court. Even Prophet Mohammad had denounced this practice of Triple Talaq, but the present day Muslim scholars guided by male chauvinistic approach were threatening the Apex Court to not meddle with the personal laws. And infact the it was just instant Triple Talaq which was held invalid. Rest of the forms of talaq are still valid and only the worst part i.e. the talaq in single sitting has been held void but still the Muslim husbands continue to have a right to unilaterally divorce a wife whereas the wife has no such privilege. The wife has to remain with her husband, no matter how badly she is being treated. I wish the Apex Court visits this aspect in near future.
Then come the issue of scrapping of Section 497 from Indian Penal Code. Let me outrightly put the draft of the scrapped section here which goes like;
"Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor".
Although there are a lot of weird repercussions of the draft of this section but the weirdest of them are as; the act is not regarded to be an offence if the husband of the married woman consents on her part to have an intercourse with another man. So for having intercourse with a married woman the consent is to be sought from her husband and not from the women. And then comes section 198 of CrPC as per which only the husband is given the right to file a case against the man involved in act of adultery. These two aspects clearly reflect the highly regressive and archaic thinking and the stereotype that a woman belongs to a man and she can not personally have her own opinions. Therefore to uproot this sexual stereotype and to make sure Article 14 & 21 of Indian Constitution are really implemented on ground, section 497 IPC was scrapped by the Apex Court. We all may be having different opinions over this issue but one thing which should be kept in mind while condemning this judgment is that we should better have some compassion for the women and start believing that women are not necessarily supposed to live in the shadows of their husbands. Women are not supposed to think as per the desires of her man or the society. Lets us start thinking of women as equals.
Then comes the Sabrimala issue wherein the women between the age of 10-50 years were not allowed to enter to the Sabrimala temple. It is believed that Lord Ayyappa, who happens to be the deity of the temple is an eternal celibate and therefore the women of menstruating ages should not be allowed in the temple premises. This custom was protected by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public worship (Authorisation of entry) rules, 1965. Therefore this bar was challenged on the grounds of gender discrimination (Article 15 of Constitution of India). The temple authorities defended this practice as a practice warranted by Article 25 (2) of constitution of India. Also Article 26 of the constitution of India guarantees a religious denomination the right to manage its own religious affairs. But the Apex Court with a majority of 4-1 struck down this rule and said that the temple rule violated the right to equality and right to worship. Although the only lady judge in the bench ruled otherwise and observed that a secular polity must allow heterogeneity in religion, allow diverse forms of worship, even if irrational, insisting that court must not enter into areas of faith. But the majority of 4 judges while holding that the law and society to act as levellers observed that "any subversion and repression of women under the garb of biological or physiological factors could not be given the sell off legitimacy and any discrimination of women pertaining to their biological characteristics was not only unfounded, indefensible and implausible but can also never pass the muster of constitutionality". Further it was observed by the majority that "the heart of the matter lies in the ability of the constitution to assert that the exclusion of women from worship is incompatible with dignity, destructive of liberty and a denial of equality of all human beings. These constitutional values stand above everything else as principle which brooks no exceptions even when confronted with claim of religious belief. To exclude women is derogatory to an equal citizenship".
Ostensibly, we may be having disagreements on many counts on the above mentioned landmark judgments of the Apex Court and may be those disagreements are justified as well. But by virtue of such judgments the highest court is ensuring that women get what they have deserved and fought for since long. Infact it is being believed and asserted in history that during Vedic times, the status and position of women was comparatively high and it kept on deteriorating with passing times. And when we finally had slipped into British control we already were at the lowest possible ebb. But after independence, our government has passed several laws to ensure that women are not discriminated. But one thing should better be kept in mind while talking so highly about women empowerment i.e. remedy does not lie in replacement of male chauvinism by female chauvinism. Chauvinism or prejudice of any sort is dangerous. Therefore it is high time we all should step up against the jingoism in favour of men or women. Let us all be equal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
