Sorry for the interruption

Sir ? All of us must have experienced the upshot of irritation every time a television programme is interrupted by a commercial break. Gone are the days when one could enjoy the snapshots of the varied happenings in a stadium in between overs during a cricket match. The camera would veer around and pick up scenes which went on to create an ever more exciting narrative of the game. What we now have are inane advertisements instead. I wish a legislation limited the breaks to five per cent of the total viewing time.

Yours faithfully,
Kiran Nair, Calcutta

Just cause

Sir ? The apex court?s directive to the Orissa government to provide protection to the Muslim couple who were being denied their conjugal rights by their community, must have come as a boon to the couple (?Shield for talaq couple?, April, 22). The Muslim personal law would have required Nizama Bibi to marry another man, consummate the marriage and divorce him before she could remarry Ser Mohammad. What is particularly upsetting is the failure of a secular institution like the National Human Rights Commission to protect the couple from life threats from within their community. Even the Orissa police refused to help them in implementing the compromise decree issued by the Cuttack family court.

Such ineffectuality shows the worthlessness of the state institutions which are supposed to defend the interests of the people. If the apex court has to be approached to ensure justice to the victims of persecution every time there is a violation of rights, then what are these lower bodies there for?

Yours faithfully,
Surajit Das, Calcutta

Sir ? For varied reasons, issues related to the minorities, especially Muslims, are not discussed openly. But the recent controversy over the triple talaq pronounced by Ser Mohammad in a drunken state, and the ensuing chaos which saw community leaders refusing them the right to live as man and wife, raises certain unavoidable questions about the application of personal laws. If Ser Mohammad had uttered the talaqs in an inebriated state, then it could not have been his rational decision. Besides, if the couple had chosen to forget whatever happened, then why should Muslim clerics attempt to keep them apart? As it is, the practice of triple talaq is arbitrary and needs to be banned immediately. One also wonders why the NHRC and the Orissa police refused to intervene in the case, in spite of repeated appeals from the harried couple. Perhaps they did not want to earn the displeasure of the conservative sections of the Muslim community. If one does not stand up against outdated religious laws, then cases like Mohammad?s will go without being redressed.

Yours faithfully,
Jang Bahadur Singh, Jamshedpur

Sir ? Nizama Bibi and Ser Mohammad have been united, thanks to the Supreme Court directive. But one cannot help feeling the anomaly in the Muslim law which prohibits the consumption of liquor but acknowledges talaqs pronounced under its influence.

Yours faithfully,
Udita Agrawal, New Delhi

Sir ? The exile of Ser Mohammad and Nizama Biwi has hopefully ended with the favourable judgment of the Supreme Court. The couple needs to be congratulated for the courage they showed in keeping up their fight despite the discouragement from both religious and secular authorities. One hopes that the day will soon come when people will no longer have to spend their energy fighting against laws that meddle unnecessarily with the most personal aspects of their life.

Yours faithfully,
Subhasish Mohanty, Puri