Muslim countries’ verdict on triple talaq ruling

BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN Regional Media | 26/08/2017
The media in Pakistan and West Asia gave wide coverage to the landmark ruling but recognition was tempered by suspicion of the BJP's intentions.
ANKITA PANDEY reports

The Daily Star report 

 

A day after India’s Supreme Court invalidated instant triple talaq, the Khaleej Times of the UAE pointed out that at least 19 countries, including the UAE, “have enacted laws to deal with 'talaq-e-biddat' (instant triple talaq).” Pakistan’s Dawn, The Nation, and Daily Times also noted that India’s neighbours have already banned it.

Another point that caught the attention of the media in the sub-continent and West Asia was the multi-religious composition of the Supreme Court’s bench. The Daily Star published a separate news item on the bench’s composition. Several Pakistani English dailies (Dawn, The Express Tribune, The Nation, The News, and Daily Times), Khaleej Times, Al Arabiya (online news portal/The UAE), and Hurriyet Daily News (Turkey) also highlighted this fact.

However, Dawn and other newspapers added that “Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has long pushed for a uniform civil code, governing Indians of all religions.” They added that the General Secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board claimed that this issue “was made into a media campaign to malign the image of Muslims.”

"The newspapers indirectly pointed out that India has belatedly decided to reform this controversial practice that has already been banned in much of the Islamic world"

 

All these newspapers also mentioned the names of a few victims of triple talaq, including Shayara Bano, who fought the case in the Supreme Court. Khaleej Times published a photograph of a victim and also published two letters to the editor written by women that welcomed the court’s decision.

The coverage of the issue in the news media of Islamic majority countries in India’s neighbourhood highlighted three key aspects. First, the newspapers indirectly pointed out that India has belatedly decided to reform this controversial practice that has already been banned in much of the Islamic world.

Second, they highlighted the inclusive, multi-faith nature of the Indian judiciary. Most of them characterised India as a secular country, but also noted that a Hindu nationalist party was in power and that the issue of triple talaq is linked to the proposed uniform civil code.

Third, they gave a human face to the problem of triple talaq by including the perspective of victims in their coverage. However, Al Jazeera did not note the multi-faith composition of the bench and it also did not cover victims’ responses to the ruling in its otherwise extensive coverage.

Apart from the Khaleej Times which alone covered the issue on its first page, The Daily Times and Al Jazeera provided significant space to the subject. Unlike other newspapers that only referred to the responses of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the Daily Star also noted that the Board, along with the All India Shia Personal Law Board, called it “a victory of Islam and Muslim women in the country.” But The Daily Star was also the only one to publish a photograph of women protesting against interference in Muslim Personal Law.

Al Jazeera provided the most extensive coverage that also differed from the rest of the media discussed here as it gave a lot of space to those critical of the development. It dedicated a news item to the responses on social media (“Social media reacts to ban on instant divorce”).

Al Jazeera updated and published an old news item that reported different perspectives on triple talaq. This item criticised the survey conducted by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (a petitioner in the case) for not disclosing its survey methodology, but did not raise similar questions while quoting Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad who claimed that “Out of 4,710 people, 525 divorces took place. Out of this only one divorce was by SMS. Therefore, they have played it out of proportion. Media has further portrayed as if every Muslim is divorcing through SMS.”

"Al Jazeera provided the most extensive coverage that also differed from the rest of the media discussed here as it gave a lot of space to those critical of the development."

 

Also, Al Jazeera only briefly covered the response of those supportive of judicial intervention in this matter. Yet it published a standalone interview with Faizan Mustafa who suggested that “Court judgments do not bring about social reforms. “Now the only thing is if a Muslim male does triple talaq and if the wife goes to the court, the court won't recognise the divorce. Now, will the girl go back [into the marriage]?” asked Mustafa. He added that “Marriage is a relationship of love; the courts cannot force you to love each other. That's why I say, in these matters courts have a limited role.”

Al Jazeera was silent on whether Qatar has banned the practice, even though it pointed out that the practice is banned in several Muslim countries including Pakistan.

To conclude, the Indian Supreme Court’s decision on triple talaq attracted attention in India’s extended neighborhood, where several newspapers published news items based on AFP and other sources. The Daily Star carried a report by its own correspondent as well. Most newspapers implicitly noted that the measure was long overdue, but also seem to mute their recognition of the historic character of the decision in light of the political party in power. 

 

Ankita Pandey is an independent researcher based in Bengaluru

 

 

The Hoot is the only not-for-profit initiative in India which does independent media monitoring. Your support is vital for this website. Click here to make a contribution.
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The back story of the huge apology notice published by the Hindustan Times on September 18 (see this Hoot brief) is to be found in the record of sittings of the Privileges Committee of the Lok Sabha. The apology was published three days after the last sitting to which the editor of HT was summoned. The notice given by  Andhra Pradesh MP Jithender Reddy was taken up five times by the Committee  between July end and September 15. This too has fed into the wide ranging speculation over the reason for the resignation of the current editor of the paper, Aparisim Ghosh.                       

Did it really take the Hindustan Times almost six months to figure out that it had got the figures on the attendance  in Parliament of certain MPs, wrong? Or is there more to why it carried a front page apology covering half the page on September 18? It said, "In the edition of March 24, 2017, we had, because of a technical glitch, erroneously reported the attendance in Parliament of certain MPs. Below are the accurate figures. Hindustan Times offers an unconditional apology, and deeply regrets any offence or inconvenience caused." Of the seven MPs whom it said had 100 per cent attendance  not one had it, the paper listed six other names for this statistic. And the list of those whom it said had the worst attendance in Parliament is headed by Abhijeet Mukherjee, the former President's son, who in fact has a figure of 97 per cent attendance.                                    

View More

The Washington Post  is rolling out Talk  a new commenting system that will allow the paper to better engage with readers who comment on its stories and help promote civil conversations. The software was developed by the Coral Project, a collaboration between The Post, the NYT and Mozilla, funded by a grant from the  Knight Foundation. The Post will integrate Talk with ModBot, its AI-powered comment moderation technology.                                                                         

Propublica has built a  Facebook bot which is a tiny computer program that automatically converses with you over Facebook Messenger to determine you experiences with reporting hate speech on Facebook. Its says its objective is to learn more about Facebook’s secret censorship rules and what the social media determines is hate speech. (Nieman Lab)                                       
View More