Sabrimala Issue

 Sabarimala Temple row is all about the conflict between tradition and women rights.
 As per traditions and customs, women between 10 and 50 years of age were not allowed to
enter into Sabarimala Temple.
 But the situation changed when the Supreme Court on September 28, 2018, ruled that
restricting entry of women of menstruating age (between 10 and 50 years old) was
unconstitutional.
 However, the Kerala state government has been facing difficulties to execute the Supreme
Courts order due to massive protests.
 Main stakeholders of Sabarimala Temple are Travancore Devasom Board, Tantri (head
priest) family, Pandalam Royal Family, Ayyappa Seva Sangam etc.
 Lord Ayyappan is worshipped as a ‘Naishtika Bramhachari’ or a celibate for life. Therefore, as
per a notification by the Devaswom Board that manages the temple, women belonging to
the menstruating age are not permitted to enter the temple.
 The Supreme Court verdict on September 28, 2018, paved the way for the entry of women
of all ages into the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala in Kerala.
 The five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in its 4:1 verdict, said
banning the entry of women into the shrine is gender discrimination and the
practice violates the rights of Hindu women. It said religion is a way of life basically to link
life with divinity.
 The court observed that it can’t be oblivious to the fact of the case that a class of women is
disallowed due to physiological reasons (menstruation).
 The CJI said devotion cannot be subjected to discrimination and patriarchal notion cannot be
allowed to trump equality in devotion. While Justices R F Nariman and D Y Chandrachud
concurred with the CJI and Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice Indu Malhotra gave a dissenting
verdict.
 Justice Malhotra, in her dissenting judgement, said that issues which have deep religious
connotation should not be tinkered with to maintain a secular atmosphere in the country.
 However, the Supreme Court verdict – that the Sabarimala temple must be thrown open to
women of all ages – should be seen as another victory for the cause of gender equality.
 The Supreme Court on 13-11-2018 admitted all 49 review petitions seeking revisit of its
September 28 order to allow women of all age groups inside the Sabarimala temple. The
court has however not ordered any stay on its earlier verdict allowing women entry into the
hill shrine. The apex court will hear the 49 petitions on January 22, 2019.

Sabarimala Temple – Views of Those Who Support Women Entry

 Preventing women from entering the places of worship goes against Articles 14, 15, 19, and
25 of the Indian constitution, which deal with the right to equality, the right against
discrimination based on gender, freedom of movement and freedom of religion.
 The excluded women claim that barring them access to the inner sanctum of the shrine
violated their fundamental right under Article 25(1) to freely practice their religion.

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
  Right to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26(1) cannot “override the right to
practice religion itself”, as Article 26 cannot be seen to overrule the right to practice one’s
religion as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
 Restricting the entry of women into places of worship is one of the ways of imposing
patriarchy. Often the restrictions are based on patriarchy and not religion.
 Banning entry to the temple is discriminatory since it subverts the idea of everyone being
equal to God.
 From the abolition of Sati to temple entry proclamation to the abolition of untouchability,
reforms have been judicial or legislative.
 In April 2016, the Shani Shingnapur temple, which had barred women from entering its core
area for over 400 years, allowed women to pray inside the temple following the court’s
orders.

Sabarimala Temple – Views of Those Who Oppose Women Entry

 Women are banned from entering the temples to preserve ‘purity’. The reason cited in
Sabarimala case is that women during their menstruation period are not supposed to enter
places of worship.
 Referring to the presiding deity Lord Ayyappa as a Naishtika Bramhachari, many point out that
it is the celibate nature of the deity that forms the basis of the practice and not misogyny.
 Sabarimala was a separate religious cult with its own rules.
 Article 15 of the Constitution does not apply to religious institutions. Article 15(2) provides
citizens with the right to access to places such as hotels, shops and so on but nowhere does it
mention public temples.
 Some of those who oppose women entry argue that their actions are protected by Article
25(1).
 Article 25(2) pertains to only secular aspects and it is only pertaining to social issues, not
gender or religious-based issues.

