Consider this, when you were a kid and you cried for a toy and your mom used to deviate you with a bigger *jumla* like, I will take you to Disney Land or something of this sort, everyone has faced it. I strongly believe that this is the same thing that our government with media has done recently.

To my readers, i would like to inform you that this purely my view and has nothing to do with hurting any sentiments, culture or religion.

  1. 2 civilians, policeman among 4 killed in Kashmir terror attack Link

  2. Pak-Based Terror Groups Will Continue Attacks In India: US Link
  3. In Beheaded Soldier Paramjit Singh’s House, Family Struggles To Keep News Of His Death From His Wife Link

  4. Lieutenant Umar Fayyaz of 2 Rajputana Rifles, was killed in Shopian. Link
  5. Sukma attack: 2017 deadliest year, April 2017 deadliest month for CRPF Link

  6. Crucial For India To Join This China Initiative Link (Question is why the man who hated china so much during 2014 election is yearning for this summit. WHy cant we just boycott everything?)

There is more to it my dear friends. I am not blaming anyone. But the question is did we forget the actual news and forgot the 63 martyrdom in Kashmir alone this year? Why isn’t the guy who got trolled by the man whom he was so desperately trying to hunt down asking the real question to the man with 56″ Chest?

I am not against any political party but it seems that anyone who asks question is termed anti-national. So coming back to the real point why is this triple talaq a thing in India, yes this is the obstinacy of the religion and we all want gender equality, don’t we?
All the supreme leaders in the country knew that supreme court will not take a call in religious matter! it was evident and everyone knew it, it does-not take a rocket scientist to understand that SC may give suggestions but it will not give a verdict on such matters: Don’t believe me, just find below the discussion in SC yesterday:

Triple Talaq worst, undesirable form of marriage dissolution among Muslims: Supreme Court


1. In the hearing today, former Union Minister and senior advocate Salman Khurshid, who is assisting the court in the matter, said the Supreme Court is not interfering with Islam by discussing the matter. “Islam has been affected by the synthetic culture of India. The court doesn’t have to transform Islam into a human face. It is not interfering in the religion, it is rather helping the religion,” he said.

2. Khurshid made the remarks in response to Chief Justice Khehar’s queries. “Is triple talaq a customary practice or something which is fundamental to religion? The question is: is it customary or a Shariah (Islamic) law? Can something which is sinful be a part of Shariah? There are some people who consider death penalty as sinful but it’s legal?”, he asked.

3. At this, Justice Nariman – one of the five judges hearing the matter – told Khurshid, “Please be careful about the difference between theory and practice. On the one hand, you say we can’t reform religion, and then you ask us to reform so that you are not punished by God.”

4. Chief Justice Khehar also asked Khurshid if triple talaq exists outside India, to which Khurshid answered in the negative. A number of Muslim countries have abolished the practice of triple talaq.

5. Appearing for one of the triple talaq victims, senior lawyer Ram Jethmalani called the practice unconstitutional. “We cannot enforce discrimination on women merely because of their gender. Any rule enforceable by court has to be non-discriminatory. Triple talaq is unconstitutional. Article 14 and Article 15 give protection from discrimination and right to equality. The method of triple talaq abhorrent must be done away with,” he said.

6. In its day-long hearing on Thursday, the apex court’s constitution bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar also made it clear that the issue of polygamy among the Muslims may not be deliberated upon as it is not connected with the triple talaq issue.

7. The government’s counsel made it clear on Thursday that triple talaq as a form of divorce was against gender justice and asserted that it was not part of the religious tenets.

8. Assailing the practise of triple talaq, senior counsel Indira Jaising said that if the free informed consent of the woman was imperative for the union of two people in marriage, then how could the unilateral act of divorce survive. Telling the bench that triple talaq was an extra-judicial act and thus unconstitutional, Jaising told the court that can the status of a woman be changed unilaterally, which she described as “civil death”.

9. Jaising, who appeared for the intervenors Bebak Collective and Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, told the bench that all the personal laws should be subject to fundamental rights and “constitution should not stop where personal law starts and all the personal laws, be it of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and other, should stand the scrutiny of the fundamental rights”.

10. Another former Union Minister and counsel for All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Kapil Sibal, called triple talaq “a non-issue, as no prudent Muslim would wake up one fine morning and say talaq, talaq and talaq”. Sibal said that either Parliament can enact a law or it should be left to the community itself to deal and the court should not interfere on the issue.

Since you now know that there was no verdict as of such, it has to be a law or the community should bail out a law and people like us should leave contrariety and move ahead think of smarter things.

Since media has done some amazing job in last few weeks, some spent money and efforts to find Dr. Shashi Tharoor, which ended up in a huge disaster for them, in the meanwhile some tried to find out the victims of triple talaq and some even managed to look into what Yogi ji ate this week. The funniest was that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi are facing IT probe (Not proven) but media has already passed its verdict that they are the culprit. A round of applause to all of them. They successfully managed to hide the truth behind the curtain and let the real stake holders slip aside.



%d bloggers like this: