There’s No Debate: Karva Chauth and Triple Talaq Are Not the Same

Triple talaq and Karva Chauth are both symptoms of our patriarchal cultures, but the similarities end there.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Supreme Court have locked horns over the issue of triple talaq and consequently, the issue of the Uniform Civil Code. Legally, the issue isn’t easy to resolve; religion, ideology and politics form a viscous, unforgiving snare. However, for any champion of women’s rights, the way forward is clear. Triple talaq must be abolished, because it gives men limitless power over the women they marry.

On Wednesday, a large number of Indian women celebrated Karva Chauth. These women fasted until moonrise for “the longevity and safety” of their husbands. The beauty, clothing, and jewellery industries cash in heavily, encouraging men to “reward” their wives’ devotion and penance with gifts.

Indian media makes a big deal of Karva Chauth every year, venerating and celebrating the women who fast. Again, for any champion of women’s rights, Karva Chauth is a regressive religious ritual, because it demands sacrifices from women for their husbands. Traditionally, no demands are made of the men.

False Binaries, And a Poor Argument

This year, a faction of those in favour of triple talaq have argued that if the practice ought to be abolished, so should Karva Chauth. As far as arguments go, this is a terrible one. Yes, ideally, neither should exist. However, pitting one against the other is foolish, because all that it establishes is a false binary.

Religious though its origins may be, triple talaq is a law. For the Sunni women and men married under Sharia law, the consequences are legal and binding. In spirit, Karva Chauth is equally patriarchal and regressive, but it is not a law. However, as a religious ritual, the consequences, if any, are social.

My pointing out the difference isn’t mere pedantry; it is important to recognise that the argument is a poor, unconvincing defence for the existence of triple talaq. At the same time, it doesn’t absolve Karva Chauth of any blame.

Our Own Choices Will Not Always be Progressive

For those arguing that women who choose to fast for their husbands are feminists because it is “their choice,” remember that these choices are not made in cultural and religious vacuums. Even if they haven’t been coerced into fasting, their ‘choice’ is regressive, because it perpetuates a patriarchal religious practices.

It validates the dangerous argument that “Karva Chauth is not regressive; the women themselves have chosen to fast”. Remember, for some women, it never was a choice. Also, for those championing the men who are fasting with their wives, the gesture may be well-intentioned, but participating in a regressive ritual doesn’t make it “modern” or progressive.

As women participating in the struggle for equality and empowerment, we must remember that because society is patriarchally structured, we are often forced to make regressive choices, whether we like it or not. However, the first step towards emancipation is recognising our choices for what they are.

No feminist will ever demand that a woman not observe Karva Chauth or that they join the fight against triple talaq. What women finally do is their choice — informed or otherwise — but that doesn’t necessarily make it progressive.