The Supreme Court’s majority verdict against the legality of triple talaq has largely been welcomed by both the government and the more articulate sections of public opinion. Even those in the Muslim community that have misgivings over judicial interference in faith-based community practices appear to have chosen the path of tactical retreat in the belief that there are bigger battles to be fought over polygamy and the principle of separate personal laws. Certainly, the different judgments have ignited a hitherto lazy debate over reforms of Muslim personal laws, and for a civil code that goes beyond faith and custom and is applicable to all Indians.

The significance of the abolition of triple talaq shouldn’t be underestimated. The Supreme Court has heralded the first major modification of Muslim personal laws in 80 years. Nearly 30 years ago, a similar attempt to grant maintenance to divorced Muslim women had faltered because the Rajiv Gandhi government, despite enjoying a brute parliamentary majority, lacked the moral backbone to stand up to sectarian pressure. The Shah Bano saga is, however, unlikely to be repeated now. On the contrary, the end of triple talaq may energise attempts to enlarge the scope of gender justice through either legislation or judicial pronouncements.

India’s socio-political landscape has changed dramatically since 1987-88. First, and very reassuringly, the outlawing of triple talaq has been endorsed by a significant section of Muslim women, particularly from the middle classes. Unlike the past when it was left to the likes of Arif Mohammad Khan to fight a lonely battle, the past decade has witnessed an increasing number of Muslim women willing to speak out against gender injustice. A section of India’s population that had remained invisible in the past are now partially visible. On its part, the women’s movement has shed earlier inhibitions about not speaking out on injustices in ‘minority’ communities.

Secondly, and arguably for the first time since Independence, India has a government at the Centre that is not even remotely susceptible to political blackmail by the clerical orthodoxy. It is significant that apart from Mamata Banerjee and Lalu Yadav, most of the other mainstream ‘secular’ leaders were compelled to welcome the Supreme Court judgment. This, despite their stated position that personal law reform must flow from within the concerned community and not be imposed from above.

A desire to prevent Prime Minister Narendra Modi — who spoke about the regressive consequences of persisting with triple talaq in his Independence Day address — from running away with the credit and acquiring the mantle of social reformer, was a clear factor. Equally, there was the realisation that ‘minorityism’ now carries diminishing political returns. Three decades ago, Rajiv Gandhi was intimidated by the threat of a Muslim revolt against the award of a paltry alimony to an abandoned woman. Modi has no such fears. In Assam and Uttar Pradesh, the BJP demonstrated it is possible to override the sectarian veto through countervailing mobilisation. Paradoxically, the much decried ‘polarising’ approach attributed to Modi and Amit Shah has become the guarantor of the irreversibility of the triple talaq judgment. India’s liberal politics may have its charms but it has invariably succumbed to pressure from the ghettoes.

The real reason why scrapping triple talaq has drawn relatively less flak is because it was an apex court judgment. Had the court directed the government to sanctify the judgment with parliamentary legislation — the minority view of Chief Justice Khehar — the whole business would have become extremely cluttered. The very same parties that welcomed the apex court judgment would have developed second thoughts and been subjected to sustained pressure from Muslim orthodoxy. No doubt the BJP would have loved a battle that would have exposed the existential dilemmas of the ‘secular’ parties — Mamata at least is being honest in her espousal of old-fashioned vote bank politics — but the clash could well have been bitter and ugly, and even have spilled over to the streets.

By being clear in its verdict the judiciary has averted this tension. At the same time it has further increased India’s dependence on judge-made laws, a phenomenon that, in effect, undermines the supremacy of Parliament. It will be interesting to see if Modi’s New India can reclaim the turf in a future battle over polygamy.

In the meantime, India can reflect over why it took seven decades to undo a glaring injustice to Muslim women. And why in the end it was so remarkably easy. As Roosevelt famously said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”