In India, there is no law that prohibits interfaith marriages, but many families still prefer that their children marry within their own religion. In some communities, interfaith marriages can be controversial and may even face opposition from friends, family, or society at large.
However, many people in India are supportive of interfaith marriages and believe that love and mutual respect should be the foundation of any relationship, regardless of religious differences. Additionally, there are many legal protections in place to ensure that the rights of all individuals involved in an interfaith marriage are respected, including the Special Marriage Act of 1954.
Interfaith marriages are permitted even without conversion. According to Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, the parties to a marriage must notify the marriage officer in writing that the union is intended to be solemnized under the Act. The Act permits individuals to be married while maintaining their religious beliefs.
A Muslim guy and his Hindu partner issued the requisite legal notification to the Gujarat district’s marriage commissioner in November 2020. The pair produced a scene and spent many hours being held at the Karanj police station. The woman claimed that in addition to her community expressing concerns about her choosing to wed someone outside of her faith, her family was also opposing her decision to wed her partner.
Right-wing individuals have a history of intimidating interfaith couples, as seen in a number of instances. Even those with contemporary liberal views want to change their partner’s faith, not just conservative people who do not want to face rejection from their religious group. This is done to get around the formal annoyance of needing to inform beforehand. And because of this, many couples opt to be married and have one of them convert to the other’s religion—usually the woman.
They believe that when the marriage is consummated, the families will be forced to respect the couple’s choice. But in many instances, even that doesn’t stop the families from interfering with or attempting to exert their control over a couple’s wish to cohabitate.
Shejin, a Muslim, wed Jyotsna, a Christian nurse, at age 26, and the woman’s family said that “love jihad” was involved. They even filed a petition for habeas corpus. (A court order directing the individual who is accused of holding another person’s body to bring it before the court.) When the lady spoke in court, it became clear that she had chosen to marry against their will and did not want to meet her parents.
Nisarkhan Jitubhai Ghasura wed his 29-year-old childhood buddy from a different group in a related incident that occurred in Gujarat. When the case made it to court, it was discovered that the marriage was consensual but that there had been opposition due to the bride and groom’s differing religious backgrounds. Several states, particularly those governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, have created legislation to regulate such unions in the meantime.
A commission has been established in Maharashtra to oversee interfaith unions. According to the government decision, complete information should be acquired about all such weddings, regardless of whether they are unregistered, take place in a house of worship, or include an elopement.
This action disregards the agency of adult women to act on their wish to start a family with someone else of their choosing and to decide not to have any links to their family of origin. It uses Aftab-Shraddha as the justification for its use. However, it conveniently ignores many instances of gas-lighting, emotional blackmail, cruelty, marital violence, and, in extreme circumstances, even murders committed by one’s own family of origin in the name of “honor killing”—all of which are acknowledged facts. These are all examples of patriarchy at its worst.
The state shouldn’t have any control over people’s brains, lives, or beds, especially not women’s. No one, not even parents, has the authority to control the decisions made by adults of any gender. Because of how deeply ingrained the patriarchal attitude is in society, it would be difficult to apply the rule that would be created in response to this news in a way that is fair to everyone. Considering how far off that goal still is, introducing such a renowned mechanism would only serve to increase tensions and struggle within the community.
Adopting such a government decision will only result in the state apparatus taking on new roles as watchdogs. It would only serve to further impede women’s ability to develop fully, to which they are fully entitled, excluding the self-described “protectors” of women, and it would make life even more difficult for them overall.
It is necessary to stop this. Such acts of moral policing involve treating adult offspring as property (with an entitlement mentality) rather than viewing them as persons capable of making their own journey into uncharted territory to reach their full potential and realize their own vision.
As strange as it may seem, moral policing—whether conducted by families or the government—creates a craving for rebellion to the point that people opt to put their own lives in danger rather than follow or submit.
If this form of moral policing is not opposed quickly, it might become excessive, as it has in Iran. In reality, moral policing and the insistence on adhering to archaic standards cause more violence than the acceptance of people as individuals with their own choices. It is important to approach the situation with objectivity.
Several incidents of harassment of Muslims have been documented around the nation in recent years, including mob lynchings, social media trolling, the Bulli Bai case, the pardon of rape convictions, and the bulldozing of the homes of the minority population. Therefore, it is necessary to consider if the execution of this notification will provide the right-wing party, which now controls both the state and the federal government, with greater power to support its escalating mob mentality. To rule that out would be naive.
Last but not least, shouldn’t the state respect a person’s right to privacy and freedom of choice? Furthermore, would the situation have been handled the same way if Imran had been Akshay, Rohit, Dev, or John?
There are several examples of interfaith weddings that have succeeded in situations like Shraddha and Aftab’s. Therefore, the announcement is nothing more than an effort by a majoritarian state to promote patriarchal problems and use them as a political tool.
Nobody’s decision, expression, or voice should be dictated to, influenced by, or judged by the state. Its responsibility is to guarantee the impartial enforcement of law and order in a way that upholds India’s constitution and promotes equality, justice, and freedom. However, it appears that none of that is feasible given how the notice has been implemented.
