27 October 2004
Last year Nazma Bibi, an Indian Muslim woman married to an poor laborer with a drinking habit, got into an argument about money with her husband, Sher Mohammad. Mohammad, who was drunk at the time, shouted “talaq, talaq, talaq,” a renunciation that many Indian Muslims accept as an instant, irreversible divorce. Though Mohammad repented, and Bibi wished to remain married, the couple’s neighbors took the “divorce” seriously, and have prevented their reuniting by beating Mohammad, slapping, humiliating and firing Bibi’s father, ostracizing Bibi, preventing her from drawing water at the local well, and having her son expelled from school. The only method for the couple’s remarriage that the community finds acceptable is if Bibi performs “halala” by marrying a different man, consummating that marriage, and divorcing again. What makes this more than another fundamentalist horror story, is that, thanks to India’s concern with “protecting” religious freedom and customs, Bibi’s case isn’t really exceptional. As Dan Morrison writes in Legal Affairs, India recognizes religious law as long as it doesn’t violate constitutional law, but in practice, poor, rural women are unlikely to approach a civil court over a family matter. Moreover, in response to massive Muslim protests over government interference with marriage and divorce laws, the Indian government passed the Muslim Women Act, which exempts Muslim men from alimony regulations that apply to the rest of the public, and the Bombay High Court has ruled that civil judges presiding over Muslim divorces should keep Koranic law in mind while deciding the case. (Thanks to Alice Dong.)