Triple talaq violates constitutional values and provisions of Quran and Sunna. Even the (All India Muslim) Personal Law Board in their Compendium of Islamic Laws (Page 137) describes it as an innovation (Bidat), which means something that was not part of the original scheme. They say it is bad in religion but good in law. It defies common sense to defend something bad in religion in the name of religion. I strongly favour outlawing triple talaq, but simple banning will not solve the problem. Experience from Pakistan suggests that. Triple talaq is banned there since 1961, yet the Muftis issue fatwas to validate it and the common Muslims, as they lack education , accept the fatwa in defiance of the law. Therefore, the banning of triple talaq should not be merely declaratory. The need is to provide for some deterrence like minimum three years’ rigorous imprisonment for anyone who defies the ban and resorts to triple talaq divorce. The Muslim jurisprudence admits that triple talaq was punishable during the time of Caliph Umar and he awarded 40 lashings to a person who pronounced three divorces in one sitting.The affidavit filed by the central government is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India. The paramount duty of any government is to uphold the law of the land.A body that claims to be religious must work to promote Islamic values like compassion, mercy, charity, patience, gratitude and liberality. But Personal Law Board is not concerned with religion, it is interested in religious laws only. Because, the law is enforced through an agency and they see themselves as the enforcement agency. It operates through fatwas and it gives them great sense of power and domination over others. The Board opposes reform because it would result in diminishing its powers particularly over the uneducated masses. Maulana Azad had said in 1946, "Muslim history is replete with the misdeeds of clerics who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period."If BJP is the factor, then did the Personal Law Board in 1986 launch a raucous and aggressive protest and force the Congress government to reverse the Shah Bano judgment? These alibis are not going to work. The times have changed and there is great deal of awareness among Muslim women who want the same constitutional rights. They see no contradiction in securing their rightful due and their religious faith. I am not going to discuss the UP polls. When I had resigned from the government in 1986, there were no polls. To me, this is not a partisan political issue, it concerns human rights.More than the governments this issue relates to lack of awareness among Muslim masses. Now the situation has significantly changed. Muslim women are fighting their own battles with many of their groups in many major and small cities doing amazing work to create awareness and empowerment. Today, they do not need someone like me. The whole credit for taking the fight to a level where the government has also come out in their support goes to the Muslim women. As far as I know, the practice of triple talaq has been banned in almost in all Muslim countries including Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan etc.That is a very correct position. Triple talaq is an enormity that violates both the letter and spirit of Quran as I have already elaborated. UCC is a constitutional mandate. Article 44 obligates the state to endeavour to secure a UCC throughout India. Time has come to get rid of feelings of fear and suspicion. India is a land of spirituality and no religion or its adherents need to feel threatened. Right to religion is a personal right, a sacred right. But this right is not an unrestrained right. Religion inspires you to go ahead with social reforms and the Constitution makes it clear that right to religion shall not prevent the state from framing a law for social welfare. Articles 14 and 15 obligate the state to ensure equality and no discrimination based on religion, race, gender etc. The object of UCC, naturally, will beI have no idea what Congress will do. But I had the feeling that Rajivji was not very happy after undoing the Shah Bano verdict. Recently when I read Digvijaya Singhji ,quoting Rajivji having said something to the same effect, my feeling was confirmed. I would also like to recall what Pandit Nehru said to Taya Zinkin, a British journalist in the late 1950s. When she asked him to describe his greatest achievement, Panditji said: "I succeeded in securing rights for my Hindu sisters which were so far denied to them." On being asked about his disappointment, Panditji said; I could not do the same for my Muslim sisters." I hope that with Soniaji as head of the Congress will be more understanding towards gender justice and will work to realise the dreams of Panditji.I did not feel betrayed by anybody. Basically this question is raised because I resigned from the government and many people evaluate things in terms of power and political positions. There cannot be any doubt that Rajivji was very modern in his approach and his sympathies were with Shah Bano and other destitute women. In fact his noting on the file relating to Shah Bano clearly ruled out any concession to a fundamentalist viewpoint. Later he came under tremendous pressure from Personal Law Board and Muslim leaders like Najma Heptulla. But what really weighed was the advice of senior Congress leaders like Narasimha Rao and Arjun Singh who felt that social reform should come from within the community and the government should avoid confrontation with bodies like Personal Law Board.May be at some point, when I wanted to go back (during early tenure of Narasimha Rao) it was not acceptable to them and later when they (Sonia Gandhi-led Congress in 2004) asked me to join, I had already committed myself (to Vajpayee).