Among the arguments that the Supreme Court relied on to invalidate talaq-e-biddat, or instant divorce, last year, was that the practice was considered unIslamic in even Muslim countries, many of which had abolished or reformed it.
This method of referring to practices in Muslim countries will spring surprises on the court when it decides, as it recently said it would, on the constitutional validity of polygamy, which Muslim Personal Law in India recognises. That is because unlike in the case of talaq-e-biddat, only Turkey and Tunisia have proscribed polygamy outright.
Most Muslim nations merely regulate the man’s right to simultaneously have four wives, the limit laid down by the Quran. This is why Faizan Mustafa, vice chancellor of Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad, cautions: “India does not have to look at theocratic countries to interpret Muslim Personal Law. The touchstone of judging such laws should be our own Constitution.”
For Muslims, polygamy draws its validity from Chapter 4 of the Quran. Its verses allow men to marry “two or three or four” women, but ask them to have a single wife if they “fear” they cannot treat them all with equal fairness. And this, verse 129 declares, is difficult for men to achieve despite their best efforts.
The Quran’s nuanced approach to polygamy has TahirMahmood asserting in Muslim Law in India and Abroad, “It is clear that Islam established monogamy as the general norm. It is very unfortunate that while the Quranic permission for polygamy is conventionally regarded as law, its conditions and restrictions in this regard are seen merely as unenforceable Quranic morality or advisory.”
Blame patriarchy for the selective application of Quranic injunctions on polygamy. Such a taint, though, does not lie on Turkey, which outlawed polygamy in 1926. Tunisia, too, prohibits “plurality of wives” and a man found guilty on this count can be punished with a year’s imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Turkey and Tunisia’s marriage laws are a radical departure for societies where polygamy has religious sanction. Most Muslim countries do not flout the Quranic approval for polygamy, but seek to mitigate its inimical impact on women by curbing the husband’s unilateral right to have multiple wives. The more severe the curbs, the better it is for his wife.
Algeria allows polygamy with certain conditions – the previous wife or wives must consent to their husband’s new marriage and a court must determine whether the man can meet the “legal condition of equal justice” to all wives. In case her consent has not been secured, the previous wife can initiate divorce proceedings.
Morocco has gone a step farther. A marriage contract disallowing the man to take another wife is binding on him. In the absence of such a clause, the man has to notify the designated court about his intention to marry again, and provide proof of his financial capacity to maintain multiple wives. The court summons the first wife, hears both parties in camera, and may permit the man to marry again after stating its reasons in writing. In this event, the court may accept the first wife’s plea for divorce and determine the maintenance allowances due to her. This amount has to be paid within seven days, failing which the man’s application for marriage would be deemed withdrawn.
In Somalia, a man can contract another marriage only for specified reasons – his wife is certified sterile by a panel of doctors, or suffers from an incurable disease, or is imprisoned for over two years, or is absent from her matrimonial home for a year. A Somali man must have verifiable reasons to be polygamist.
Some of these conditions also constitute exceptions to Indonesia’s law limiting a man to have one spouse at a time. In addition, the Indonesian man has to take his wife’s consent to marry a second time, furnish proof of his financial capacity to maintain multiple wives, and guarantee their equal treatment.
Legal justification and financial capacity are factors that courts both in Syria and Iraq must examine before allowing a man to have more than one wife. In Iraq, a court can also disallow the husband from marrying again if it concludes there is a possibility he would be unjust to them.
In many other Middle Eastern countries, though, protection to women against the inherent harshness of polygamy is feeble or non-existent. In Egypt, for instance, the man has to state whether he is already wedded while registering his marriage. In case he is, his first wife is informed of the new marriage. She has the option of divorcing him, but the right is extinguished after a year of her being informed.
In Bahrain, the man is required to inform his wife of his new marriage only if their marriage stipulates against him taking another wife. In Jordan, violation of such a clause in the marriage contract entitles the wife to seek divorce from him.
In many Muslim countries, polygamy is practised with or without the consent of wives. Consent is often a function of the women’s economic independence. Those who are not financially independent cannot deny consent to their husbands insistent on taking another wife unless their paternal homes are willing to support them. For precisely this reason, wives might not divorce their husbands who want to marry again even in violation of their marriage contracts.
