.png)
INTRODUCTION
Interfaith or rather inter-caste marriages has always been a controversial topic for debate in the land of religions India. Such marriages are questioned at every stage on their customs and beliefs and often invoke religious fundamentals. For Hindus, marriage has always been a religious affair and there has been a commotion about inter-caste marriages and the community has always opposed the idea of inter-caste romance. Love Jihad is also one of such concoct, an anti-Islamic stratagem where the women who belongs to a non-Muslim community is often victimized and targeted by the men from Muslim community. The youthful men are alleged to exploit the women into falling in love by using their charms and by being emotionally appealing and leading towards the path of religious conversion. Also known as Romeo Jihad, some theories to this also dictate that these youths are being financed to stay appealing in any form, from designer clothes to luxurious vehicles, they have it all merely, for the purpose of chasing women to fall into such traps.
THE RISE OF NATIONAL AWARENESS ON LOVE JIHAD
Marriage for Muslim society has always been a lawful contract with its own set of requirements. While women of the Muslim community are destined to marry only Muslim men, on the contrary Muslim males can contract a marriage with not just a female from its community but also with someone who is a Kitabia, which can be interpretated as Jewess or Christian. Kitabias are the ones who neither follow an idol nor worship fire.
Similar campaigning but in the name of ‘abduction’ could be traced as early as in the year 1920 in India, where the Arya samaj women were victimized by the Muslim goons and alleged them of abduction, rape, forceful conversion and marriages, abscondment. Heavy awareness was created regarding the same, these were all over pamphlets and newspapers ultimately became a public campaign. Nationwide awareness for Love Jihad arose in 2009 when the girls from Kerala and Mangalore were targeted. It was said by the Kerala Catholic Bishop Council that by October of 2009 almost 4,000 girls in Kerala were targeted for this agenda.
In 2014, protests for these controversies became a growing concern as heavy violence was involved. In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the so-called orthodox Hindu activists suggested publicly that all efforts must be taken in order to protect young women from being vulnerable towards such activities even if that requires imposing restriction on cell phone usage. On the other side there was a rising voice of the feminists arguing on the facts that such restrictions shall have a negative impact on women’s guaranteed rights such as freedom of choice. This was seen as violative of the fundamental rights.
LOVE JIHAD ORDINANCE 2020
The UP government in 2020 has come up with an ordinance against unlawful religious conversions based upon the Allahabad High Court Judgement on Priyanshi alias Km. Shamren and ors v. State of U.P. and anr. The petition stated that the couples tied knots in July 2020 and since then facing continuous intervention in their marriage by the lady’s family members, forcing the couple to approach the Hon’ble High court to seek police protection. The hon’ble High Court while discussing the facts stated that its unacceptable of such conversions that are purely for fulfilling the marriage requirements. The division bench referring to Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and anr v. State of U.P. and ors, the 2014 judgement said that the court does not take right to life and liberty into account. The UP ordinance and the uncertainties in it may be used, contrary to the Supreme Court's expectation, to abuse the right of a person to exercise their choice of preference. In addition, the constitutional system does not permit social acceptance as a justification for the recognition of personal decisions.
Propaganda or not, the fact that marriages and love affairs are personal remains unchanged. Be it anyone, the Constitution of India under its Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty. As opined by J. Chandrachud in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (Crl.A 366/2018 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) 5777/2017), famously known as Hadiya Marriage Case, choosing one’s partner for marriage or otherwise is strictly an individual’s affair which shall be unaffected by matters such as religion and faith, thereof forming the very spirit of personal liberty under the Constitution of India.
CONCLUSION
In a country where, now the law allows two persons to reside together in harmony and peace, despite of the fact they being of the same sex or opposite, any individual or state for that matter do not hold rights to intervene into such matters, here we are struggling for proper implementation of fundamental rights. Right to live with someone irrespective of their religion is one’s personal choice and they are on the liberty to choose. Interference in such matters should establish grave violation of one’s fundamental rights. Current situations make these inter- religion couples vulnerable, feeling the pressure of mental and physical attack, intimidation and dealing with such on a regular basis is not an easy task. As orthodox as the Indian society can be, despite the enactment of Special Marriage Act, 1954, it has become utterly problematic for these inter-caste couples to register their marriage under it. The proposed UP legislation, in essence, would take away an option from intercultural couples by outlawing marriage for what is perceived to be 'illegitimate' conversion in broad terms. The exercising of the right to love and marry outside one's culture will also have a detrimental impact. And why are there no flash lights on Hindu men, when they marry outside their community and the wife is just assumed to adopt his culture and his religion and so is expected out of their children. In the world filled with hypocrisy, we are accepting women from a different cultural background into our family but losing our daughters in the name of honour.
It wouldn’t be wrong to say that social norms, morals and values of the respective society have their own publicness but the question arises that should these be valued over the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India? Personal choices subjecting any matter called so for a specific reason and as adults it is expected out of the society to be understandable enough and by all means upheld one’s decision.
Moreover, the state should promote inter-religion marriages in order to curb out the stigma cultural differences and caste system, help such couples to access their freedom of choice especially help the women who are currently being deprived of their rights. But unfortunately, some see it as a political vendetta.
Comments