After Triple Talaq, It's Time For Polygamy To Go: Arif Mohammad Khan
To watch the video of this interview, click here
What made this judgement happen? Everyone is looking at the judgement, you made the journey that led to this historic judgement. Tell us about the journey.
The Shah Bano episode proved to be a setback. But it has played a crucial role in the debate of personal law which started in 1986. People were simply relying on the clergy to explain and interpret the laws, post that many people started reading about the laws. In 1986 when Supreme Court used the words of Quran, they didn’t show any interpretation. They merely used the translation done by Abdulla Yusuf Ali, which is a universally acclaimed translation of the Quran. Now, that the words were there in Quran, it was a duty in the righteous. Since the verse is there in Quran, it can’t be said that it doesn’t exist. So it can’t be said that this can’t be made the basis of conduct. Nobody was ready to challenge them. More than 323 leading Muslim IAS, IFS and IPS officer’s signed the memorandum and submitted it to the Prime Minister asking him to go ahead with the judgement. But, when the government took the decision to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court, all of them came to me and showed sympathy. They plead with me not to continue this fight. They would explain that these ‘Mullah’s’ have a very strong network. Everyone was scared of them. But, now since last year, when we saw that the matter went to the Supreme Court, even the ordinary women started engaging in this discussion and started challenging the Mullah’s, not just in the TV’s, but on street as well.
I went to a college function in Gonda, there the students told me that they have started collecting signatures for Muslim Personal Laws as it is mentioned in the Quran. This is a great change as everyone is standing for their rights. This has happened because of the awareness and rise of literacy in the past 30 years.
Q. History can’t be changed, but if Rajiv Gandhi would have listened to you, do you think that the history of India in the last 31 years would have had been different?
A- It’s not the question of listening to me, it’s the question of not listening to the obscured entwist forces. The government has succumbed to the pressure of the general public. Outside Parliament a public meeting was organised by the Personal law board and a threat was given to break the legs of Muslim MPs who disagree. Inside the Parliament, the MPs who were supporting the Personal Law board actually used the most contemptuous language for the Supreme Court judges. They told the judges that Teli’s and Taboli’s were trying to interpret the sculpture. This language created an atmosphere of violence and communal hatred. It was like, if you disagree with anything, you threaten to tear everything apart. This was the atmosphere in 1986.
With this judgement happening, it’s a major win for sanity and prosperity. What are its implications on other parts of Muslim communities?
Honestly, today we are not in the position to make assessment of what this tremendous judgement will make on our social and national life. The liberating affect will not remain compiled for the Muslim women alone. What is important is that a Muslim girl which grew up with the awareness that her husband can turn her out of marital home, on any day, for any reason, won't be afriad now. That hanging sword has been removed.
The women that fought this case were under heavy odds as they lacked resources. There was too much pressure applied by the conservative elements. They were threatened, yet they persevered. All the senior lawyers like Indira Jaysingh Ji and her husband Mr. Grover did not charge any money for the case. This judgement is for all these women fighting against all odds. This will give a lot of courage to every Indian. If they can fight, so can every woman. It has given a strong message of gender equality. Even now, there will be cases were the husband will say three pronunciations, but the wife will say that this is not legal and the Supreme Court has declared it illegal. If she chooses to go to the police regarding this, it will be prosecution under harassment and mental torture.
Q. Do you think that the practice of Polygamy is the next bastion to be won?
The greatest thing that has happened is the language that has been used by the Supreme Court. They have declared it to be unconstitutional because it is arbitrary. This means that this provision has been tested to the yard sticks of the constitution of India. If Triple Talaq can be outlawed, so can any other practice. My understanding is that the kind of unrestrained rights that are available to the Muslim men in India finds no sanction in Quran. Even in Muslim countries like Pakistan, if a man wants to take another wife, he has to go to the court and satisfy the judges that these are reasons why I want a second wife. But, in India, it is totally unrestrained. So, if one provision can be challenged and court can declare it null and void because it is arbitrary, so can another provision.
What happens in a country has implications beyond society; it has implications on the governance and the politics. Whom does this judgement help in the sector of politics; does it help BJP or Narendra Modi, does it help the other parties who have not come forward in supporting it?
I don’t know who will be politically favoured. But, I know for a fact that Narendra Modi has spoken in favour of these women and it was his government that filed the affidavit and supported these women. I don’t know about whom it will help politically, but it will help India to become more united. It will let India grow in a country where the religious reasons will not push communities apart. Now is the time, when the divisions that were created in 1986 will be breached. Instead of hatred and separation, the process of growing together will start.
You eluded the fact that there will be equality and that there will be a new equal and uniformed India. So, are you saying that India in some way is ushering into a uniform civil court?
Ushering into a new era, uniform civil court, in my mind, is not important. We don’t have the tradition of tolerance. Tolerance is not an Indian tradition. Our tradition is acceptance and celebration of diversity. We must not forget that uniform civil court is a constitutional obligation. In the spirit of this great tradition that celebrates diversity, we can always make uniform laws. If we look at the Hindu laws; it doesn’t only cover the Hindus, it covers Sikhs, Jains and others. There has been nothing imposed on them. Even among Hindus there is no infirmity; from Kokan to Malabar, among the Brahmins, marriage with the niece is permissible, but it can’t happen in the Northern India. Uniformity in law means that you have to impose uniformity on everybody and uniformity only to an extent where the rights and obligations will be saved.
Q. Can we expect your entry back in active politics?
A- I started very young when I was just 25. Now, I think I am enjoying my life. I am spending time with books; my first love. I have also taken to writing. I am enjoying my life. These books give me so much pleasure.