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
Murder of Jamal Khashoggi and its implications

 On 2 October, Jamal Khashoggi, a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi government,
walked into the country's consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered.
 Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor has said Khashoggi was killed inside the building on the
orders of a rogue intelligence officer.
 Turkish officials however say they have evidence, including gruesome audio recordings, that
the journalist was killed by a team of Saudi agents on orders that came from the highest
levels. His body has not yet been found.
 The steady stream of disturbing allegations, along with the complex diplomatic situation,
means that it can be difficult to keep track of the full story.
 As a prominent journalist, he covered major stories including the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan and the rise of Osama Bin Laden for various Saudi news organisations.
 For decades, the 59-year-old was close to the Saudi royal family and also served as an
adviser to the government.
 But he fell out of favour and went into self-imposed exile in the US last year. From there, he
wrote a monthly column in the Washington Post in which he criticised the policies of Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS.
 In his first column for the newspaper, Khashoggi said he feared being arrested in an
apparent crackdown on dissent overseen by the prince since he became first in line to
succeed his father, King Salman.
 There is something about the graphic nature of the details that Turkish intelligence have
leaked that gives this story a special resonance: hearing about his fiancée waiting outside
the embassy, hearing about the bone saw, and the purported tape of the writer being
tortured. I think those details give this story an immediacy it wouldn't otherwise have.
Another piece of this is that a lot of people working on Saudi Arabia knew Jamal Khashoggi,
and I suspect a number of people in the U.S. government must have met him. Third,
journalists are feeling especially besieged these days, and he wrote for the Washington Post,
which is the hometown paper of the U.S. government. Overall, this isn't abstract for a lot of
people who matter. It has become very personal. If you combine the personal aspects of the
individual with the lurid aspects of his reported death, I think that combination begins to
explain why so many people are paying attention.
 It's unclear exactly what the Saudi report will say when it comes out, and it's unclear how
believable it will be. The first Saudi explanation—that he walked out of the consulate—
wasn’t believable, and current Saudi explanation—that he died in a fistfight—isn't especially
believable, either. To my mind, the response to the report will also shape what the impact of
this all will be inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
 Mohammed bin Salman has been embraced as a change agent. He was widely seen not only
as somebody who was leading the country toward greater prosperity but also as one who
was able to heal the breach that had opened between Saudi Arabia and the United States.
Part of Vision 2030 is convincing people that Saudi Arabia is a place that lives by observable
rules under which they can make money. This event is not necessarily the death knell for
Vision 2030, but people have to be persuaded that there's a way forward. If Saudi Arabia
seems not to operate under a logical framework, a lot of people in the business community
will think twice about investing the necessary money to make Vision 2030 work.
 And if it turns out that, in fact, the world doesn't want to deal with Mohammed bin Salman
anymore, and if it turns out that rather than healing the breach he's deepened it, I think the
3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,
Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
royal family in Saudi Arabia is going to have to think about what his role needs to be going
forward. After all, Saudi Arabia is a family business, and the most important part of the
family business is staying in business. What effect this all has on global opinion is going to
shape what effect it has inside the kingdom.

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
The Rafale controversy

 The Rafale deal has triggered a political controversy in India over the purchase of 36 twin-
engine fighter jets from France. The deal is estimated to cost India Rs 58,000 crore,
however, the Opposition in India has claimed that the deal has cost India thrice the amount
it was supposed to, and that an Indian partner favoured by the government was unfairly
chosen as a partner in the deal.
 In April 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that India will buy French-
manufactured Rafale fighter jets from Dassault Aviation, a French aircraft manufacturer
which had won the bid to manufacture the 126 aircraft.
 The Rafale jets were chosen in 2012 during the UPA II tenure over aircraft offers from
United States, Russia and Europe. The original plan was to buy 18 off-the-shelf jets from
Dassault and 108 others would be put together by India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
(HAL), located in Bengaluru, to boost the Make-In-India initiative.
 However, in 2016, after initial hiccups over the cost of the deal, the BJP-led government
decided to buy 36 ‘ready-to-fly’ aircraft from France.
 In September 2016, India signed an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with France where
India would pay Rs 58,000 crore (7.87 billion euros) for the 36 twin-engine fighters. Around
15 per cent of this cost is being paid in advance. Including the 36 aircraft, India would also
get some latest weaponry like the Meteor and Scalp missiles.
 The agreement included an offset clause, which stated that of the total 7.8 billion euros,
France would invest 20 per cent into local production of the Rafale components to further
the Make-in-India initiative and 30 per cent will go into various aeronautical and military
research programmes in India.
 Out of around 75 firms listed under the offset clause, the makers of Rafale, Dassault
Aviation, was allowed to choose any company it wants for France to invest the said amount,
the deal stated.
 In November 2017, the Congress alleged the government was not being transparent about
the price of the deal. The party alleged that the NDA government was paying thrice the
amount for each aircraft than what the UPA had agreed upon
 The Congress has also alleged that the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Defence Limited had been
unfairly chosen as the Indian partner under the offset clause, claiming that this was done to
‘favour’ Anil Ambani’s company since the private firm has no prior experience in aerospace
manufacturing. Congress President Rahul Gandhi demanded that the government put on
public record the details of the deal.
 French President Francois Hollande's recent remark that the Indian government suggested
Reliance Defence for the Rafale deal and the French government had no say in the matter
triggered more controversy. Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court demanding a CBI
inquiry into the deal. The Defence Ministry put out a statement that Dassault had the
freedom to choose the Indian company and neither the Indian government nor the French
government influenced that decision.
 The government has maintained that the deal made is completely transparent but it was
not possible to put on record the details of the deal since this information was termed as

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
 classified under the inter-governmental agreement between France and India. According to
officials, the agreement has a confidentiality clause in the deal which was added due to
national security concerns, which forbids the buyer and the seller from revealing any details
of the pricing of the deal.
 The Supreme Court the government to disclose before it the pricing of the Rafale Deal. A
bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice KM Joseph, while
hearing a petition seeking a CBI inquiry into the deal, stated that it would like to be apprised
of the details with regard to the pricing or cost, particularly, the advantage thereof.
 When Attorney General KK Venugopal told the court that it might not be possible to disclose
the cost, the court asked the Centre to submit an affidavit explaining the "difficulty" in
sharing the information on pricing. The court also sought further details that could
"legitimately come in the public domain with regard to the induction of the Indian offset
partner (if any) be also furnished to the counsels for the parties, as well as the petitioners in
person." However, the court clarified that details which the government may, at this stage,
consider to be "strategic and confidential" be submitted to the court without sharing it with
the counsel for the petitioners.
 The verdict concluded the allegations were mere “individual perceptions.” The court refused
to go into a “fishing enquiry.” It ruled out any evidence of “commercial favouritism” towards
Reliance Defence as India had no role in choosing an IOP. It said the petitions were “taking
advantage” of Mr. Hollande’s statements. The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Gogoi,
said there were no doubts about the suitability of the Rafale jets. The petitioners may file a
review petition, which will go before the same Bench. The correction application may come
up for an open court hearing in January.

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
Metoo Movement

 The Me Too movement in India is a manifestation of the international Me Too

movement that is currently taking place in parts of Indian society including government,
media, and the Bollywood film industry. In India, the Me Too movement is seen as either an
independent outgrowth influenced by the international campaign against sexual
harassment of women in the workplace, or an offshoot of the American "Me Too" social
movement. Me Too began gaining prominence in India with the increasing popularity of the
international movement, and later gathered sharp momentum in October 2018 in the
entertainment industry of Bollywood, centered in Mumbai, when actress Tanushree
Dutta accused Nana Patekar of sexual harassment. This led to many women in the news
media, Indian films, and even within the government to speak out and bring allegations of
sexual harassment against a number of men.
 #Metoo has become a strong movement in India. It is courageous on the part of those large
number of women who are coming out in the open with their stories of workplace
harassment and unwanted sexual overtures from male colleagues. In a predominantly
conservative setting like that of our society, these acts are no mean feats. If not for any
other reason, these women need the support of society at large because they have
mustered the courage to speak up.
 Workplace harassment is not just a frivolous crime — it is a violent crime. Violence need not
always be physical. It can be mental. It can be emotional. Through words and deeds, a
person has the potential to outrage the feelings and emotions of another. This is much
easier and more hurtful in the context of sexual harassment and intimidation.
 In fact, this is the elephant in the workplace almost everywhere in India. We didn’t speak
about it much, didn’t do enough to arrest it, didn’t try to act against the perpetrators in a big
way. Social mores, stigma and familial sensibilities have thus far led the victims to silently
suffer violations without raising their voices too much. But that doesn’t mean it is a small or
a non-issue. At last, now when women have started speaking up, we realise that it is not just
a minor issue, but a monster.
 We must not forget that for every story told by women, there are dozens of stories untold.
Maybe those stories that find space in the media belong mostly to visible professions like
the media and film industry, but the victims are everywhere, from villages to rich urban
households. It is the fear of societal reaction and stigma that forces them to suffer silently or
in extreme cases, to end their lives. If the society stands up with those who raise their
voices, slowly but definitely, the menace will end and reform will set in.
 There could be some who will probably try to misuse the situation for their own ends. But
that shouldn’t be an argument to rubbish each and every voice, raised feebly and
desperately. This happens with every major reformist uprising. There could be instances of
people misusing many other laws as well. But that can’t be an argument against the law
itself. If anything, we must further strengthen the laws. Similarly with #MeToo, while those
accused of wrongdoing may have a right to defend themselves, one or two unfounded cases
can’t be held against the entire movement for the dignity, freedom and safety of women.
 One is not unaware of the dangers of naming and shaming by the women involved in doing

