THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE) BILL or TRIPLE TALAQ BILL

Muslim women celebrate the passing of Triple Talaq Bill from Lok Sabha

Going by the chronological order, the first bill that caught the attention of the public eye was the Muslim women bill, which criminalized the act of triple talaq as a mean of divorce by a Muslim man. The Supreme Court pronounced Triple Talaq to be unconstitutional and following suit, the Indian government made Triple Talaq a crime, where if a Muslim man pronounced a divorce in form of triple talaq through a verbal or written contact, he would be imprisoned for a time going up to three years along with a fine. Further, the custody of a minor child from the marriage would go to the mother and the man would have to provide allowance as declared by the magistrate. Like any act, this one also had two sides in which the government proclaimed this act to be protecting the basic fundamental rights of Muslim women and saw it is a method of women empowerment and community inclusion. On the other hand, criticism came from various opposition members as well as legal experts. The most common argument was made of taking a civil dispute i.e. marriage or divorce and mixing it up with criminal intent by creating a cause for imprisonment. They also claimed that imprisoning the Muslim man would only make things more difficult for the wife and therefore, a civil arrangement had to be prepared to tackle the issue. In this case, Shashi Tharoor in his claims in Lok Sabha perfectly encapsulates his opposition to the bill when he says,

“The bill conflates civil law and criminal law by criminalizing the Triple Talaq which is an ‘irregular’ form of divorce, already declared null and void in our country post the Supreme Court’s decision on the Shayara Bano v Union of India case.”

Despite the criticism, the bill was passed on 25th and 30th July by Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively and as of now, it stands in retrospective effect from 19 September 2018.

THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR (REORGANISATION) BILL or THE REVOCATION OF ARTICLE 370

New map of Jammu and Kashmir releaseed by Government of India

After the Triple talaq bill, came the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir act which was done via the revocation of article 370 and 35A from the Indian constitution. The move was considered to be a prime objective of the BJP government and the same was done on 5th August 2019 when a presidential resolution to scrap the articles was moved by Amit Shah and a bill which reorganized the state of Jammu-Kashmir was introduced. The act became effective from 31st October 2019 and is seen as a rather poorly implemented move. The background to the Kashmir issue is well known among the general Indian population but still, some may not have the best idea of article 370. The basic elements included a special status to the state wherein, it had its constitution and administrative autonomy. More importantly, citizens from the rest of India could not purchase land or property in the state. Just before the bill was introduced, Kashmir had been in a state of lockdown under section 144 preventing civil assemblies. All this happened under President’s rule which had been there since 20 June 2018. What caused an uproar, was the house arrest of major politicians of the state like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti. A large number of paramilitary troops were deployed citing terrorist threat. It was this air of tension that worsened the distrust between the Kashmiris and the central government. Going to what exactly has changed with this bill; one has to look at the statutory provisions. The act creates two new union territories i.e., Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Jammu & Kashmir will have its legislative assembly, much like Delhi and Ladakh will be administered by a lieutenant governor. Leh and Kargil will also come under Ladakh.

Another important aspect is that foreign investment will be allowed along with the right of citizens outside of J&K to buy land will be created. Lastly, the laws passed by the central government will also apply to the two union territories. The central government defended this move by claiming that it will open up the economy of the region as the foreign investment will open up new educational and job opportunities. Further, the allowance to buy property will help boost the local real estate market. Nonetheless, there has been a lot of criticism against the move made by the BJP and more importantly, the way it has been implemented. The criticism has not only come from within the country but outside as well. Pakistan has been vocal about the lack of respect towards international law and other countries have also raised concern. Former J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah calls it an ‘insult being heaped on an injury.’ The Kashmir lockdown, which was initially done under threat of terrorism, has been ongoing for more than a year. This lockdown was much more stringent initially where total media and communication blackout was installed but now the restrictions have been reduced, but the lockdown continues. More than 4000 have been arrested. In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, claims have been made that this is Modi 2.0 darkest moment, citing concern over the future of fundamental rights of Kashmiris. However, the Dalit immigrants and Kashmiri women got freedom from the stringent rules enforced on them as the former was not allowed to choose any job other than that of menial labour while latter would lose its Kashmiri status if she married anyone outside of Kashmir.

CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT (CAA)

Anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh

Pakistani Hindus celebrating passage of CAA in Delhi

The act which caused one of the biggest student and national protest in recent Indian history, CAA was brought to create a crucial amendment in the citizenship laws of the country. To give a little background, one also needs to keep in mind NRC or the National Registry of Citizens. Even though NRC has been on the agenda for a long time, and even previous Prime Ministers have suggested having a proper registry of citizens but no sort of exclusion from the country of the citizens was suggested before. It was under Modi 2.0 that NRC is being seen as a threat to democracy. In NRC, one will have to prove in the form of document that one’s ancestor was presiding in India with the date of March 24, 1971, given as the final date. NRC has only been implemented in Assam and a lot of flaws have been seen but that is another issue as the rules for it were set under former PM Rajiv Gandhi and it was implemented under Supreme Court of India’s supervision. Amit Shah had previously claimed that NRC will be implemented throughout India. Coming back to CAA, in terms of its provisions, the key to understanding it is the simple fact that as per the new system, only Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian can get citizenship, for which they will have to prove religious persecution against their community in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan. The government has defended the move by claiming that it protects the minority rights of those in neighbouring countries. The key exclusion here is that of Muslims as the said countries are theocratic states with Islam being their official religion. This caused a huge uproar which started in Assam but eventually protests moved to Delhi, where student clashes with the Delhi police reported in Jamia Milia Islamia University and JNU. Reports also came of police brutality against students who were not even protesting. The protests eventually moved to Delhi University and further solidarity protests came from all over the country including students from IITs, NLUs, IIMs and even foreign universities showing solidarity. Eventually, most of the states had some form of protest going on against the act, the most famous of which came up in Shaheen Bagh in Delhi where the community, lead by women had been protesting. Criticism which has even been identified internationally, by various countries and organizations with Office of the UN High commissioner for Human Rights is the most vocal.

Looking at the criticism, the finding is that when NRC and CAA are put together, if a Hindu loses citizenship due to exclusion from the registry, he/she can get back the citizenship under CAA and for that matter, anyone belonging to the religions state above, can gain their citizenship back, except Muslims. A Muslim who has been excluded from the NRC won’t have citizenship and will be transferred to a refugee camp which a few have compared to the Nazi concentration camp. This argument is made by the opposition whereas the government maintains that NRC and CAA are completely different and bringing them together is bending the law. The Modi 2.0 government also maintains that CAA is only for the refugees and not those who already live in India. Ex-Minister in Rajiv Gandhi’s cabinet and present Governor of Kerala, Dr Arif Mohammed Khan maintains that CAA and NRC are progressive moves and that violent protests are an act of terrorism. The COVID pandemic has slowed down the protests and it seems that the government will be able to properly implement it. The Supreme Court has also refused to put a stay on the matter.

CONCLUSION

To say that the Modi 2.0 has been bold would be an understatement. Just looking at these acts, one can see how the BJP government wants to embed its ideology within India and it has been successful so far. A lot of other things like the construction of Ram Mandir, the RTI act, handling of the COVID crisis are discussions in themselves. The idea of this article solely was to bring to light the facts regarding the three of Modi 2.0 government’s most controversial acts. What one can do at this point is to try to form their own opinions and conclusions after knowing all the facts and try to understand what the next four years have to offer.

The post MODI 2.0: THE THREE CONSEQUENTIAL ACTS OF THE FIRST YEAR appeared first on WISER WORLD.