The Board Of No Shame!

The All India Muslim Personal law Board’s ‘chintan baithak’ atBhopal has failed to ban the reprehensible Muslim tradition of ‘triple talaq’(divorce given in one sitting) as contrary to Islamic principles. Demanded byvarious women’s organization, the abrogation of triple talaq was to form partof the ‘model nikahnama’ prepared by the AIMPLB. The ‘Bhopal Declaration’,as it has come to be known, falls woefully short of such demands.

In trying to attenuate the affects of the Muslim demand for abrogation of ‘tripletalaq’, the Board mildly condemns it as not desirable. Now there is a nearuniversal consensus that such a form of divorce is indeed not desirable. Somecommentators have even termed the clause as un-Islamic and therefore it shouldhave no place within Islamic sharia. What was expected of the Board was to takethe criticism of the various sections of the Muslims and promulgate a modelwhich would be forward looking. In its present shape the adopted ‘model’ nikahnama is actually out oftune of the wishes of large number of Indian Muslims.

It would be naïve to believe that the members of the Board are blissfullyunaware of the changes occurring within the Indian Muslim society. However, suchchanges are mostly confined to the aware and largely urban metropolitan Muslims which are perhapsnot the target audience of the Board. Consisting, as it does, largely ofreligious scholars trained in traditional seminaries, the custodians of theBoard respond largely to those Muslims who are primarily living inrural areas or the small qasbas. Changes in this sector are quite slow andhalting, old stereotypes about women still hold sway and the ulama are stillconsidered the custodians of Islam.

It is against this backdrop that the Board’s recent position on tripletalaq should be understood. Through the model nikahnama, they are appealing tothese sections of primarily non-urban semi literate male Muslims, who are theirclientele. Social change in the urban sector has, in a sense, led to a gradualcontestation of the authority of the ulama, in the sense that theirunderstanding of Islam is no longer considered the only valid one. Muslims inurban areas are therefore much better placed, through access to religious booksand other means, to not only challenge the authority of the ulama but also tohave their version of personal Islam.

So much so that the demand for the abrogation of the ‘triple talaq’ haslargely been the work of Muslims living in urban areas. In arguing against a banon triple talaq, the Board in this sense emerges as a fortress of traditionalismas opposed to the reformist demands of the sections of Indian Muslims. Clearlythen, putting pressure on the Board to reform is of no help, since, in this case,it has given an unambiguous judgment that, if anything, is anti-reform.

However, it cannot be denied, that the Board still has much moral capital,which it can use to bring about reform in key sectors like the position of womenamong Indian Muslims. The ulama are perhaps the most well-networked class ofpeople with immense capital to mobilize and mould public opinion. The Shah Banoagitation serves as an obvious example. If they want, they can, through thewidespread network of mosques and madrasas, percolate their message and create afavorable opinion against the practice of ‘triple talaq’ and other suchevils.

Yet the model nikahnama clearly tells us that they are not interested indoing so. Rather, it is much more interested in reinstating the authority oftraditional structures of power based on sex and age.

An obvious example of the way in which this is sought to be done can be seenin the clause of the model nakahnama which clearly stipulates that without thepresence of ‘guardians’, the nikah will not be valid. Now Islam givesfreedom to adult Muslims to choose their own spouses. This is valid both foradult men as well as women. This argument has come in handy to many Muslims whomarried out of their volition, because they liked someone, or for some otherreason.

This is a clause which has made them marry the partner of their ownchoice without feeling guilty about losing their religion or the validity oftheir marriage. If current trends are any marker, then such marriages are onlygoing to increase in the future. The clause of having a guardian to validate themarriage will be used with impunity against those young Muslims who want tomarry out of personal choice rather than being dictated by the norms of thefamily and caste. In seeking to arrest such changes, therefore, the Board hasshown, once again, its reactionary ideology and its desire to control Muslims.

It is increasingly becoming clear that appeals to such bodies of power as theBoard are bound to be defeated time and again. The women’s groups demandingthe Board to see the plight of Muslim women would do much better to highlightthis plight in front of the state and argue for some form of state protectionwhich would be equally applicable to all women in vulnerable positions,irrespective of religious affiliations.

Arshad Alam is International Ford Fellow, Department of Muslim Religious and Cultural History, University of Erfurt, Germany.