Legal provisions compelling the polygamist to maintain his previous wife or wives can help limit the incidence of polygamy. For instance, polygamy in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, both wealthy countries, has been declining. The principal factors cited for the decline are galloping living expenses and the rising trend of employment among women. Conscious of polygamy’s economic impact, Malaysian courts can reject a man’s application to marry again if they feel it would lower the living standard of his wife or wives and their dependents.
In Pakistan, the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 lays down the conditions for a man to take another wife. Bangladesh inherited this ordinance, and adopted it, at its formation in 1971. Under this law, the man must seek permission to marry from the chairman of the Union Council, an elected local government body. The chairman then asks the man and his wife or wives to nominate a representative each for reconciliation that an Arbitration Council is required to facilitate.
The Arbitration Council determines whether it is “just and necessary” to grant permission to the man to contract another marriage. The wife can appeal the Arbitration Council’s decision before the district collector. If the provision to seek permission from the Union Council is violated, the wife can lodge a complaint and her husband can be imprisoned for a year or fined Rs 5,000, or both.
These rules, however, have not deterred men from secretly marrying again, said Muhammad Munir, professor of law and director general of the Shari’ah Academy, International Islamic University, Islamabad. “Wives seldom lodge a complaint,” he said. “When a husband’s second marriage becomes known to his wife, there is hue and cry. Thereafter, she usually settles for negotiations, gets properties transferred to her name and does not lodge a complaint against the husband for keeping her in the dark about his second marriage.”
This is why it is difficult to find cases of Pakistani men being jailed for not informing the Union Council before marrying the second time. “By contrast,” Munir said, “Bangladesh has seen many instances of wives lodging complaints against their husbands because of which they have been sent to jail.”
But not all polygamous marriages are conducted secretly. Munir’s neighbour married for the third time last year. He has children from his previous wives. “The husband, his three wives and children live happily together,” he said. “The husband now wants to shift to a larger quarter.”
In India, polygamous Muslim marriages have been the subject of court cases. In Itwari v Asghari, the Allahabad High Court ruled in 1959 that a Muslim man was legally entitled to marry again but he could not compel the first wife to live with him. It described the second marriage as a “continuing wrong” to the first wife who is consequently justified to dissolve her marriage.
In 1994, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act disallowed people with more than two children from contesting local elections. This prompted one Javed to petition the Supreme Court that since Muslim Personal Law allowed polygamy, it was only natural for Muslims to have more than two children. Dismissing Javed’s plea, the court observed, “No religious scripture or authority…provides that marrying less than four women or abstaining from procreating a child from each and every wife in case of permitted bigamy or polygamy would be irreligious or offensive to the dictates of the religion.”
Nearly 24 years later, the Supreme Court will determine whether polygamy is constitutionally valid. But it may not be able to find an argument to ban the practice in case it chooses to look for laws proscribing it in Muslim countries.
There is also an irony here: the incidence of polygamy among Muslims is the lowest of all religious groups in India. This fact Hindutva groups will gloss over as they seek to exploit the debate on Muslim Personal Law resulting from the Supreme Court’s hearing to consolidate their base.
Brazen statements on job shortage
By Mihir Swarup Sharma
Back when Narendra Modi was just a candidate for the post of Prime Minister, he seemed to understand what India’s biggest problem was: jobs. He promised tens of millions of jobs would be created if he were voted to power – India’s unemployed young people would be transformed, he promised, into an army for development.
Four years later, this promise has turned into a weapon for the opposition. His predecessor, Manmohan Singh, pointed out last year that young Indians were “desperately waiting for the jobs that they were promised.”
The Modi government’s response has been typical: not harder work, not economic reform, but bluster. Two recent statements from senior ministers who should know better stand out. Piyush Goyal said that the large number of people who are lining up for jobs in the Railways that he oversees – over 15 million applied recently for a minuscule number of vacancies – did not in any way mean that there is a shortage of jobs in India. And Human Resources Minister Prakash Javadekar, whose job is indeed to prepare the Indian workforce for employment, has insisted that each and every sector in India has witnessed job opportunities. “We have to find out why people with post-graduate degrees apply for sweeper jobs in the government,” he said.
Well, minister, the answer is staring us all in the face: that there simply aren’t enough high-quality jobs available. Yes, even low-skilled government jobs provide security; but in a growing economy, the private sector should also be creating enough and better-paid jobs in such a way that security would be rendered irrelevant.
The fact is that when millions of Indians turn up for jobs that they are manifestly overqualified for, it cannot be seen as anything other than a failure of economic management on a massive scale.
