The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment declaring the un-Quranic triple talaq (talaq-ul-bid’at) “void”, “illegal” and “unconstitutional”. It has been wholeheartedly welcomed by several activists groups, Muslim religious organisations and also the right-wing anti-Muslim outfits. The Chief Justice of India, using his power under Article 142, directed the Union of India to form a proper legislation on the matter.

But is this judgment going to serve Muslim women in any way?

There is a lot of noise as to who deserves credit for the decision but the credit must go to the Supreme Court bench of Justice R Dave and Justice AK Goel, which had taken suo motu cognisance and instituted a public interest litigation, ‘Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality’ in 2015, while delivering a very regressive judgment against Hindu women and girls. Because of this ‘judicial Muslim appeasement’, everyone ignored the plight of the deprived Hindu women and girls. The agenda was to rescue the Muslim women from triple talaq, and it became the foremost issue for 1.3 billion Indians.

But there are questions still unanswered. In 2002, the Supreme Court had already declared one instance of instant triple talaq as ‘invalid’ in the Shamim Ara and Daddu Pathan divorce case, known as Shamim Ara v. the State of UP, and nobody had challenged it, as a result, it became a settled law.

Yesterday, Justice Kurian Joseph said in the judgment that “…This Court in Shamim Ara v. the State of UP and another has held, though not in so many words, that triple talaq lacks legal sanctity. Therefore, in terms of Article 141, Shamim Ara is the law that is applicable in India…”

So, should we call it ignorance and a waste of the nation’s time if the Indian judiciary had settled the issue of triple talaq in 2002 itself? Why is the important “Shamim Ara law applicable in India” not being used and propagated? Why don’t people, women’s rights groups, and, especially, the judiciary know this, because Justices Dave and Goel have shown their ignorance while instituting a PIL in this regard? And similarly, we can ask if the recent judgment and proposed legislation will receive the same fate. We know that rulings and laws also have limitations.

We know that there are six major Islamic schools of thought, practiced by Muslims in India, and many of them are opposed to triple talaq and have various interpretations related to it. So, how can it be called a matter of all 180 million Muslims, who are not a homogenous entity? What is the reason for denying diversity among Muslims? How can we close the gate of legal pluralism from our constitutional framework? Why does prejudice against Muslims still prevail in the Supreme Court?

Muslims themselves are deeply engaged in resolving challenges like triple talaq and others. So, how will this judgment help them in their pursuit to ensure justice to Muslim women? Since December 2015, I was part of dialogues and negotiations related to this particular case, and I have closely witnessed many changes in the positions of several parties involved.

The change is coming from within, but I wonder if the current exercise has already sabotaged the efforts of the reforms. Those Muslims who used to listen to arguments against triple talaq and other regressive practices, would not listen to people like us because those championing the battle are the ones responsible for the environment of insecurity, discrimination and targeted violence against Muslims in India to begin with. The laws do make things better and try to enforce equality, but enforcing change by demonising the victims themselves cannot ensure any good.

Many times, oppressed societies close themselves to any voices or opinions in times of great crisis. They become more conservative because of persecution, and also because there are not enough efforts to acknowledge, empathise or even oppose this oppression. And there is no doubt that Indian Muslims are going through one of the dangerous eras in India, where their survival is at stake.

In newly proclaimed India, Muslims continue to live in fear and have started downplaying or hiding their distinguishing characteristics because propaganda, violence and political support for bigotry have encouraged many people to reveal their Islamophobia more brutally. And people committing hate crimes seem to operate with full impunity. Some Muslims have also started converting to Hinduism to ensure their survival.

The majoritarian winds are glorified everywhere — in Parliament, the media, the judiciary, and are helping the conversion of secular India into a Hindu rashtra. Therefore, the whole Supreme Court exercise seems more of a political plot, rather than a sincere judicially reformative effort.

There is no future of a nation as a state, which denies justice, where poverty and marginalisation are being enforced, where stereotypes and prejudices become the guiding force, where majoritarian mobs rule, and hate and violence are offered as food for satisfaction. The political drama in the name of triple talaq will do more harm to India by overtly moving towards the homogeneous hegemony of an ideology which assassinated the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhi.