Going by the events around the time the Shah Bano verdict was overturned, Vinta Nanda examines Rajiv Gandhi’s rationale, exploring the Ram Janmabhoomi movement’s role in 1980s unrest and the crucial measures to mitigate communal tensions.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 10th July 2024, ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The ruling came in the case of Mohd Abdul Samad versus State of Telangana, where Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih delivered separate but concurring judgments affirming the rights of Muslim women. The case involved a man challenging a Telangana High Court order directing him to pay ₹10,000 as interim maintenance to his former wife.

The Court clarified that if a Muslim woman gets divorced while her application under Section 125 CrPC is pending, she can also seek recourse under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. This act offers additional remedies alongside Section 125 CrPC.

The order rekindled memories of the Shah Bano Begum case of 1985, prompting mainstream media coverage to favour, as usual, the current BJP-led coalition while ignoring its otherwise regressive attitude on gender equality. The media's focus on the rights of Muslim women contrasts with its silence on other issues, such as the release and celebration of the murderers of Bilkis Bano’s family and the unaddressed accusations against Brijbhushan Sharan Singh for his misconduct with female wrestling champions.

The 1985 Shah Bano case placed the issue of Muslim women’s maintenance under Section 125 CrPC at the forefront of political discourse. Despite a unanimous decision by a Constitution bench, the verdict faced backlash from the Muslim community, which perceived it as interference with Islamic law (Sharia). The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and other Muslim organizations protested, arguing it infringed on their religious laws governing divorce and maintenance.  

Shah Bano Begum, a 62-year-old Muslim woman divorced by her husband Mohammed Ahmed Khan in 1978, filed a criminal suit under Section 125 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after Khan stopped paying her promised maintenance. In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour, directing her husband to pay maintenance, asserting that Section 125 of CrPC applies to all citizens regardless of religion. The court also suggested enacting a uniform civil code to ensure equal rights for women.

Rajiv Gandhi's decision to overturn the Shah Bano verdict in 1986, often criticized as appeasement towards the Muslim community, was aimed at maintaining communal harmony and political stability amidst rising tensions. The mainstream Indian media mischievously isolates the Shah Bano case, when discussing it, from the politics of the time. It deliberately turns the spotlight away from important facts, e.g. during this period, the RSS and the newly-formed BJP were gaining traction with the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which sought to build a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and that this movement fuelled potential unrest.

The Shah Bano case also exposed the tension between secular law and religious law in India in the 1980s. Hindu and Muslim women in India have faced different legal frameworks governing marriage and divorce. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which recognizes monogamous marriages and makes polygamy illegal, governs Hindu women. In contrast, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, recognized both monogamous and polygamous marriages for Muslim women, allowing a Muslim man to have up to four wives simultaneously. Divorce for Muslim women has been governed by personal laws, including Talaq (initiated by the husband), Khula (initiated by the wife), and Mubarat (mutual consent).

Both Hindu and Muslim women in India face challenges and benefits based on their respective personal laws. Efforts to address gender equality and provide better legal protection for women across all religious communities are ongoing and involve complex social, legal, and cultural considerations. Hindu women may have better protection against polygamy and more straightforward legal grounds for divorce, but face challenges like child marriage and dowry practices, which persist despite being punishable by law. Muslim women have faced issues due to the legal allowance of polygamy and limited post-divorce maintenance, but benefit from Mehr and have a clearer process for initiating divorce through Khula.

Rajiv Gandhi's decision to overturn the Shah Bano verdict through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act can be seen as a move to mitigate backlash from conservative Muslims and prevent potential communal clashes that would have been exploited by the BJP and RSS. The fact that his outreach to conservative Hindus through symbolic gestures like the shilanyas (foundation stone laying ceremony) for the Ram temple was an attempt to balance communal sentiments is never mentioned when discussions surrounding the Shah Bano case take place. The truth that Rajiv Gandhi’s broader vision included advancing economic reforms he believed would give momentum to progress and modernity, and transcend communal divides, and that by addressing concerns of both conservative Muslims and Hindus, he aimed to create a stable environment conducive to implementing these reforms, is ignored during such discourse.

Economic modernization was key to moving both communities away from entrenched conservatism towards a more unified national outlook. Obviously, this could not be done by Rajiv Gandhi or for that matter, anybody else overnight! This balancing act also reveals the complexities he faced in navigating India's diverse socio-political landscape while striving for long-term developmental goals.  

Rajiv Gandhi's attempts to modernize Indian democracy faced resistance from conservative Hindu groups like the RSS and BJP, who viewed his policies as threats to traditional values and national identity. The BJP, leveraging issues like the Shah Bano case and the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, effectively mobilized support against what they perceived as the Congress's compromise on Hindu interests and, in complete contradiction to that, secular principles. The opposition exacerbated the deep-rooted cultural and religious conservatism that continues to influence Indian politics.