What happens when a traditional saas decides to stand up for a bahu’s right to go with her friends, unaccompanied by husband or members of the family, to a cinema or a mall? Sure, the mother-in-law’s decision to suddenly turn ‘liberal’ may stem from her desire to win over her darling son, who has, on more than one occasion, shown his displeasure how unkindly his wife is treated in a household by elders yoked to ‘tradition’.But at the end of the day, the fact that the daughter-in-law finds support from an unexpected quarter, which actually carries heft, should bring good cheer to those who find hidebound ‘domestic politics’ loathsome.But what if instead of welcoming what is clearly beneficial, and empowering, for women largely treated as chattel, the mother-in law’s decision becomes so suspicious and suspect — coming as it does from the mother-in-law — that a woman being supported for ‘being her own man’ suddenly becomes a rotten thing when seen from ‘liberal’ quarters?This is pretty much what has happened with the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill that was opposed by a united Opposition in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday. As soon as Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad introduced the bill in the Upper House, a week after it was passed in the Lok Sabha unimpeded by parties including the Congress, all hell broke loose.Suddenly, the BJP government stood exposed in everyone’s X-Ray glasses vision as trying to push forth a law that was deeply — and oh-so-conveniently — anti-Muslim.So, what has been the incredible point of difference that has made the Congress oppose a bill that it supported in the Lok Sabha just a week ago? It seems it is about ‘criminalising’ the breach of a ‘civil’ law.Talaq-e-biddat — instant triple talaq — according to those opposing the current bill, should remain a civil offence — while dowry, domestic violence and bigamy are considered criminal, not uncivil.The fact that there are many Muslim women who have opposed the anti-instant triple talaq decree hardly makes it legitimate.If that was so, the ‘traditional saas’ would have been the epitome of women’s rights, suddenly remembering the plight when saas bhi khabi bahu thi. The problem, of course, lies elsewhere.It lies at the source of which entity is pushing for a law against (male) Muslims currently free — and actually utilise such freedom, however small their numbers may be — to divorce their wives by a trisyllabic statement.Just because the colonial British ‘passed’ the Bengal Sati Regulation in 1829 that outlawed the self/coerced-immolation of Hindu widows (with pressure from reformists like Ram Mohan Roy et al), it did not make the practice ‘racist’, ‘communal’ or wrong. There were enough Hindu women who have been recorded in history to oppose the law. It still hardly makes the ‘regulation’, despite doused in politics advantageous to the colonial administration, wrong.Of course, the BJP isn’t quite perceived as Lord Protector of Muslims. But like market forces, if electoral politics can push a government to criminalise a practice that would have perpetuated without it being made criminal, then more power to transformative electoral demand-supply politics.Instant triple talaq, like ‘quiet domestic’ atrocities committed by Hindus, is a blight. It would have been great if a certified secular party like the Congress had brought about a law — not a select committee discussing the issue till the pigs come home — which criminalises people who divorce their spouses at a drop of a hat. They didn’t. Surely, the law seeking to criminalise it is not to blame.