Up live news 24 uttar pradesh
Hindu personal laws were comprehensively reformed, but why did Congress avoid reforming Muslim personal law for decades?: Dr Rajeshwar Singh
From Manusmriti to the Uniform Civil Code—why does Congress invoke one standard for one religion and another for others?: Dr Rajeshwar Singh
Taking a sharp dig at Congress’s repeated references to Manusmriti and its claims of standing for women’s rights, Sarojini Nagar MLA Dr Rajeshwar Singh questioned the party’s record on women’s equality, dignity and constitutional rights, and asked Congress to answer five fundamental questions.
Dr Rajeshwar Singh said that when Congress raises questions over Manusmriti and speaks about women’s rights and equality, it must also be prepared to answer questions about its own political history. The issue of women’s rights cannot be approached through selective outrage or political convenience.
First question — Shah Bano case, 1985–86: The Rajiv Gandhi government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively overturning the Supreme Court judgment granting maintenance to Shah Bano. Dr Rajeshwar Singh questioned whether political pressure and vote-bank considerations were placed above the constitutional rights of a woman.
Second question — Triple Talaq law, 2019: When the Modi government introduced legislation in Parliament to criminalise triple talaq, Congress opposed key provisions of the law. Dr Rajeshwar Singh asked why a party that claims to champion women’s rights did not stand firmly with Muslim women when decisive legislative action was being taken to protect their dignity and rights.
Third question — Uniform Civil Code: Article 44 of the Constitution directs the State to endeavour towards securing a Uniform Civil Code. Despite being in power for decades, why did Congress not take any concrete initiative towards this constitutional objective? Dr Rajeshwar Singh asked why the principle of equal rights should be invoked selectively when equality is a constitutional commitment.
Fourth question — Reform of Muslim Personal Law: The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 continues to remain in force, while comprehensive reforms were undertaken in Hindu personal laws in 1955–56 in independent India. Dr Rajeshwar Singh questioned why there was a different approach towards reform when women’s rights and equality were concerned, and why women’s rights should ever be determined by religion or vote-bank considerations.
Fifth question — Selective outrage over Manusmriti: Dr Rajeshwar Singh said Congress leaders have repeatedly raised questions over alleged discriminatory provisions concerning women in Manusmriti and various ‘Smritis’. He questioned why the same level of scrutiny and vocal opposition is not consistently applied to similar objectionable or discriminatory references concerning women in other religious or sacred texts. If the objective is genuinely to protect women’s rights, why should the standard change based on religion?
Dr Rajeshwar Singh said that women’s rights cannot be reduced to political slogans, speeches or social media posts. Genuine commitment means standing equally for the dignity, equality and rights of every woman, without allowing vote-bank considerations to determine the standard of opposition.
He said that under the leadership of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, the Central Government took decisive legislative action against practices such as triple talaq to protect the rights and dignity of Muslim women. Women’s empowerment means ensuring equal rights, dignity and justice for every woman.
Dr Rajeshwar Singh said Congress must look into the mirror of its own history before lecturing others on Manusmriti or women’s rights. From the Shah Bano case and triple talaq to reforms in personal laws and the Uniform Civil Code, the party must answer why the same standard of equality was not consistently applied. Women’s constitutional rights cannot be a matter of political convenience.