The issue of marital suicides in India
The legitimacy and efficiency of the triple talaq or instant divorce in Islam can be better understood in the context of the current situation prevailing in the Indian society, where the matter of suicides of married men and women has taken an extremely serious form. The statistics provided by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) with regard to the tendency of suicides in married couples in Indian society are shocking. We have with us the data of NCRB from 2001 to 2012 in this regard:
It should be borne in mind that these statistics represent only suicide cases of married males and females. These statistics neither include cases of murder, unnatural deaths, or deaths related to dowry harassment nor do they include cases of temporary or permanent disabilities. According to the report of NCRB, among the reasons for the suicides of married men and women, family problems score the highest. These suicide incidents are increasing at the rate of 4-5 percent annually. Another most important aspect of these statistics is that married men are twice likely to commit suicide than married women as it is evident from the above table. Several surveys have attributed this increased tendency of suicides in men to the existence of strict and stern laws against men such as the legislation of dowry harassment, domestic violence and the unnatural death of wife. According to the section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, an uninvestigated complaint by a wife against her husband and his family can land the entire family in jail, or under the Domestic Violence Act, the husband can even lose his hard-earned property owing to a simple complaint of domestic violence, even without a fair trial. Under Section 304B, the husband’s entire family can be put behind bars without trial or investigation if the wife dies an unnatural death within seven years of marriage. There is Section 125 of the CrPC under which the husband has to pay the maintenance to his wife irrespective of fault. What is more astonishing here is that these surveys further reveal that after divorce or in the case of the spouse’s death, men’s propensity to commit suicide falls sharply. (Times of India, 26 July 217). On the other hand, obtaining divorce under the Indian law from the spouse is so difficult that every person cannot afford it. Those who dare to do so have to wait for longer periods, i.e., five years or more in normal circumstances to obtain it. Hence the matter of fact is that the marriage in India is considered successful if it went smoothly without any trouble or else the same marriage would become a punishment for both man and woman, which may lead them to take these kinds of extreme steps like suicides to get rid from troubled marriages.
However, these figures are a moment of concern and a stern warning for the government, the judiciary and our ill-informed intellectuals, that if the failed and complicated marital relations were not relieved or terminated immediately or quickly, and the affected couples were not provided with another opportunity to start the life a fresh, to what extent it can lead to disastrous consequences?
How serious is the issue of triple talaq?
Another question which is also important here that “is the issue of triple talaq in Muslim society is as serious as it has been portrayed by the government and the media?”. The statistics of CRDDP – an NGO – are very important in this regards which shows that the prevalence of triple talaq in Muslims is very rare or negligible. CRDDP surveyed 20,671 individuals — 16,860 men and 3,811 women — across India between March and May this year. Of the 331 talaqs (divorces) it analyzed, 36.2% of it occurred through the way of sunnah (talaq ahsan & talaq hasan). 24.7% of them occurred through the intervention of religious institutions such as the qazi and dar-ul-kaza, 21.1% through courts/ notices, 16.9% through NGOs/ police/ panchayats, and most strikingly, however, the survey found that the incidence of the so-called “oral triple talaq” (where ‘talaq’ is uttered thrice at one go, without any witnesses or record) among the 331 cases was just 1 — or a mere 0.3%. According to Census of 2011, the total number of divorced Muslim women in India stands at 12.2 lakhs. If we calculate this 0.3% into the whole incidences of divorce in Muslims, we come to the conclusion that hardly a total of 800 cases of triple talaq might have occurred. Obviously, the whole issue of triple talaq looks a classical example of making a mountain out of a molehill. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of homeland brothers are committing suicides yearly due to the lack of relief on time from the bitterness’ of troubled marriages, and the media is also keeping mum on this issue; and these incidences are not considered to be sufficient to shake the government and the judiciary. Therefore, the government and the media are concerned about proving the worthy unworthy and unworthy as worthy.
Can a sinful act be religious?
In the Supreme Court’s verdict, some judges have said that “what is sinful cannot be held religious”. In another place it has been stated that “if something is sinful or abhorrent in the eyes of God, can any law by man validate it” (p. 188). Therefore, how it is possible that triple talaq be considered sinful as well religious at the same time.
There is no doubt that triple talaq is a forbidden and sinful act in Islam, but as far as its implementation is concerned, it is enforced. Its implementation is correct both rationally and from the Shariah point of view. From the Shariah point of view, if something has been proven explicitly from ‘nass’, then it is not permissible for us to go astray on this issue and we don’t have any option but to accept it as it is. Rationally, any action being forbidden or sinful doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist at all. There is no sin in the world that is both sinful and does not exist as well. Rather, the existence of any action is essential to be regarded as lawful or forbidden. Or in other words when any action happens, then only it could be regarded as lawful or forbidden.
If, for the sake of argument, we accept this notion that upon the commitment of a sinful act it doesn’t occur, then by which logic it could be justified that upon commitment of a sinful act only one third of it will happen and not the other two thirds? As it is assumed by those who argue that through the utterance of triple talaq, only one will happen. Hence this logic goes against themselves. The Qur’an and Hadith contain similar instances of forbidden actions which do occur upon its commitment. Some of the examples in this regard are given here.
The Islamic Shariah has prohibited Zihar (comparing ones wife with his mother or any other woman who is mahram to him) in the way it has forbidden giving triple talaq at one go. The Qur’an has termed ‘Zihar’ as false and a lie ‘munkar’. (Mujadala: 20). However, the person who commits zihar commits a lie and cannot save himself from punishment, but expiation is obligatory on him. Hence, triple talaq also implements in the same way despite being prohibited in Islam. The other example in this regard is of being apostate (i.e., reverting back from Islam to another religion) Apostasy is considered a blatant disobedience to Allah and a taboo in Islam. Nevertheless, by committing this sin, that person not only gets out of Islam but his wife also gets separated from him (i.e., his marriage annuls). In the same fashion, triple talaq is also implemented despite being prohibited in Islam.
If we accept the logic of the judges of Supreme Court which is against the reason and wisdom too, then a number of laws of Islamic Shariah including the laws relating to Zihar and apostasy will come under its hammer, and a large part of Islamic Shariah will become cognizable.
Difference between quality and justice
In the Supreme Court’s judgment, some judges have described the triple talaq against the fundamental right of equality provided in the article 14 of Indian constitution. It is a fact that Islam’s distribution of social rights and responsibilities is based on justice rather than equality. It is because equality doesn’t guarantee the social justice but the Justice does. In other words, justice guarantees higher level of justice than equality. In order to understand this, we need to understand the difference between equality and justice first.
Equality assumes everyone is the same, has the same abilities and talents. This assumption itself is against the laws of nature. Under this assumption, equal rights are given to all, i.e., powerful, weak and disabled. It is obvious that if we adopt this principle, the requirements of justice will not be fulfilled; instead the powerful and capable people will get benefitted more.
The second way of achieving social equality is ensuring justice instead of equality among the individuals, groups, and particularly men and the women. Contrary to equality, justice is competent to fulfill the requirements of fairness with greater level. Let me repeat that for you: equality doesn’t necessarily mean fairness, Justice does. Special reservations are provided for weak, backward and fair sex to achieve justice. Equality would suggest everyone gets the same treatment from birth onwards. Justice suggests that something has to be done to encourage fairness, even in the light of past inequalities. In other words, in order to achieve higher level of justice, all aspects of the problem have to be kept in mind.
This could be better understood in the light of an example. The foundation of the system of inheritance in Islam has been based on justice rather than equality. Under this system, man has been awarded two shares as compared to the one share given to women in the inheritance. By doing so, Islam has taken away all the financial responsibilities away from women and put it on the shoulders of man. This will be held true even if the woman is wealthy. This has been designed in Islam to meet the gender requirements giving consideration to the special creation of fair sex, her natural and psychological potential etc. Now, if the principle of equality was applied here instead of justice, then it will necessitate the provision of equal shares for men and women in the inheritance, paving way for alteration of a lot of personal and family laws of Islam, which will obviously champion the cause of equality but will fall short of fulfilling the requirements of justice. Here also if we accept the courts logic, not only laws pertaining to divorce and inheritance but many other family and personal laws of Islam come under its hammer and the door of intervention in Islamic Shariah will be opened up forever.
In a nutshell, an in-depth study of the laws of divorce of Islamic laws shows that Islam has paid heed to the principle of justice rather than equality in these laws. It has taken into consideration fulfilling the gender requirements, in addition to the requirements and disparities of time and place. Why Islam alone, justice rather than equality seems to be the underlying principle in all the natural phenomena. Each and every phenomenon of the nature is performing its specific and unique role. As a result, this gigantic universe is staying current with the precise coordination of all these phenomena in an organized manner. Equally, all the social and democratic institutions are attuned with the principle of justice rather than equality. Taking into consideration the principle of equality, if every person is granted the right to act in the public and public institutions equally, there will be nothing left except anarchy and chaos. Rather, following the principle of justice, capable individuals are selected and the full authority is bestowed to them to run these institutions. The government, the judiciary and all the public institutions are compromised on the ideology of justice rather than equality.
The right to legislation rests with Allah alone
To sum up, Islamic law is equally useful for all places and periods, and is capable of fulfilling all its needs and requirements. On the contrary, laws designed by humans irrespective of height of being progressive and advanced, they still lack the comprehensiveness and universality which the divine laws enjoy. It is because the perception and understanding of the problems by the human beings stay limited to the problems of their respective region and period. Take for example the case of the permissibility of divorce. Divorce gained legal acceptance in Europe only in nineteenth century and India recognized it as late as 1956, whereas Islam has bestowed the right of divorce to both man and woman 14 centuries ago. That is why the Quran has said:
“Indeed, the right to legislation rests with only Allah.” (Qur’an: 12: 40 & 67)
