fbpx

FULL TRANSCRIPT: Asaduddin Owaisi’s parliament speech opposing Triple Talaq Bill

5 mins read

Asaduddin Owaisi, President All India Majlis Ittehadul-Muslimeen (AIMIM), has opposed the Triple Talaq bill in the parliament on December 27 2018.

16th Speaker of Lok Sabha was Smt. Sumitra Mahajan.

Following is the transcript of his Urdu speech translated in English.

Madam, I would like to thank you that you have granted me permission to speak.

I speak as a father, as a brother, as an uncle and as a son, on behalf of cent percent Muslim women of this dearly nation, I would like to convey through this parliament to the Government that cent percent Muslim women of India absolutely oppose and reject this bill.

And the second matter is, Respected Madam/Speaker, the way this bill was presented, and I oppose this bill because according to the Indian constitution and the Article 14, Article 15, Article 26, and Article 29, and the preamble of our constitution which has clearly written in it—“guarantees liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship”, so based on this—I oppose it.

Respected Madam/Speaker, I would like to question the government through you, that what is your explanation that homosexuality has been decriminalized in our dearly nation – according to the judgment 377 – homosexuality has been decriminalized but you criminalize Triple Talaq?

A man and a man, and a woman and a woman can stay together and do whatever they wish, and you have no objection to it, and you have objection to Triple Talaq?

Why it’s imposed? Because it will be misused against us.

Further, respected Madam/Speaker, this government has appealed Supreme court to impose Adultery law for women, and Supreme court has decriminalized it. Adultery was decriminalized and you remained silent, but you criminalize the matter of Triple Talaq?

Madam, let’s consider the prevention of corruption act. You have decriminalized it that anyone can take money which is not meant for public benefit. But you criminalize Triple Talaq?

Respected Madam/Speaker, why is this law against the constitution? You said it correctly from the chair (where you are seated), that this custom is not among Hindus but among Muslims.

But Madam/Speaker, I would like to mention it with utter humbleness before you that, in our dearly country, according to the law of divorce, if a Hindu gets divorced, why does he get only one year of punishment, while Muslim gets three years of punishment? Is this not the violation of Article 14?

This act is against the “harm theory”.

And Madam, I would like to convey through you, our minister has aggressively said that, supreme court has termed it unconstitutional. I would like to learn from him, please show me the part of the judgment  where the majority of judgment has called Triple Talaq as unconstitutional?

Please, for the sake of God, please don’t make a mention of Supreme Court and misguide the parliament.

Madam/Speaker, I would like to ask Government through you, what did Bentham say? What did Montesquieu say?

Montesquieu said that, if law is not required, and if you introduce and enforce a law then it’s tyranny. You are initiating tyranny.

Madam, please listen to me.

Madam, you have kept tribals deprived of Hindu Marriage Act. Why did you do?

Hence, we speak about Article 26 and 29.

And Madam, I have listened to the great talented people here about Quran, and we call those who speak about Quran as “Fazeelatus-Shaykh” and “Shaykha”. What is left now? You have to proclaim Tawheed (monotheism) and finality of the Prophethood (of Prophet Mohammed ﷺ), and I invite you to it, please embrace it.

Madam, Sabrimala’s judgment was out, and you speak about equality, but where’s my equality? Your faith is your faith and my faith not mine? Is this not the violation of culture? Is this not violation of Article 29?

The intentions of the Government are not sincere.

Madam, now look at the surprising point, you are a woman, and please allow me to express this with humility, a man can run extra-marital affair with multiple-woman, and that’s not a crime, but if anyone calls Talaq thrice, then three years of imprisonment?

While Supreme court has clearly said, marriage is not terminated. If marriage is not terminated, where’s the question of punishment?

“Harm theory” – 377 is in front of you, and Madam, three years of punishment?

Communal riot acts like 148, 153A, 295 has three years of punishment. And if someone’s car hits a person and he dies, then two years of punishment.

Please read Bentham and Montesquieu, or get a fourth year student of any National law school, he will mentor you.

And yes, this is a fact, that marriage is contract in Islam.

I present a proposal, write a condition in the Nikah Nama (marriage contract) that if a Muslim man calls Talaq thrice, then he has to pay double or triple the amount of Maher (dowry given by groom to the bride). If any violation takes place, he goes to jail. It’s a contract and the act will be violation of contract.

You could also write, if anyone calls Talaq thrice, it will be considered only one. But you don’t do that either. We have a provision for it.

But, the intention is to imprison. They never favor women.

Who will give allowance?

What does a woman need? She needs a house, food on her table, and arrangement of her kids’ school fees.

Will you do?

Will you do?

Madam, I would like to ask you, Shayara Banu (Triple Talaq Petitioner) joined BJP, what have you done so far for her? Tell me. Have you done anything for her?

Madam, I am concluding. I am concluding.

There are hidden plans behind introducing these laws.

Madam, sexual minorities have choice as per section 377, why don’t religious minorities get choice?

There’s choice-jurisprudence in the Indian constitution. Won’t I get it?

Your law is against religion. You intend to dismantle the plurality. It’s quite clear.

You are not in favor of justice for Muslim women, in fact your hidden target was evident, when Attorney General in the Supreme Court said—terminate every law.

Mukhtar Sahab (while pointing towards him), Shia’s Segha law will also be terminated, so be careful.

Finally, Madam, #MeToo movement was started in the entire nation by the women. Where is the Minister (referring to MJ Akbar) who was standing here? Where is he now? Tell me?

[MLAs in the background shout: SHAME SHAME SHAME]

And you sheltered them in your party? You would have kicked him out, the one who raped women, the one who oppressed them. He was a mean fraudster. We call him in Urdu – “Totaye-Chasma”, and you sheltered them? And you show us the mirror?

Madam, please look, why I tell this – in our country 84% under-aged Hindu girls around 10 years of age are married, we made law against it. What happened? What happened, please tell me?

How about desertion? Over 20 Lac Hindu women are deserted after marriage. What about them? Please implement law against it.

Social evils have to be ended with everyone’s collective efforts.

I am ending it, Madam, and in conclusion I say – I tell the Government through you that, under your pressure, under your force, under your aggression, we shall not forsake our religion.

We shall live as Muslims till the end of times. We reject this bill, Madam!

%d bloggers like this: