by Adwaith PB
Jab mia beevi raazi, to kya karega qazi? In the present political atmosphere, besmirched by an idée fixe for nationalism, an “illegitimate child of colonialism”, as claimed by Nandy, qazi (here, State) is adept in doing many things. The overwhelming majority in Indian states, with a de facto BJP dominance at the centre, paved the way for the enactment of anti-love jihad laws with extensively broad and vague terminologies. Euphemistically referred to as the ‘freedom of religion’ legislations, these laws substantially minimise the rights provided by Art. 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
Though anti-conversion laws are not exotic to our soil [Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Tamil Nadu (2002), and Jharkhand (2017)], the second generation of such laws, promulgated in Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh followed by Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand, proposed in Assam, Gujrat, Karnataka, and Haryana, inserted ‘marriage’ as a means of bogus conversion. These laws simply confer a communal taint to the prevailing laws on anti-conversion. Now, interfaith couples are legally obliged to serve a 60-day notice period before the District Magistrate (DM), who will instigate an inquiry on the matter, before formally entering into a contract of wedlock. Masked by the term ‘freedom’, aren’t these laws faithfully striving to stigmatize inter-faith marriages; contradictory to the Indian concept of secularism and religious freedom?
Though different in structure, all these laws have the same soul and consider marriage, as once pronounced, though overruled later, by the Allahabad High Court, as an unreasonable ground for religious conversion. However, these laws do not apply to marriages formalised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). These laws also make it clear that such marriages, done for the sole purpose of conversion, are a cognizable, non-bailable offense, and can be annulled by any family court. Furthermore, in Madhya Pradesh, along with the consenting inter-faith parties, the priest supervising conversion proceedings shall also serve a notice period before the DM [The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance, Sec.7]. In Uttarakhand, the parents or siblings of any of the consenting parties are empowered to oppose the marriage on the grounds that it is done for the sole purpose of conversion (or love jihad) [The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, Sec.4]. This provision makes it clear that the state is marching to the beat of society’s drums, which claims that the father of a girl child is the guardian of her chastity and ‘gifts’ her as a ‘prized possession’ to anyone whom he finds to be fit. Further, this clause invites the social institution of the family into a contract à deux.
According to a recent Pew research [Ref.17], 67% Hindus and 80% Muslims (65% Hindus and 76% Muslims) surveyed believe that women (men) from their religion shall not marry from another religion. In addition, the Uttarakhand act has shamelessly noted that the law is a result of an “agenda to increase” the strength of a religious community by converting “girls” from other religions into their own through marriages [The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, Note.4]. This note indicates, inevitably, the anti-secular nature of the law, attempting to halt the alleged ‘agenda’ of love jihad.
Recently, in an interview with NDTV, Rajnath Singh [The Hon’ble Defense Minister of India], in defense of the new laws, suggested that he is not against inter-faith marriages but “personally disapprove” of religious conversions for marriage. On the face of it, his claims seem to be legitimate as two inter-faith couples can marry in India under the SMA. Notwithstanding the provisions of the SMA, especially in the states like Uttar Pradesh, the registrar will send a notice to the addresses given in the identity documents of the consenting inter-faith individuals, most probably their parent’s addresses. This is a stumbling block confronting their desire to marry privately, either fearing parental resistance or dystopic violence. Therefore, for easing the formalities and preventing the consenting individual’s families from being aware of their consent to marry, one of them converts to the religion of the other to register their marriage under the concerned personal marriage law. The new anti-conversion laws replace the notice sent by the registrar with the DM’s enquiry- both serving the same purpose of making their families aware of two individual’s consent to marry. This will serve no other purpose than locking them, especially the woman involved, in a room after seizing their mobile phones and credit cards. With such de trop laws, is the state trying to degenerate itself into a position of a shameless discloser, attempting to disclose an affair of two consenting individuals to their parents?
Now, is love jihad a reality? Coming back to the Pew research, it’s found that 0.7% of Indian adults surveyed decried Hinduism and are currently practicing another religion, but at the same time, 0.8% adopted Hinduism. This simply challenges the maxim of religious fundamentalists as the strength of the Hindu community is only increasing. Rather than on-ground reality, love jihad is just a piece of bone being munched by the state and the media on both sides.
In toto, these exasperating laws, being a threat to the very dignity and liberty of an individual, is built upon a hollow pro- nationalist claim of love jihad. Article 25 embodies the principle of religious toleration that characterised Indian society ab initio. It emphasises the secular nature of Indian democracy and formed the very basis, and later, an intrinsic part of the basic structure of our constitution [S. R. Bommai v. Union of India]. Marrying the person of one’s choice, being part of the right to life and personal liberty [Salamat Ansari and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)], is overtly limited by these legislations that consider love as a hate crime.
It is to be noted that relevant sections of IPC, CrPC, and the Police Act are sufficient to prevent deceptive conversions. By inserting marriage as a means of deceitful conversions, the state is now assuming the role of a parens patriae, encouraging the sentiments of the mother and egotism of the father, by overshadowing basic individual liberties protected by the Constitution and various Supreme Court judgments [Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr. (1994), Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M & Ors. (2017), Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India and Ors. (2018), Soni Gerry vs Gerry Douglas (2018), Salamat Ansari and Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)].
Finally, as Nandy claimed, had the Nehruvian model of secularism miserably failed either to promote a tolerant society or to eradicate religion from politics? Where legal interventions are made to register homosexual marriages, such laws make us not one or two, but a hundred steps behind.
About the Author:
Adwaith PB is affiliated with the Department of Political Science, Ramjas College, University of Delhi. Currently, he is an editor in Guide Legacy and Content Head at Pink Legal Club, Aiza. He is a feminist, a liberal thinker and a researcher interested in Ancient Indian History, Society and Politics.