There was not even the slightest remorse expressed by the ministers for whatever combination of circumstances may have arisen in the economy to cause this sort of desperation on the part of job-seekers. Nor was there an iota of compassion for these young job-seekers or a comprehension of the lack of choices they face.
Mr Javadekar even said that “people who do not work out of choice cannot be called unemployed”. Is it possible that Modi Sarkar imagines that everyone without employment prefers to watch things on their Jio phone rather than earn a living? It is impossible to overstate how out of touch that sentiment is. Even in the best case scenario, which is that the minister was referring only to the worrying decrease in the labour participation rate of women – fewer women in India are working, while in the test of the world more women worked as development progressed – it still reveals an inability to understand the real problems faced by job-seekers. If women are not going out to work, it is not out of “choice”. It is because neither law and order nor their social relations in their community have allowed them to do so. Is this not something a government should be concerned about – if, that is, it values half of India? Or should it just dismiss the crushing of womens’ aspirations as “their choice”?
The ministers complained that there was not enough data to prove that jobs were not being created. This seems to undercut various other claims made by government apologists that jobs are indeed being created – on the basis of the pension records kept by the provident funds, for example. Many economists have poked clear holes in this theory. At best, that reveals that under pressure from demonetization and the GST, some jobs are coming into the formal sector – but it does not reveal whether or not jobs are being created overall. While it is amusing to discover that not even the Modi government ministers believe its own propagandists, the politicians’ statements are still important. Their complaint about the lack of official data is shared by many.
Yet data is scarce, of course, for a very specific reason: the survey of unemployment in the country, conducted by the Labour Bureau every year from 2010 to 2016, was discontinued by the Union Labour Ministry – in a strange coincidence, the Survey showed sharp job losses after the National Democratic Alliance government came to power in 2014. So when the ministers – and earlier the Prime Minister himself – complain that there is no data on employment, what they should instead explain is why the government chose to stop collecting data on employment.
The reason, of course, is that this government does not want the release of any data that would reveal the true state of the economy. The manipulation of the backseries of GDP data revealed exactly how desperate it is to whitewash its unusually poor record.
The Modi government seems to believe that voters are comically stupid. That they will not only believe that jobs are being created, but also that mobs of people applying for a few government jobs is a sign of how many other jobs there are. That they will also believe that a lack of data that the government has itself organised can be replaced by earnest assurances from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that large numbers of jobs have indeed been created.
The most reliable independent source for jobs data are the reports from the Centre for Monitoring the Indian Economy, or CMIE. Their latest report, issued earlier this month, indicated that 11 million jobs had been lost in 2018. Think about that – 11 million jobs were lost, not created. This comes at a time when most economists believe that we need to create between 6 and 12 million jobs a year just to keep pace with the number of people entering the job market. Nor were previous years better – demonetization in particular wreaked havoc, costing millions of jobs.
There is little doubt, therefore, that Modi has failed to keep the promises that he made before being elected. The question is whether he will be held accountable for those promises. Perhaps if the Prime Minister or his colleagues had been open about their failures and accepted that they understood where they had gone wrong and how more jobs could be created going forward, they might have been able to retain some credibility. Instead, they have chosen to deny that a problem even exists and to pretend instead that the promises have been fulfilled. This is brazen even by the standards of Indian politics.
There are good reasons for greater urgency. India’s window to create high-quality manufacturing jobs – the sort that helped countries like China move up the income ladder – is closing. More and more processes are being automated, and the scope for mass manufacturing that takes in lower-skilled workers and gives them solid secure employment is narrowing. But the World Bank has insisted in a recent report that there is still enough time. Given its vast numbers of young people, it is India that should be benefiting from these last decades in which manufacturing will matter. But instead the government has failed to undertake genuine economic reform, relying instead on adulatory press handouts and ministerial statements – managing the headlines and not the economy, as Arun Shourie put it. India’s young people, lining up in their lakhs in the hope even of a job as a government sweeper, deserve better than this callous indifference to their fate.
Is Rahul Gandhi emerging as a reliable brand?
By Shuchi Bansal
The Congress’s recent victories in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have put the spotlight on its president Rahul Gandhi.
While an earlier column spoke of brand Modi and whether he has lost some of its sheen, little has been said on Rahul Gandhi and if he, as a brand, has come of age. Or whether, despite his party’s recent wins, it is too early to think of him as a dependable brand.
Interestingly, the resurgence of the Congress and that of Rahul Gandhi in particular seems to represent an almost textbook example of a challenger brand.
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) unexpected poor performance is also perhaps a classic case of what a market leader should avoid—complacence, overconfidence and petty-mindedness being on top of the list.
“While it’s true that Rahul Gandhi has a long way to go before he can match the perceived stature and the personal popularity of Narendra Modi, he has certainly been able to narrow the gap between them. I would say this is an outcome of some of his bold initiatives helped to a great extent by the missteps of the latter,” says Samit Sinha, managing partner, Alchemist Brand Consulting.
Dheeraj Sinha, managing director (India) and chief strategy officer (Asia) at Leo Burnett, agreed that Rahul Gandhi has emerged as a viable challenger with the recent wins in the Assembly elections.
However, he argues that challengers don’t win the game in India, leaders do. “Will Rahul be able to position himself as a viable leader of the country is the question. Just being a challenger won’t make it happen for the Congress,” he says.
Advertising veteran Sandeep Goyal who has done his doctorate in human brands, says that a challenger brand is defined by a mindset. It has ambitions larger than its conventional pool of resources and is prepared to do something bold. The most common narrative associated with the challenger brand is that of the underdog.
However, challenger brands are today more often focused on “what” they are challenging rather than “who” they are challenging.
“Rahul Gandhi is, therefore, by definition, truly a challenger brand. The important thing that everyone seems to be missing out on is that he is cleverly not really challenging Mr Modi but challenging incumbency, unfulfilled promises, growth agenda, and the performance of the current government, ‘mistakes’ like demonetization and GST (goods and service tax). In politics, these are really the ‘category drivers’. Rahul is also focusing on disenchantment/ unhappiness with jobs/economy, which is really challenging the ‘user experience’ with the current government,” says Goyal.
Sinha feels that Rahul’s underdog image helps him. He began his political career as a fumbling novice, which earned him the Pappu sobriquet.
“It’s because not much was expected of him is why his stock goes up every time he exceeds expectations, even for accomplishments that are less than extraordinary. On the other hand, his rival suffers a huge disadvantage for having set unrealistically high expectations, and whatever be his achievements, they are bound to fall short of the promise. This has no doubt negatively impacted both his credibility as well as popularity, which has helped Rahul Gandhi seize the narrative. When one starts at the bottom, the only way is up. The converse is equally true,” points out Sinha.
Brand Rahul seems to be gaining some traction. “His speeches have improved both in form and content. He is more consistent, more combative.
The hesitant, reluctant brand Rahul of yore is slowly but surely transforming into an astute leader who has pedigree and lineage,” feels Goyal.
Of course, none of this guarantees a defeat for the BJP, or a victory for the Congress, in this year’s general elections. Goyal says that as of now, brand Modi is stronger and better resourced, but beginning to fray at the edges.
Also, a bit hurt, if not bruised. In 2014, brand Modi epitomized “hope” and “progress.”
“In 2019, he cannot stand for Hindutva or Ram Temple or The Cow. That would be a big mistake. In 2014, brand Rahul was untested and nascent. In 2019, he is portraying himself as progressive, secular, empathetic and pedigreed… Both brands have their own appeal,” he says.
As Leo Burnett’s Sinha says, leadership brands need to appeal to the whole market.
Will brand Rahul be able to cover this distance from being a challenger brand to the leader brand in the next few months remains to be seen.
Your waste: someone’s taste
By Zeeshan Rasool Khan,
While we every other day listen to boastful claims that the country India is developing fast. It has become very difficult for most of us to accept the brute reality that here the people die because of hunger. Yes, death due to starvation is the unthinkable, reality of India. According to sources, about 14.9% of the Indian population is undernourished. Half of the world’s hungry live in India. Thousands are those who do not know if the next meal would be availed or not. Reports say, everyday 20 crore people have to hit the sack with an empty tummy. In the year 2018, many cases of hunger-death were reported in India. This bitter truth is being cloaked with bragging. Global Hunger Index 2018, which has placed India at a 103rd place out of 119 qualifying countries, is a testimony to this fact that India is not what media shows i.e., all is not well within the nation with respect to common masses. Howbeit, it is not any matter of berating the nation. There is no question of cutting anyone to size in connection with this issue. Instead, it demands serious contemplation from everyone irrespective of our positions in society.