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
 so. But once an allegation is made, the immediate consequence is that of loss of reputation
of the man concerned. Nobody rules out the possibility of some innocents being subjected
to such innuendo and insinuation. These are the hazards that any reform entails. We must
guard against them, but shouldn’t use them to stall the reform itself.
 Already, the #MeToo movement has achieved one significant result — the hope that
workplaces will now be safer for women. There is a hope that men will think twice before
indulging in obscenities with their colleagues. In the process, if some women who took up
cudgels against their perpetrators had to endure infamy, ridicule or even court cases, let
them consider it as their sacrifice in the larger cause of protecting dignity and honour of our
women folk.
 Beyond the movement, the larger question is that of our attitude towards women. Our
society oscillates between two extremes. On the one hand, it is looking at women as mere
objects; while the other extreme is to subject them to countless restrictions in the name of
women’s protection. While objectifying women is wrong, equally abominable is the attempt,
in the name of women’s safety, to confine them to the four walls of the home. Equality and
independence should be the twin mantras in our treatment of women.
 Safety of women should be an important article of faith with any government. To that end,
we need stricter laws that ensure that those found guilty of workplace harassment are
punished. The Vishakha judgment guidelines do provide many safeguards, like having an
“appropriate complaints mechanism with a complaints committee” at all
workplaces.
 But what women need is not just security, but dignity. Dignity can be accorded by society,
not by laws. And with dignity comes equal opportunity and independence of thought and
action. It is unfortunate that some sections of our society still live with the regressive
mindset that freedom and equality are tantamount to promiscuity. It is among these
sections that women are subjected to undignified lives.

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
Triple Talaq Bill

 The Triple Talaq Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha after incorporating some of the
amendments proposed by the Opposition. The Bill seeks to imprison Muslim men who resort
to the practice of instant divorce. The passage of the Bill, however, wasn’t without drama in
the Lower House. After vociferous protests by the Opposition, which termed the Bill as
“unconstitutional”, they staged a walkout after their demand that it be referred to a select
committee was met with resistance from the treasury benches.
 Instant triple talaq or talaq-e-bidat is a practice that was challenged in the court. It is
different from the practice of “talaq-ul-sunnat”, which is considered to be the ideal form of
dissolution of marriage contract among Muslims.
 Under the latter form, once the husband pronounces talaq, the wife has to observe a three-
month iddat period covering three menstrual cycles during which the husband can arbitrate
and re-conciliate with the wife. In case of cohabitation between the couple, during these
three months, the talaq is revoked. However, when the period of iddat expires and the
husband does not revoke the talaq either expressly or by consummation, the talaq is
irrevocable and final.
 In the practice of talaq-e-biddat, when a man pronounces talaq thrice in a sitting, or through
phone, or writes in a talaqnama or a text message, the divorce is considered immediate and
irrevocable, even if the man later wishes to re-conciliate. The only way for the couple to go
back to living together is through a nikah halala, which requires the woman to get remarried,
consummate the second marriage, get divorced, observe the three-month iddat period and
return to her husband. The practice of talaq-e-biddat has been viewed as abhorrent in
theology but upheld as valid by law.’Declaring the practice of talaq-e-biddat as
“unconstitutional” may not balance out the gender parity among Muslims, because men still
reserve the right to talaq without resorting to legal course of action.
 Unlike in Christianity or Hinduism, the view of marriage is different for Muslims. Under
Muslim law, marriage is not seen as a sacrament but as a civil contract. The contract is
accepted between the two parties on the basis of mutual consent, after the utterance of
‘qabul’.
 Despite the Supreme Court setting aside talaq-e-biddat, the reason for two draft laws (2017
and 2018) and an ordinance (2018) is that the government feels "there is a need for State
action to give effect to the order of the Supreme Court and to redress the grievances of
victims of illegal divorce." However, laws like this have not proven to be effective in ending
social evils. More guidance within the community is required rather than treating it as a
criminal offence.
 Many people also fear that Muslim women will misuse the Act to take revenge on husbands.
Rights protection laws cannot always be scrutinised over the issue of misuse. The same
arguments were used to water down the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and other women's rights bills. The issue with the bill is that it does
not serve the intended purpose.
"The legislation would help in ensuring the larger Constitutional goals of gender justice and
gender equality of married Muslim women and help subserve their fundamental rights of

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com
non-discrimination and empowerment," the bill says. It has to be noted that banning the act
of triple talaq is not the issue. Gender justice cannot be achieved by demonising a
community over a civil contract.

3rd Floor, SWISS – The Business Hub, Near VINS Hospital,

Beside Haveli, BPC Road, Akota, Vadodara – 390 020
Ph: 98987 16256 | 7096555573 |Email: baroda@careerlauncher.com