II. The Dilemma

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, demanding maintenance from her husband. The decision was written by a Hindu and superceded Muslim personal law. As Prime Minister, Rajiv could not challenge the Supreme Court’s legal interpretation, but his Parliament could change the law itself. In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minster must have the support of the majority of Parliament, so a bill advocated by Rajiv would in all likelihood be passed. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Shah Bano, new legislation was proposed by alarmed Muslim politicians, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill. Ironically named, the bill actually reinforced Muslim law’s denial of ongoing maintenance to divorced women. This bill would exempt Muslims from section 125 of the criminal code, which had been used to override Muslim personal law in the Shah Bano case.

Should Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi stand by the Supreme Court decision to grant maintenance to Shah Bano or reinforce Muslim personal law through the Muslim Women’s Bill? Rajiv had become known for his youthfulness and modern, western approach to policy making. His attitude toward women and their rights was no doubt shaped by his own mother’s leadership role and his western education. Yet he needed his Muslim voters and recognized their alarm at this ruling in an increasingly hostile political climate. Should the only Indian Prime Minister ever to be photographed in jeans and a polo shirt take a stand in favor of Muslim tradition? (Tharoor 1997, 39) Consideration of the historical, political, and constitutional context could facilitate this difficult decision.

“Until he entered politics and had to appear to be a man of the people, he was often seen wearing designer jeans, Gucci shoes, a Cartier watch, and imported sunglasses. He did not wear the cloth cap associated with men of the Congress, and he shunned garlands and other symbolic badges of Indian politics.” --- Ved Mehta, Rajiv Gandhi and Rama’s Kingdom, p. 71-72.