One of the root causes of hunger is poverty that has been challenging to every developing country and India is no exception. Despite the reports of GHI, which says, the poverty level has reduced by 0.9 % since 2011 we must accept that our efforts have been too meagre to achieve any feat in this direction. Let us accept we have failed in defeating poverty. But, that does not mean we will rest on our laurels and let poverty-stricken die. If we cannot eradicate the gigantic issue of poverty but we have immense potential to secure poor. If we cannot build palaces for indigents, however, we can provide them shelter to hide at least. If we cannot raise their standard of living but there is no doubt that, we can mitigate their problems. Likewise, if we cannot provide them with sumptuous food, at least we can make sure that they will not sleep hungry, die due to hunger and starvation.
There is no dearth of food. Credible reports suggest that India produces sufficient food to feed its population. However, access to the available food is lacking. And this inaccessibility is partly due to low income of people and mostly due to our behaviour of wasting food. It has been estimated that nearly one-third of the food produced in the world for human consumption is wasted every year. This wastage starts from processing continues up to packing, supply management, and consumption.Due to imperfect packaging methods and inefficient supplying system, a considerable amount of food is lost. According to one estimate, about 40 percent of fruits and vegetables and 30 percent of cereals are wasted and do not reach the consumers because of improper packaging and supplying techniques. Prevalent ways of processing and subsequent supplying of paddy and other grains result into wastage of a part of it. Common Fruit growers know it better, while packaging, what quantity of fruits is wasted. Fully ripened fruit is often discarded as ‘rotten’ because of apprehensions about its transportation. Same is the case with vegetables and other foodstuffs.
These squandered grains, discarded fruit and vegetables make a large part of wasted food. Imagine if these grains, ripe fruit, and vegetable reach any poor, how great it would be. At the consumption stage, significant levels of food wastage occur. The gluttony, most people are indulged in is itself a form of wastage. Some people eat like a horse without thinking about health risks that overeating leads to. They keep on inviting ailments rather than getting any benefit but never cogitate, how by exercising moderation in eating we can help others. The excessive food that we take can easily become a morsel for a destitute.
Our weddings, events, restaurants, hostels, and houses are a major source of food wastage. At weddings, a huge amount of food is wasted. A large amount of food including multiple dishes are served, which results in leftovers that finally finds a place in trash bins. It would have been far better to have control mechanism at our weddings for prevention of food-wastage. However, even in absence of a mechanism, we can play a significant role in reducing wastage of food by best use of leftovers. Leftovers from weddings and even from our homes, restaurants, hostels, and hotels are often thrown away. But there is an option for us to make better use of it. We can recycle leftovers. We can make many other dishes from it, which can be used for the next meal. Massimo Botturra of Italy – the world’s best chef has come up with this innovative idea. He has founded the association namely ‘Food for Soul’ with the motive to fight food waste. He uses surplus food /leftovers productively to tackle food wastage and nourish poorest people of the city. Most of Hoteliers and restaurateur, across the world particularly India, have followed suit that is a good sign. Others, who are not aware of this idea, should imitate the same .So that more and more necessitous are benefited. In fact, using leftovers to feed the poor living in our vicinity would be one of the finest uses of leftovers. By this way the uneaten edibles from our homes, restaurants, etc. can fill the bellies of many and eliminate their hunger.
Efforts are on throughout India and fortunately, in our state too, to reach out the hunger struck population. No doubt, some NGO’s are working to utilize extra cooked food and give it to needier. But, the challenge is big and efforts are small. Broad-gauge efforts are required that must be started from the individual level. While processing, packaging, supplying, and consuming, utmost care needs to be taken to check the frittering. Through this mindfulness, we can preserve lot of food and can make it available to the poor. In addition, if everyone would refrain from wasting food and take care of penurious people of respective communities, we can ensure food availability for a maximum number of deprived people.
It is worth to mention, feeding hungry cannot obliterate hunger as it is related to several problems. However, we cannot deny the fact that hunger itself is the root of various other troubles. Hunger deprives a person from growth. It increases the vulnerability of a person to a myriad of complications, which can have an adverse impact on social, behavioural, emotional, and physical health of a person. Satisfying one’s hunger can make him eligible to earn livelihood otherwise his destiny is elimination. So, we must think logically to gain the best of both worlds.
(The writer can be reached at: [email protected])