Polygamy Ban in Indian State Sparks Divisions Among Muslim Women

In New Delhi, Shayara Bano breathed a sigh of relief as a law prohibiting polygamy was enacted in her small Indian state, marking the end of a lengthy struggle that included her own case before the nation’s Supreme Court.

“I can finally say that my fight against age-old Islamic rules regarding marriage and divorce has been successful,” stated Bano, a Muslim woman whose husband opted for multiple wives and divorced her through the utterance of “talaq” three times. “The provision in Islam allowing men to have multiple wives simultaneously had to be put to an end,” she added in an interview with Reuters.

However, Sadaf Jafar did not share Bano’s enthusiasm for the new law, which eliminates practices such as polygamy and instantaneous divorce. Despite her own legal battle against her husband for marrying another woman without her consent, Jafar remained cautious, stating, “Polygamy is permissible in Islam under strict rules and regulations, but unfortunately, it is often misused.”

The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand has caused a division among women in India’s largest religious minority, even among those whose lives were deeply affected when their husbands entered into multiple marriages.

For some, like activist Bano, aged 49, the new provisions are a long-awaited assertion of secular law over parallel Sharia rulings concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and succession. However, for others like Jafar, Muslim politicians, and Islamic scholars, the move is seen as an unwelcome ploy by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party.

The adoption of the code in Uttarakhand is expected to pave the way for other states governed by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to follow suit, despite opposition from leaders of the 200 million-strong Muslim community, making India the world’s third-largest Muslim country.

BJP leaders have hailed the new code as a significant reform, grounded in India’s 1950 constitution, aimed at modernizing the country’s Muslim personal laws and ensuring complete equality for women.

A 2013 survey revealed that 91.7% of Muslim women across the nation believed that a Muslim man should not be permitted to have another wife while already married to the first.

Nonetheless, many Muslims accuse Modi’s party of advancing a Hindu-centric agenda that discriminates against them and imposes laws infringing upon Islamic principles. Sharia allows Muslim men to have up to four wives, with no stringent rules prohibiting the marriage of minors.

Jafar, who has contested elections with the main opposition Congress party, views the passage of the code as a tactic by Modi’s government to cast Islam in a negative light and divert attention from critical issues such as improving the livelihoods of Muslims.

Although the Supreme Court declared Islamic instantaneous divorce unconstitutional in 2017, the ruling did not extend to banning polygamy or other practices perceived to violate women’s equal rights.

In addition to prohibiting polygamy, the new code establishes a minimum marriageable age for both genders and ensures equal shares in ancestral property for adopted children, those born out of wedlock, and those conceived through surrogate births.

While BJP leaders and women’s rights activists argue that the code aims to eradicate regressive practices, some Muslim politicians contend that it infringes upon the fundamental right to practice religion.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has criticized the code as impractical and a direct challenge to India’s multi-religious society.

“Banning polygamy is illogical because data shows that very few Muslim men have more than one wife in India,” stated board official S.Q.R. Ilyas, asserting that the government lacks the authority to question Sharia law.

Residing in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh with her two children, Jafar emphasized, “Islam offers sufficient provisions for leading a life of dignity. What we truly need is swift justice for women fighting for their dignity, rather than the imposition of this code.”