Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat on Monday supported the demand of Muslim women against instant and arbitrary talaq, but questioned the commitment of the BJP to gender justice, as its political icon Syama Prasad Mookerjee was the “most vocal, aggressive opponent” of the Hindu law reform.
In an interview with The Hindu , the CPI(M) Polit Bureau member said that personal laws affecting various communities needed to be reformed.
“Muslim women on the basis of their own experience have been raising this demand. We unequivocally support the demand against this particular practice of instant and arbitrary triple talaq. It is not there in most Muslim countries which substantiates the point that it is less to do with belief and more to do with male privilege,” Ms. Karat said.
Criticising the BJP stand, she said, “I must say I was quite surprised when I read their statements, or rather their sermons, about constitutional compliance and so on. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who is their icon, was the most vocal aggressive opponent of Hindu law reform. Have they ever opposed that thinking?”
“After so many years Hindu women continue to be discriminated against. Hindu succession laws still discriminate against women in spite of the 2005 amendments, the guardianship law is weighted against women, there are no rights in marital property, there are many such examples. Why don’t they address these issues?” she wondered. “In fact whatever little Hindu women have achieved under personal law reform is in spite of the BJP and the founders of the Jan Sangh. They are very selective about their approach to reform in personal laws.”
Asked about her view on the demand for a uniform civil code, Ms Karat said uniformity did not necessarily mean equality. “Once you become selective in deciding what should be uniform, you prove the point that uniformity does not necessarily mean equality. If the purpose and aim is equality then I believe that the way forward is to ensure reform in all personal laws while at the same time expanding the scope of secular laws,” she said.
